I do find it amusing that the more I answer you, the more your language changes.

I do not have a source on DT as a whole, but in our district the average teacher stays at the same building for 9 years while the average administrator is in place for 3 for principals and 5-6 for VPs (our district has a policy of rotating principals). So in our district, the average teacher gets 5-6 admin over 9 years, maybe 7-8 for high schools with multiple VPs. I have worked closely with 15 at least in that time frame. Does that help? I really am not making up the fact that I have worked closely with more than the average number of administrators. Only the one has been problematic, and she has been problematic for other admin as well as other teachers who had spotless reputations. The other admin in the building that year backed me up. So yes, I would say it was just the one. That doesn't mean they all worship me or anything--just that they all work with me professionally and treat me with respect. I do the same for them.

As for the PD, it was a project (not illegal!) in which an admin and a teacher pair from several of our district buildings met and worked through a multi-year PD together. I don't see how working in partnership with admin as the teacher representative for a school even resembles an illegal relationship, but it doesn't matter as it was perfectly legal here. Yes, I am aware that there is no equivalent to our superintendent position in IE, but it's not relevant, is it? My point was that I know how to work collaboratively with different levels of admin and have done so successfully throughout my career.

Sure, schools can function without admin for a day. They wouldn't last long, though. Admin deal with budgeting, facilities, hiring, curriculum, accreditation, and vision. Yes, I could come in and teach my lessons, but only because admin provided the physical space, enrolled and scheduled students, purchased materials, etc. I could teach without accreditation or insurance--until a family brought a lawsuit or, depending on the country, legal charges. I could teach kids, but after awhile, our electricity would be shut off, our garbage cans would be overflowing, and the kids would get very hungry at lunchtime because nobody hired and coordinated a classified staff.

My absence from IE was short, so yes, I am returning, not that it is relevant.

I realize teachers in IE have less recourse than in DSs. However, I am not advocating burning a bridge while on it or even hanging out on a bridge while it burns. I am saying the IS community is small and we need all the intact bridges we can find; burning them unnecessarily benefits nobody except that person looking for some vindictive satisfaction.

I don't shy away from talking about it if asked or if it were to come up naturally. I don't volunteer it or put it on my paperwork. I am not ashamed of it, but it is something that should be mentioned in person. It is generally not relevant one way or another to my application as most ISs don't have a union.

No, if you pull a runner, you shouldn't be surprised at leadership's attitude toward you.

The IS HAS followed through as far as can be done short of time travel! They did letter for letter what they said they would, and we now have the contract. And we won't reach the final destination of our journey with them until we are ready to move on to the next assignment or even after that. I wouldn't want to be at the final destination now--we're at the start, and I fully intend on enjoying the journey of my dream job. Isn't that the point, after all?

Why do you say that our data relies on assumption and lacks system integrity? What precisely are we assuming? What system checks would you have us put in place to ensure that the data is accurate? Or were you just trying to play word games? The reality is that, no, you can't always plan for everything, know everything, eliminate every bias, etc. But you CAN learn a great deal about the school and the people by gathering information from multiple and independent sources. Your - is flawed because you assume all people providing the information are inside the room rather than asking the person actually holding up the blue filter or even just someone outside the room.

You say this is a gossip forum, and that word of mouth is essentially gossip. Fine, I got my information through gossip. It does not necessarily follow that it is faulty simply because you label it as gossip. So if they say it to me personally via text message or FB or in person, it's somehow different from the type of thing said on this particular forum? Sure--it might be more honest because it's delivered personally and not posted publicly. But it is still information from people who have had experiences with the school or the HOS--nothing more or less than the stuff posted on the paid portion (and sometimes public portion) of this site.

You don't play Five Card Draw, do you? You'd know if you were only catching 50% of the liars.

No, the HOS isn't inexperienced--just very, very direct. He didn't hesitate to tell us the good and the bad about his school--what faculty found frustrating about the management, etc.--although it wasn't anything we hadn't already deduced from the website, the news article, and most importantly, from the grapevine (gossip if you prefer). Everthing everyone has said about him, for better or worse, has included some mention of his frank nature. People sometimes hated it and sometimes praised it, but they nearly always mentioned it. Some people just are that frank, whatever you may believe, and it is often an asset in recruiting if you are at a school that turns away a lot of applicants.

Why is it so important to you to have me fail? Why do you want me to be wrong? I have already conceded that you are right--most of the time going without a contract is not a good idea and that there was a chance, however small, that we might not get a contract. Is it so terrible for you to admit that sometimes, when done right, it CAN work, and that we might be those people who did it right?

Ah, here we go. Making it personal.

