I was recently in a conversation with a beginning teacher who told me about an interview question they had been posed. Then they laid down a challenge: “I’m interested what you would have said”.
The interview question was interesting, and not one I’d heard before: What three substantive historical concepts would you prioritise in the Key Stage 3 curriculum?
It’s a tough question. How can three substantive concepts ever sufficiently capture the big historical themes I would want children to encounter during their final phase of compulsory historical learning? I chewed it over it for a moment and, under pressure of time because we really needed to crack on with what we were actually meant to be doing, blurted out:
Colonialism
Church
Democracy
As soon as these words had left my mouth, I reflected that these choices said more about me and my positionality, priorities and experience, than they ever reveal about the key underpinnings of an effective and valuable key stage 3 history curriculum.
Interview Intentions
It has left me pondering what the interviewers were looking for in an answer. What was their intention behind this question? Did they mean for its purpose to be opaque?
- Did they want the candidates to reveal how well they’d researched and familiarised themselves with the school’s curriculum plan by choosing three concepts that best embodied that curriculum? We always advise our beginning teachers to do their homework about the school to which they have applied, but answering a question like this requires detailed understanding of a curriculum.
- Were they enticing the candidates into a debate about the relative significance of substantive and disciplinary concepts, cutting to the heart of the powerful knowledge debate? Crudely put, were they trying to understand if they were on the same side of the knowledge/ skills argument? It’s certainly possible.
- Were they mining the candidates’ subject knowledge in a more novel way to help reveal broader understanding of the subject than a ‘tell us what topic you’d like to add into our curriculum’ question might? It does make sense to ask about substantive concepts in a subject like history where there is no ‘canon’ of knowledge. However, while it is vital to ascertain a candidate’s potential to undertake the subject knowledge enhancement required to teach a new curriculum, is an interview question the best way to do this?
- Did they have a set of ‘right’ answers – substantive concepts they felt were important – which they were looking for candidates to identify as a way of working out of they were a good fit? If they did have a set list of concepts then I’d suggest this reveals more about a department’s curricular intentions and approach taken to curriculum development than it does about the candidate.
- Or, were they less interested in the choices than the reflection? Were they hoping to observe the candidate reflecting that their substantive conceptual priorities (and therefore curricular choices) are a construct of their own world view, historical training, epistemological frameworks, values and identity? This is where the question led me, anyway. Indeed, since offering my own hurried answer, I’ve found myself ruminating on the list of substantive concepts crowd sourced by Michael Fordham in 2017 which reflect the same Western, monotheistic, Eurocentric perspective of my own selection.
A kind of Krypton factor
It’s not just the intentions of the face-to-face interview that require reflection. Over the past 25 years or so we’ve witnessed the interview day experiences for mainscale teacher post interviews becoming increasingly complex affairs. First came the introduction of the observed interview lesson (it makes sense, of course, to see if candidates can walk their talk) but in the past few years more and more layers have been added to the process. In one recent experience, a beginning teacher was asked to: teach a lesson, undertake a student panel conversation, participate in a role play, complete a marking task and undertake an unspecified in-tray activity. Prior to 2010 I was only aware of such involved schedules being a feature of TLR1 or SLT level posts. What is the intention behind holding interviews which mimic the Krypton-factor (for those under the age of 30 this was a game show which combined challenging physical and problem solving tasks)? Do they really need to be so incredibly demanding?
Interview Impacts
At the height of the job season, many beginning teachers juggle submitting multiple applications and attending interview days alongside their ITT course and work in school. At some points this year I’ve had students with interviews lined up on three consecutive days, meaning they need to have planned lessons and prepped for interviews at three different schools even though it might be unnecessary if they are successful on day one or two.
While the question about substantive concepts started my reflections, I ended up wondering about the extent to which we consider how our interview approaches impact the candidates. Interview questions are heard and responded to by people who are generally, under stress and anxious to make a good impression. Might the opacity of the questions we ask, as well as the pressure of the event itself, be a barrier to candidates showing us what they can do? Similarly, while we need processes that ensure our pupils get a teacher who will do a good job in our context, do we need to make the process of applying and interviewing for teaching roles so arduous?
A different way
The efficacy of interviews and interview lessons in particular are now up for debate. It is becoming more common, even in teaching, for interviewers to make the interview questions available to candidates prior to the interview. In some cases, rather than asking candidates to teach an interview lesson, the interviewers visit them to see them teaching in their own school context – either in person or through remote observation (using techniques developed in the pandemic, for example). Some schools are also experimenting with unseen interview lessons that focus upon pupil learning and outcomes rather than the performative act of teaching.
However, if we don’t want to take such an extreme approach, we could begin by simplifying our processes to streamline application, and by making the interview experience more transparent – for example by clarifying the intention behind questions and being explicit about the nature of tasks teachers will be asked to complete on interview (for example by stating if the mysterious activity will be ‘exam data analysis’, a ‘marking task’ or a ‘planning activity). Don’t even get me started on asking candidates to complete all or part of an exam paper for a spec they’ve never taught and an historical topic they’ve never studied – it’s simply not fair to expect them to be prepared for that on the off chance they might get the job.
Advice for beginning teachers
And, as for the beginning teachers out there, my advice to you would be to ask questions. If like me, you’re running through a multitude of potential answers to an interview question that are dependent upon the purpose of the question being asked. then be brave and explain your answer is more nuanced while asking for clarification.
A rethink?
Everyone wants the optimum match between teacher and school for the benefit of our pupils. However, in a challenging recruitment and retention climate, perhaps we need to rethink how we get to that point?
Further reading
If you’ve made it this far you might be interested in this blog giving advice on how to support beginning teachers with post interview feedback.
Becoming a History Teacher 