This is not a help forum?
Thanks for clearing that up, I was confused by all the threads in which people are asking for help.
The 'discussion' is merely about what the right answer to their request for help is (and yes, in some cases we do get off-topic by discussing lots of unrelated or slightly related things). I know it says 'Discussion Boards' at the top in the menu bar, but if you look at the posts being posted, they're all people asking for help.

But of course you can call it a discussion forum if you want. You're still making it more difficult for people to read your answers to the questions (sorry: discussion starters) by not introducing the acronyms used where it really isn't much trouble to do so, and only a few of those will think of the possibility that the forum might contain a glossary. I didn't for example.
Plus the glossary doesn't even contain all the acronyms used. Assessment Only (AO), used by you in a recent topic, is missing for example, and 'AO' also doesn't yield results when searched for with the search function either. By the way, it took me less than three seconds to type 'Assessment Only'.

No, they won't.
Your claim that they will know a glossary exists is not self-authenticating because @PsyGuy claims its true.

We disagree.

As mentioned at least twice before: in most cases the readers confused by your acronym(s) won't even know the glossary exists, so they won't think to look for it.
Plus it adds a step, where introducing the acronym upon first use in the thread isn't much extra work, plus it should be second nature to you if you ever attended university.

Yes, you can have whatever expectations you want, but the fact that you don't introduce the acronyms upon first use within a thread, but only upon first use on the entire forum, will make your contributions less accessible to the public.

We can't expect a reader to consult a glossary, when in most cases he/she won't even know it exists. Just as you can't expect people to find the thread in which the acronym was first used.

The forum is supposed to help people, and writing in a way that makes it hard to understand what you mean seems counterproductive. I've seen so many topics where readers had to ask you, after one of your comments, what one of the acronyms you like to use mean.

I assume all or most of us went to university. If so, introducing an acronym at first use (within a thread, not on the forum of course) should be second nature. That is, if ones objective is to truly help people.

Sure

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Well readers will have to explore the text to determine if there is a
> glossary. I do introduce new terms hen first used, I do so more than once.


That's if they even consider there might be a glossary.
And perhaps you introduce new terms upon first use on the forum, but not upon first use in the thread. You can't expect readers to go through all other threads before reading the one they are interested in.

I do. Just looked it up to confirm, and yes, one of the two definitions is "a state in which two or more people or things agree with or match one another".

If a lot of people have to look up the acronyms used, in a glossary they might not know exists, it does create a barrier.
It's pretty standard to introduce acronyms upon first use (as mentioned before by @GrumblesMcGee: "This is particularly an issue for Overseas Trained Teachers (OTTs)..."), and it's standard for an obvious reason: it lowers the barrier.

I believe we do.
Weird, since we're usually so in sync.

I'm not confusing anything.

And when people see a pattern, they expect it to repeat. And actually, it often does.

I've never heard of leadership that used a negative reference as leverage for ITs to renew contracts. I'm sure it happens sometimes somewhere, but it would be the exception, not the rule.

It has to be off by a significant margin, and in my experience, the important data provided by most schools is usually within that margin, so it helps to compare schools.
I disregard savings potential because there it exceeds that margin too often (in both directions), but there are plenty of sources to make an informed guess as to what the savings potential will be.

While past behaviour isn't always a perfect predictor of future behaviour, it does help predict it quite well, especially if that past behaviour shows an obvious pattern (such as five instances in a row). That would change if there were major changes to the IT's personal life: were he/she to have a child, he/she might be more likely to stick around longer the next time around.

But even though this idea that "the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour" is an oversimplification, it's still useful, but more importantly: many people (and recruiters are usually people after all) believe this to be true. So the pattern of five 2 year stints in a row will inform recruiters choices.

By the way, I've never heard of any school 'trade in fear mongering' by telling ITs that leaving after two years will kill their careers. I think ITs tell each other this based on their experiences. I personally see very few tourist teachers at higher tier ISs.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> So you rely on bad data to get you to an intermediary point and then you
> look at good data?

No, most SA data isn't all bad, it's an indication. And it's only one of the sources I use to make a longlist.

Your coin flipping metaphor is wrong. When it comes to human behaviour a pattern can lead to predictions that are more accurate than mere chance. A coin can't decide which way up it lands, but an IT does decide whether or not he commits longer than the minimum two years.
If I see two dogs, and one of them always bites people when petted, and the other one usually doesn't, I'd feel more comfortable petting dog #2.
Of course most recruiters will think the 2-2-2-2-2 IT will be less likely to stay longer than the other IT that has longer stints on his/her CV.