I have worked with numerous admin at a number of campuses--three of them rotating into my campus, and my current position is at multiple campuses, one of which also has new admin this year. So I work with more administrators than the average teacher simply because of my multi-campus position. I have also served in a specialized admin/teacher pair PD team. I did that WHILEs serving as a union rep because in our district, the union and the admin actually don't have an adversarial relationship most of the time. I have met with two different superintendents to arrange various programs, etc. It is only this one administrator, who has a history of aggressively going after teachers who do not meet specific criteria unrelated to teaching, professionalism, etc. Again, other admin in the building backed me up, and this admin is currently dealing with a lawsuit. I will again let the data speak for itself. My record is fantastic with many administrators--all but the one, who has a bad track record with a number of otherwise highly regarded teachers. Which one of us do you really think was the aggressor, especially given my comments about not treating admin like adversaries?

I am also not new to IT, just returning to it. While abroad, I worked wonderfully with admin. I do not put my union work on my CV because I recognize that while it is a privilege in my current district to serve my colleagues in this way, in many places this is not true and can be seen as adversarial. In our district, we use it as a way to facilitate the relationship between admin and teachers rather than as a wedge. Most places are not this lucky. I don't shy from the role, but I don't advertise it.

Those expecting to be targets often become targets by behaving as such. They pull runners out of fear, then act surprised when the bridge is burned and feel justified because the school doesn't speak highly of them. Bait, really? If they don't have anything nice to say, most admin aren't going to take the time to write a phony nice letter just to attack later. Besides, you already have a job or you wouldn't have come to them. The letter would be for at least two years out most likely. They certainly won't write a phony letter just to burn you in two years.

Yes, token representation IS better because boards sometimes make decisions without understanding why a teacher might say it's a bad idea. They might proceed with the best of intentions, but when a teacher points out a consideration they hadn't though of, they realize that their intentions and their actions didn't match up.

We could not teach if there were no administrators. To say they do not contribute to the process is to fundamentally and willfully misunderstand their (and thus our own) role in it. Sure, some are bad--so are some teachers.

You really are completely cynical. It's sad.

Why are you so sure the data is bad? Since the expected outcome--the school following through and honoring its promise to send the contract--has already happened, I would say that the data seems to have been good. Again, when the data comes from multiple sources, it is more likely to be accurate--so we got multiple sources. You are right that it is a risk--something I have repeatedly acknowledged. The data just meant it was a very calculated one.

Yes, the grapevine is fantastic--hey, former colleague who now runs PD in a number of schools across the region including this one--what can you tell me about the school? Hey, former colleague whose father is HOS in the same region and works closely with HOS in question, what does he know and what do you know? Hey, IT friend who used to work at this school, what is your impression? Hey, we were in the city (for an unrelated reason), arranged a tour of the campus, and got a chance to shoot the breeze with you current teachers--what would you say? Hey, former colleague who is part of an organization on which HOS sits on the board, what can you tell us? If that is gossip to you, fine--but then let's be consistent and call sites like this one gossip sites. Or, if they are distinct, tell me the difference and I will tell you if I used grapevine, gossip, or some combination thereof.

The point is that you CAN get a lot of independent data this way, and when numerous sources give the same information or insight, that's independent verification.

No, having data verified doesn't make my husband a good judge of character, but his success with this skill over the years indicates he is. But that's not something I could easily verify on a forum like this, now, is it? Suffice it to say that I know him and his abilities far better than you do, so we're going with my assessment on this one. Though in this instance, his skill was not really necessary as this HOS is as pretty easy read, highly transparent, and exactly what we had deduced from our many sources. Sure, he could be a skilled sociopath, fooling us and everyone around him--but if his behavior follows what he says and we get the contract, then what do I care if in his heart he is simultaneously plotting to sink our futures?

And while it's easy to conceal some things, the internet is a big place. There is little regulation to provide oversight of wronged teachers.

Again, if contracts are unenforceable, why is it even a risk to walk out without one as opposed to with one? There isn't really a difference, is there? We are all just relying on the good graces of a school to keep us employed.

I am trying to figure out why you insist it was such a poor decision when even having a contract is essentially meaningless, why you insist we couldn't possibly know enough to make an informed decision simply because, well, you just think so, and why you want so badly to discredit me. That is why I persist.

Your interpretation: Well, other people directly disparaged Iowa in the winter while Thames only said it was less exciting than London or Bangkok. But rather than acknowledge that I just said the same thing, I am going to stick up for the fictional person who was not at all offended by the opinion offered by at least five others, myself included.

My interpretation: I agreed with PsyGuy, but because he wants to undermine me here rather than answer the question I posed on the other thread, he will now attack the very idea that he expressed and that was expressed by at least four other people in a bid to make me seem like an elitist.

Yeah, I would say our interpretation of the data is different, but the data is out there and the people reading this thread can draw their own conclusions.

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!