You're not renting strangers. Every teacher clears the same bar.
Every CRT in the Rapid pool passes a structured, evidence-based selection framework before a school ever sees them — the same standard, applied the same way, to every candidate. Here is exactly what stands between an applicant and your classroom.
Compliance gate
VIT registration verified and then monitored continuously, identity and right-to-work confirmed. This gate has no grey zone — a candidate who doesn't clear it goes no further, and a registration that lapses later can never put that teacher in your classroom.
Application screening
Qualifications and teaching experience are assessed against a structured rubric — every application scored on the same criteria, by the same standard.
Structured interview
A standardised interview with fixed questions, behaviourally-anchored scoring and assessor rules — so the decision reflects the candidate, not the interviewer's mood.
Classroom judgement assessment
Teachers can choose to complete twelve realistic classroom scenarios in-app — behaviour management, student safety, professional judgement under pressure — to strengthen their profile. The questions and their results are visible to your school on their profile, and you can filter to see only teachers who've completed it. Teachers are told exactly how it's used — alongside an ongoing post-placement feedback loop from every school they work in. Currently being refined with founding principals.
What the outcome means for your school
Tiered outcomes — Priority · Approved · Conditional · Not Onboarded
Only candidates who clear the bar enter the pool your school draws from. 'Conditional' candidates carry defined limits; 'Not Onboarded' means exactly that.
Post-placement validation loop
Selection doesn't end at onboarding. Every placement feeds back into a teacher's standing — sustained performance lifts it, problems are caught and acted on, and teachers who consistently underperform are removed from the pool. Your fills come from a pool that's monitored constantly, not vetted once.
And your own list always comes first.
Rapid fills against the teachers your school already knows and trusts before anyone else — the framework above governs the wider pool that backs you up when your own list is exhausted. Either way, compliance is monitored continuously on every teacher, every day.
Summary of the Rapid Teachers CRT Selection Framework v1.0. Assessment instruments are confidential to preserve their integrity; the framework, stages and outcome tiers described here apply to all pool candidates. Rapid Teachers Pty Ltd · Melbourne, Victoria.
Our vetting bar wasn't guessed. It was built on the science of selection.
Before we wrote a single interview question, we went to the evidence — a century of personnel-selection research, re-analysed in the field's most consequential recent paper, plus studies run specifically on teacher hiring in public school districts. Each stage of the Rapid framework exists because the research says it predicts who will actually perform in a classroom. Here's the evidence, and what we built from it.
Structured interviews are the single strongest predictor of job performance.
The landmark 2022 re-analysis of a century of selection research found structured interviews top the field (mean validity ~.42) — roughly twice the predictive power of the free-flowing, unstructured interviews most hiring still relies on (~.19).
What we built: Stage 4 is fully structured — fixed questions, behaviourally-anchored scoring, assessor rules and a panel protocol. No coffee-chat hiring.
Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens (2022), Journal of Applied Psychology.
Unstructured judgement feels convincing — and performs poorly.
Interviewers form confident impressions from unstructured conversation that add noise rather than signal; the selection literature has repeatedly shown intuition-led hiring underperforms standardised assessment, while remaining stubbornly popular.
What we built: Every scored stage uses anchored criteria applied identically to every candidate — the decision reflects the teacher, not the interviewer's morning.
Dana, Dawes & Peterson (2013), Judgment and Decision Making; Highhouse (2008), Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Situational judgement tests add real predictive power for judgement-heavy work.
Meta-analyses show SJTs meaningfully predict job performance, which is why they're standard in selection for medicine and other professions where safe judgement under pressure is the job. Casual relief teaching — new school, new class, no run-up — is exactly that.
What we built: An optional twelve-scenario classroom assessment — completed in-app, results visible on the teacher's profile and filterable in your search. We made it a visible signal you judge yourself, not a hidden gate — currently being refined with founding principals.
McDaniel et al. (2001; 2007) meta-analyses; Sackett et al. (2022).
Structured screening predicts real teacher outcomes — measured in classrooms.
In Spokane Public Schools, applicant-screening rubric scores predicted teachers' value-added to student achievement and lower attrition; district studies in Washington DC and Los Angeles found the same pattern. Scored screening isn't HR theatre — it shows up in student results.
What we built: Stage 2's structured application rubric — every candidate scored on the same criteria before anyone meets them.
Goldhaber, Grout & Huntington-Klein (2017), Education Finance and Policy; Jacob et al. (2018); Bruno & Strunk (2019).
Why we're bringing this back to you.
The research settles the method — structure beats gut feel, scenarios predict judgement, rubrics predict classroom results. What it can't settle is the standard: what good judgement looks like in a Victorian school is something only the people running them can anchor. That's the founding-cohort refinement work — your principals setting the scoring anchors and scenario keys so the instrument doesn't just follow the science, it fits your schools. The science gives the framework validity; you give it authority.
Sources: Sackett, Zhang, Berry & Lievens (2022), Journal of Applied Psychology; McDaniel et al. (2001; 2007) meta-analyses; Dana, Dawes & Peterson (2013); Highhouse (2008); Goldhaber, Grout & Huntington-Klein (2017), Education Finance and Policy; Jacob et al. (2018); Bruno & Strunk (2019). Findings paraphrased for discussion; validity figures are meta-analytic means. Rapid Teachers Pty Ltd · Melbourne, Victoria.
The questions you should ask — answered before you have to.
Fair questions deserve straight answers. These are the ones principals and business managers ask us most, with nothing dressed up.
Prices GST-exclusive unless stated; spend-cap guarantee is contractual and stated GST-inclusive. Figures are indicative — ask for a savings estimate built on your school's own numbers. Rapid Teachers Pty Ltd · Melbourne, Victoria.