Interviewing Catholic Teacher Candidates

Many books have been written on how to conduct good interviews, and I don’t pretend to have “inside information” that trumps the wisdom of others. But I’ve been interviewing prospective Catholic school teachers for many years, and this approach works well for me, giving the practicalities of simultaneously running a school: 

First, as I mentioned in my earlier article, I interview as few people as possible, based on a review of their resume and cover letter. The whole interview process is a huge time sucker, and as principal, I have to be judicious about my time.  It may be also wasting candidates’ time,  raising their expectations in so doing. I only interview people whom I may be truly interested in hiring. 

How do I determine who makes the “cut” to be interviewed on the basis of a resume and cover letter?  I look for three things: 

First, do they have deep knowledge in their subject area, which means (at minimum), do they have a B.A. or B.S. in the field of teaching for which I am interviewing, or even better, a Master’s degree? Which university they graduate from matters, too: a graduate from a selective admissions school likely has the “smarts.”  Those from less selective schools may also have the smarts, so I don’t eliminate a candidate on that basis, but the better the university, the more confident I am.  

Colleagues of mine disagree with me, but I don't care whether they are "certified" or not. All "certification" means is that they've taken enough undergraduate education courses to earn a "Class B" certification (what they call it in Alabama). But education courses do not guarantee teaching ability, and I think requiring certification unnecessarily shrinks the talent pool of potential candidates. It's important to note, too, that Advanced Ed/SACS, our accreditation agency,  no longer requires "certification" to teach in our schools as they once did. Instead, the agency relies on the judgment of the principal to determine if the candidate is qualified, and then insists on a program of continuous improvement once hired. 

Second, I am interested in how well they write; if candidates butcher the cover letter, I surmise they are either too lazy to check their work, or lack the intellectual gravitas to present their ideas well. The ability to write compelling prose belies an agile mind, the kind I want leading our students. I’ll give a little latitude to Math or Science prospects, since their academic strengths are elsewhere, presumably.  But I don't give much! Even if one is teaching Math, he or she must be communicating in English.  

Third, though I review this carefully with candidates during the interview, in evaluating resumes,  I pay careful attention to transition points. Do they leave a job every couple of years? Then I’m not interested—I’ve found, over and over, that candidates’ histories are the best predictors of their futures with us, and I don’t want to invest the time and energy enculturating new teachers into our school unless they’re long term prospects. Also, does the transition make sense? Are they moving to a better job, with more responsibility, or more prestige, with (likely) better pay? If not, it may well be that I don’t interview. 

How do I conduct the interview? 

I believe most people who interview folks for a living will agree that they know if they’re NOT interested in a candidate within the first few minutes of the interview. At that point, they’re looking for a graceful way out, in however short a time that good manners will allow. For that exact reason, I tell candidates the first interview is typically short, perhaps 30 minutes, describing it as a “chance for us to get to know each other.” I tell candidates that I will have a second interview for candidates whom I believe will be finalists for the job. That gives me an "out" if need be. 

There are some critical things I need to know in this first interview, some of which are difficult to ask directly. Specifically, since teachers are understood as “ministers” in a Catholic school, I need to know the depth of their Catholic faith and whether or not they are in a sacramentally valid marriage. The way I get at both of these subjects is to ask the open ended question at the beginning of every interview I conduct: “Tell me about your family and faith.”  In so doing, I get them talking—and in every interview, I want them to do more talking than me! But it’s also interesting to see what they choose to focus on, and it gives me the chance to ask follow up questions as they go, like, “How old are your children? How long have you and your husband (or wife) been married? What does he (or she) do? Were you married at a local Church? Do you still worship in that Church? Are you involved in any parish ministries?” etc as part of a dialogue between the candidate and me. If they're "faking" their faith, they cannot speak about parish life very convincingly.   I cannot emphasize this point enough: where a candidate has been is a pretty good indication of where they are going. I want to understand WHO that person is, even more than I want to understand his professional accomplishments, especially in this introductory interview. 

After we cover the personal stuff, just as I have done pre-interview, I want to understand the chronology of a person’s professional career, especially the transition points.  I ask frequently, “Why did you leave that job?” If I get vague answers like “Just wasn’t happy,” or “Wasn’t being stretched,” or things like that, I am suspicious. In general, I don’t expect a candidate to leave a job unless they’re moving to a better situation. For sure, everyone can get into a bad situation through no fault of their own, or have a bad boss, or need to leave somewhere because they’re unhappy. But a candidate should be able to talk about those difficult situations in some detail, without throwing their bosses under the bus, and without resorting to generic answers. 

“If I walked into your classroom on a random day, what would I likely see and hear?” Yes, I want to deduce the teaching methods the teacher employs, but I want to get into that question in a concrete way, not a conversation about abstractions. Good teachers are practical, emphasizing the “how.” Content is important, but curriculum is more than content; it also involves pedagogy. And if they’re experienced, I ask them what their national curricular association thinks about “good English teaching, “ or “good History teaching,” and whether or not they agree with their association. I am trying to determine if they are up on things, or set in their ways, suspicious of new ideas. A lot has changed in the way we think about curriculum. I don’t want a teacher who has not seriously engaged in these new ideas, even if they’re cautious about implementing them lock, stock and barrel. 

Finally, I ask candidates if they have questions. What they ask me tells me how well they’ve thought about the job, whether or not they’ve engaged with our web page, what their priorities are. Ideally, candidates should have good, thoughtful, meaty questions about how we do things. I think it speaks well of them. 

That’s about it. The last thing I do is make a personal note to myself on their resume, giving the candidate a 1 (not interested), 2 (not very interested), 3 (interested) or 4 (hire this person!). It’s hard for me to remember interviews I had a couple of months ago! That number serves as a brief reminder to myself. 

If I like the person—a “3” or “4”, then I’ll do a little follow-up with references. If I can avoid it, I rarely call the references candidates list on the bottom of their resume. These are chosen by candidates for a reason, with predictable responses.  But if I know someone that knows that person, or worked with him or her, or was that person’s boss, I’ll call them and talk. Sometimes people will feel constrained to share things with me, but often, it’s what they AREN’T saying—silent on things where someone should receive praise—which tells me volumes. And I’ll also do a brief internet search on that person—what’s “out there” on him or her? Most people have some sort of online identity. 

If all that checks out, then I’ll likely take the next step: inviting them back for a second interview, to meet other people and possibly, to teach an actual class of students. And at that point, I also send out all the forms they must send me back and ask them to bring them completed to the interview, so we don't have to chase them down. We can't avoid the forms! But by now, they're convinced that we're really interested in them, so filling them out doesn't seem so terrible.  I ask them to bring all the completed forms to the second interview, so we don’t have to chase them down, a piece at a time.

If I decide NOT to hire someone I've rated a 3 or 4, I keep them in an "active file" if I need another teacher in the future  Maybe it wasn't quite the right fit for this "round," but I always want to keep a conversation going with strong candidates, and don't want to lose their resumes! 

So yes, interviewing and follow-ups take a lot of time, which is why I try and do as few as possible for each opening!. But when we have a real candidate of interest, we’re foolish if we don’t do a complete and thorough review of that person. 

Getting the right people to teach at our schools is the most important thing we do as principals.