I've got to weigh in and agree with Cicero. I think it's a great idea to re-evaluate your screening process and/or criteria.
I, too, have been in the job market and can safely say that I *would* be able to tick off all the boxes for you - yet I wouldn't know if I were a good fit for your open position based on the screening criteria currently in place.
After long experience, I can tell you that I unfailingly decline to accept invitations to an interview if there is no phone conversation. I have learned that it is just not worth it for me as an applicant.
Every single time I attended an interview with no pre-screen it turned out to be a waste of time for me, as the applicant. I can only imagine how much the employer would be annoyed. A phone screen is an excellent opportunity for both parties to pre-evaluate the applicant and the position to see if it is even worth it for the applicant to spend his or her (often limited!) resources and time to physically go to the interview, while the employer can determine if they meet certain criteria and how well they present themselves on the phone so they don't waste the company's time and resources. Job search/employee search is a time and money consuming activity for everyone involved. It's so important that both parties have a chance to find out if it's worth it to take it to the next level.
Speaking as an applicant, I would much rather be weeded out before I put the time, money and effort into going somewhere than wasting my time. Job interviews are stressful enough as it is. As annoying as it is for you to have people show up who are wrong for the job, imagine how vexed an applicant would be to get down there and find out the job/company isn't anything what they expected, either.
That's why a short phone interview is a good way to sort through it a bit and find out if it's all worth the effort. I'd rather be a little choosy and attend fewer high quality job interviews than attend every one that came along. I'm sure that's true for the company, too. Fewer applicants, but higher quality applicants.
Now, when my husband and I owned a business for many years, here's how we arranged the hiring process:
1. Sort through resumes. Out of 100 resumes, 15 get call backs.
2. Of the phone screens, five are chosen for in-person interviews.
3. Of the in person interviews (with me, the office manager), two are chosen for second interview.
3. The second-interview people meet with my husband (company owner) and one or two executives who will be working with them.
One gets chosen. Or, if either don't get chosen (very rarely), take a second look at earlier applicants (something might have gotten missed) or re-post the position a few more days or elsewhere to see if anyone else applies.
Works every time.
As an applicant, I always get annoyed when I get invited to an interview with no phone screen. Eventually I learned not to accept them, because in the past they've "over booked" and I was one of many, many other applicants they scheduled one right after the other. Eventually, I can't imagine how the hiring manager could remember any of them. Sometimes, they over booked so much that they flaked out on THEIR end and I showed up and they had no idea who I was! VERY ANNOYING. Other times, I'd get there and fill out the application and in the interview find out that the job/company was totally wrong for me. Or, found that their whole hiring process was disorganized and chaotic - NOT a good impression to make on anyone, applicant or potential customer. Made me wonder how they ran the rest of the business or how I would be treated as an employee. Both employee and company HAVE to make a good impression.
Save yourself the trouble, time and money. Pre-screen the applicants. That way you and THEY have a better idea of what to expect.
I hope this helps and that you start getting well-qualified high-quality employees!
Sorry about this, but I have a post script: perhaps you may want to look at the job postings/ads. What are your criteria? Perhaps it is too vague and requirements sound too "easy" and you're getting unqualified/inappropriate applicants because you don't state educational/work experience preferences? So you get the least qualified people? Just a thought. I'm not saying you should go the other way and ask for a Ph.D. and 30 years experience if you don't need it ... but maybe put more detailed information about the position and specifics about what the job would entail, and most importantly, "soft" skills such as verbal communication, ability to communicate effectively with special needs students (etc) (just a random example)...you get the idea.