It isn't about turning the other cheek, but about not needing to turn either cheek.

I have had one adversarial relationship with an administrator. I played nice until she attacked, and I didn't take it lying down. Incidentally, the other admin at that school? They also had the same adversarial relationship with her. So did the kids. Oh, and the school is facing a lawsuit from parents. So yes, those adversaries do exist, but they don't have to be that way most of the time. I am a union rep here in the US, and I have sat in on some interesting meetings between admin and teachers. I can say with certainty that there are admin who play favorites at random and only attack some staff, that there are admin who play favorites based on some arbitrary criteria and only attack staff that fail to meet their standards, and there are admin who hate just about everyone. I can also say that there are lots of administrators who are just trying to do their jobs and who are eager to find solutions that work for both sides or teachers who play the victim card who really need to be disciplined or whatnot. I simply believe that if you come in expecting admin to be targeting you, you are the latter, and the troubles you incur are of your own making.

There is no need to pull a runner on a school when you can just as easily politely inform the admin that you have a new job and are leaving. The former has no advantage for you and has YOU burning the bridge. The latter means you left the bridge intact, and if the school burns it, well, fine. You were already gone. Meanwhile the latter could potentially even land you with a nice letter of rec (as happened to my friend) that you weren't expecting because, while you and admin never saw eye to eye and they aren't sorry to see you go, they respect the classy way you did it and that you are a professional. All because instead of seeing them as adversaries, you saw them as professionals in their own right and saw yourself as one, too.

I don't know what motivates community members to sit on a board of a school, but I am saying that if you are the CEO of an international corporation, that school board seat isn't helping your resume. You were the one who put that motive forward, not me. And most boards have no teachers, so just having a seat allows the teacher to explain the perspective that parents and community members may never have considered. You ascribe horrible motivations to boards who may simply be acting in ignorance. Again, instead of seeing everyone as the adversary, you could see them as people who want the same thing you do--to touch the future.

I plan to leave the teaching profession with the same energy I entered it. I find the longer I teach that there are more and more people whose roles I better understand and whose contributions, while sometimes opposing my own, are valuable to educating kids. I find the profession full of people doing their best every day to make things better for kids--and that includes parents, admin, board members, and community members as much as it does teachers. I see professionals who, yes, sometimes have to moderate each other--and while it's frustrating to be checked, the system of checks is necessary to keep kids' interests at the forefront. Yes, sometimes the forces don't just check, but collide, and sometimes in a negative way--and yes, in those circumstances a teacher has to look out for him- or herself. But to think of the others as adversaries is a negative view on life. Mostly, though, it's a negative view on the professions and the professionals in them.

I have no problems with a teacher hunting quietly and only informing the school once a new position has been secured. If you can get around the references, by all means--do what you need to do, personally and professionally. If you aren't happy, you aren't helping the school or the kids. But don't see admin as adversaries. Look out for yourself, but don't burn bridges. If the bridge is burned, let it be because the other person set it afire.

Overseaslifer said:
"Too bad you didn't have this dilemma before heading to Bangkok ... you could have had a few days in Phuket!"

Martalin said:
"Waterloo will be cold and dull"

Mamava said:
"I've spent a lot of time in Iowa in the winter and I'd cut my losses. Keep the time off, and use agoda to find another place to spend the time!"

Walter said:
"Going to Bangkok for a few days sounds a little more attractive than a long weekend in Cedar Falls in February."

You said:
" there is nothing to do in the area or anything worth seeing with the current weather."

Yet the comment you chose to attack was when I agreed with your above statement by saying:
"True, the advantage of being pre-hired is much more significant in London or Bangkok than in Iowa!"

So the data tells me that you aren't attacking the idea that someone might not enjoy a few days in Iowa, but that you are attacking me.

I translate the associate's words--an unsolicited "oh, he's doing great things in that school, you'll really enjoy working with him, really upstanding . . . " when all we said was the name of the school (and which she didn't do for other schools) as holding him in high regard personally.

I also realize research can be limited or misleading, but it DOES yield results. Otherwise, why do it? And I said teacher grapevine, not gossip. That means talking to people who have worked with the individual, for example, and reading things on here and similar sites. I suppose one could use the word gossip to refer to all reviews, anecdotes, etc., but then why have sites like this? We also looked at parent reviews, expat forums, what the local media said about the school, and anything else we could find. It's a top tier, USDOS endorsed school, so there is a fair amount out there.

Again, I suppose it's possible that ALL the data we collected and our own observations could be wrong. It's possible that a school that has no known history of bugging out on verbal commitments or having the board interfere with hiring could all of a sudden have the board decide against us for no real reason and without knowing us. It's possible they kept word of such actions off of the internet entirely (because THAT is easy to enforce after you have already burned the teacher and have no legal connection to them). Yes, those possibilities exist.

They did say pending references, so it was always possible they could turn up a liar in our past who sabotaged us--of course, that's not dishonesty on the school's part, and it wasn't a concern for us. There is the possibility that a person would take advantage of the non-binding part of the notice and the protections afforded by local labor laws to decide to stay--but a contract would have been issued by that point anyway, so whether it was given in the hotel room or the next week is moot.

I am agreeing that it is not necessarily a good piece of advice to do what we did and that in most scenarios one should have a contract. I am saying that we based our choice to make an exception on our data for THIS SCENARIO. And just because you don't trust anyone doesn't mean my husband isn't a fantastic judge of character. Believe it or not, sociopaths are few and far between, and while they may fool even the most astute person, the reputation would out them. So no, we didn't just trust my husband's judgment of character. No, we didn't just trust the associate in the office. We didn't just trust what we read on the school website. We didn't just trust that because the school is not-for-profit nothing could happen. We didn't just trust what our contacts reported. We didn't just trust the local media. We didn't just trust ISR. We put ALL of the evidence together. So it was a calculated risk, but it was minimized by the fact that we had a LOT of data.

By the way, if contracts "really don't really mean very much," why the insistence on one?

Again, ultimately you have to trust that a school will honor its word, whether that is given through a handshake, a letter of intent to hire, or a contract. All of these can be rescinded with minimal difficulty. What protects ITs is precisely what we amassed--information.

But seriously, why continue with this nonsense? I agree that it is a risk and one people should, for the most part, not take.

The day I stop teaching for the kids is the day I lose my joy in the job and become cynical and bitter like you.

The kids are what motivates me. Every time I get bogged down, a kid has a breakthrough or says something sweet or funny or pushes me to think more deeply. I care about their emotional and intellectual growth. When that stops, I may as well go into something easier and better-paying.

I find that seeking out administration and schools where this value is at the center of what happens, I don't have adversaries. I may still butt heads with admin, and I am okay with that. I also know that there are unscrupulous people everywhere. But there are also good people everywhere. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have much faith in humanity, wouldn't have relationships, and would be better off becoming a hermit. As it is, I believe that people are not always inherently selfish or motivated by money only. Sure, it happens, but there are also many people out there, particularly in education, who are NOT like that. After all, I can't be the only person who wants what is best for students!

FWIW, the board of the school we are joining is made up of parents, community members (one of whom is an alumnus of the school), a teacher, and the HOS. This means there are multiple voices represented, which helps the board keep focus and balance. The bios of the community members make it clear that they do not need a school board to build their resumes. Is it so hard to believe that some of us really did get into the profession out of a sincere love for kids? Is it so hard to believe that there are people who like to give back to their community and invest in the next generation?

What happened to make you so cynical? I hear of great examples of professionalism and courtesy between admin and staff regularly--and yes, on the IS circuit as much as anywhere.

If you aren't in it for the kids, why are you in IE? Maybe you are the tourist teacher you so disdain.

Sorry, PsyGuy, but you really did make it about me. All I said was what you had just expressed, that BKK and LON have more to offer than Iowa. You somehow made my rather innocuous comment--again, expressing what you had just said--into an attack. When you say it, somehow it's just you and does not extrapolate, but when I say it, somehow it deserves a snarky response. I was agreeing with you, and you made it into a thing. That's not about what I said, but about me.

It was not my intention to turn this into a PsyGuy bash. He is a valuable contributor and has helped many people on here. I just didn't appreciate that his annoyance at me on another thread translated into a veiled dig on my agreement with him on this one, and I wanted him to know I saw through it.

Yes, I suppose it's possible that the advantage of being pre-hired in Iowa is more significant to a portion of our members, but given the nature of the type of person to go into IT, it's unlikely. For most of us--and mostly for me, since it was my own opinion I was expressing--it is more significant in BKK or LON simply because of the location. You had expressed yourself that "there is nothing to do in the area or anything worth seeing with the current weather." My initial comment was simply agreeing with your own stated opinion. But it was the "trophy, certificate, or t-shirt" bit that made it clear it was a dig at me rather than just an observation that there might be some who don't share my opinion (and yours)--a dig made before the word "insane" appeared. Not sure what data would be relevant to the discussion, but it was a pretty significant part of the other thread.

But sure, it wasn't about me.

I would be very hesitant to work for any leadership who did not have this as a goal. Sure, there are people who lose sight of this (particularly as they near retirement, for example, or as they get bogged down), and there are people who want this but then go about achieving it in the most incompetent manner possible. Neither of those things makes them the enemy.

Yes, the relationship suffers when the IT's needs are not met. Good leadership knows this and works to keep ITs happy, but of course we are all human, and things that are good for the goose aren't always good for the gander. That still doesn't make them the enemy. You are right that admin isn't always an ally, either. But to call them adversaries is a bit much and doesn't help the relationship along. In order for it to be collegial and subsequently better for the school and the kids, BOTH sides have to stop viewing the other as adversaries and start looking at them as human beings with the same goals for kids in mind.

If the board accepts or demands anything less than a valiant effort to do what is best for kids, I wouldn't want to work there. I'd rather stay at home. But that's me.

Yes, it's often a choice of lesser of two evils, and yes, the only person looking out primarily for an IT is the IT. But if it can be done without burning bridges, why not advocate that? It's often not hard, and if you ever need to cross back, the bridge is there. Admin generally have better things to do than follow you, so it's for your own sake you want to keep the bridge intact whenever possible. Again, it's pretty easy to do with just a bit of tact and finesse as well as a bit of transparency whenever possible.

Geez, you really enjoy arguing, don't you?

Yes, it's possible the associate saw me, but that doesn't translate to assuming I heard her instructions to the other teacher since she repeated all but the one about the contract. Yes, it's possible she was tired or that it wasn't an oversight, but given the way she spoke it was obvious she did hold the HOS in high esteem. Yes, I wished it to be true, but as I said, prior knowledge of this individual and his dealings pointed in that direction. So I suppose wish and expect in this case are almost interchangeable. Everything we know about this individual, both from direct interaction and from our other research, has been precisely in line with this expectation, and the associate's words were simply another piece of data.

As to the board, yes, I mentioned that it was part of research and that they are the de facto "ownership." I am aware of the composition of the board at the school in question. I am also fairly familiar with the actions of the board through public media, school media, and teacher grapevine. So while boards sometimes can and do rescind contracts, a) they generally don't do it for a candidate hired at a fair who has not yet had any dealings with the board or the community, b) they generally don't do it on a whim, and c) this particular school/board does not have a history of such actions. It is not logical for them to send a HOS and principal to a fair to hire, then tell the same person entrusted with the job to go back on the verbal commitment to someone they don't know for no reason and after other good candidates have been hired by other schools. Therefore, again, it was a calculated risk, but one which was deemed minimal in this particular instance.

You call me naive, but you are basing that solely on my disagreeing with you on a few issues (but not really this one). The reality is that I would encourage people to exercise extreme caution (seriously, how many candidates know anything about the board or the HOS's involvement with accrediting agencies, for example? Not many, so for most candidates the degree of familiarity with the school and the people involved wouldn't be anywhere near ours). I would also posit that while I am a fair judge of character, my husband is an exceptional one; I have rarely seen someone so able to quickly size up people, situations, and behavior as he is. That extra advantage allowed us to feel confident in our acceptance (where the F2F confirmed what our research had told us about the individual--as you have said, the F2F is about fit, and we were sizing him up as much as he was us) where most people would either be naive or incautious. Yes, it was still technically a risk--you are absolutely right about that. It was, though, not as much of one as you seem to think. But you know neither the school nor the situation, so I guess I can understand your skepticism and mistaken belief that it was naiveté rather than a carefully considered risk. Thankfully, as we have a contract in hand, we can now say that our assessment was spot on.

I agree that without such careful planning, one should always have paperwork.

Good luck! Be sure to follow all instructions to the letter and proofread everything carefully before sending!

How is a teacher assuming admin is the adversary good for kids? No, they might not always act in the best interest of the teacher, but then again, that isn't their job. By the same token it isn't your job to act in their best interest, either. However, if you have a shared goal of what's best for kids, you might find working TOGETHER with admin advantageous. If not, well, certainly it is your job to look out for your own interests. However, working WITH admin whenever possible is advantageous in the long run, not just to avoid getting caught as in the scenario I posted, but to have a potential ally in the future. Burning a bridge is something people should try to avoid whenever possible. Sometimes the bridge gets burned anyway, but all we are saying is try to avoid it. No, heads don't always talk, but they talk often enough that if you can avoid a bad situation, you should.

Again, PsyGuy, what happened that has you so jaded?

In a not-for-profit school with a board that is made up of multiple stakeholder groups, you will not have a HOS doing what ownership says because there is no "ownership." Yes, the IS has the power, but a board isn't going to say "don't send a contract to X" when they haven't met X and X was hired at a job fair. But of course, researching the school structure (including the board) is part of research, and it is an often overlooked part of research. When the board is involved in which teacher at a fair to hire, it is the worst kind of nepotism, and that stuff stinks enough for people to know.

No, the associate did not assume we heard the previous news because she never saw me. She was not so tired she was losing her mind and gave very lucid instructions in all other areas. She knew the HOS by reputation at the very least.

I would recommend being cautious, sure, but I wouldn't say it's naiveté. I would say it was a very calculated risk. There IS a difference.

Is it so hard for you to believe there are reputable HOSs out there or is it just hard to believe someone on this board might have ended up at a reputable school with a reputable admin? What happened to you that you are so jaded?

Funny you should say that given the other thread. Nothing in this thread included data, mentions of insanity, or anything like it. Meanwhile in this one you suddenly consider getting a position that suits you at UNI great, while elsewhere on this board you have called the UNI fair a "dump fair." So you don't actually think it's great unless the point of your post was to put words in my mouth and imply an elitism in me that I never expressed. Your response to me here is not about my saying London or Bangkok is probably more fun to be hired early. It's about attacking and attempting to undermine me based on the other thread. In that other one I posted a number of pieces of evidence, all of which you ignored. You stuck to your guns because it was your preference, called me naive for believing data and evidence, and now you say I am the one who has such a proclivity. Oh, the irony.

MartElla,

This was PsyGuy trying to attack me personally. I have pointed out his elitist attitude on another thread, so he is trying to turn tables on me.

The type of person who wants to teach abroad is probably also the person who would jump at the chance to spend those already paid for days in London or Bangkok. Depending on the person, they could also enjoy Northern Iowa in February. LON and BKK are better, though.

Leadership that have a reputation established over time have it for a reason. If they care about the reputation of the school (again, with a track record over time) and the school has a good reputation, you can rest a bit easier as well. Nothing is guaranteed, sure, but at some point there has to be trust on both sides--trust that the candidate quits looking and trust that the school will honor its commitment and quit interviewing. Yes, a contract is stronger, but even those are limited in usefulness.

In our situation we heard a girl at the fair office talk with an associate about having accepted an offer. The associate was very clear that she had to have paperwork from the school and not to quit the process until she had a contract in hand. When we came back just over an hour later, the same lady asked us from whom we had accepted an offer. She smiled, spoke fondly of the director, and said nothing about having a contract in hand. Clearly she knew which directors were and were not reputable, and clearly she knew that while she couldn't throw a school under the bus (as you said, the schools are the clients), she gave us different advice from the other girl. That is a reputation cultivated over time by that HOS. Our prior research, our people skills in assessing him (and the principal, who was also at the interview), and the wording of the offer allowed us to feel comfortable accepting a verbal offer only. The behavior of the school since then has been nothing but exactly as we expected it--regular contact regarding the references, and the contract now in hand--which is word for word what he had told us to expect and in a timeframe that is faster than he had anticipated.

However, if we had no prior knowledge of the school, felt at all unsure of either the director or of our people-reading skills, or if the associate had said to have paperwork in hand, we would have insisted on paperwork.

I agree that it is wise to advise caution, but there are exceptions to every rule. The most reputable schools are that way for a reason.