Are there any ex-teachers on this board?

[PsyGuy]

Your positive reference letter stating "we would hire this teacher again, and are disappointed with them laving, or a quick email to the leadership, HOS asking if your IS would rehire the IT. Theres no secret handshake, nose nod, or hidden message in IE to indicate an IT that would be renewed. Same with being a negative nancy, a negative reference letter and an email solves the issue.
If ISs wanted value add, they would either offer a contract of sufficient length to add value or get their coins worth, and if they wanted to retain a valuable IT, they would add value for and too the IT.
Again, 1) You complete your contract. 2) Have a positive reference. 3) Have a reasonable response for the movement in an interview, then your fine. As long as those all align, a recruiter can explore all they want.

Two year contracts are not tourist teachers. Tourist ITS can be young, single people as well, its not as common for young people as its harder to enter the profession, and convey to a recruiter/leadership that they would add value.

Its cheaper for recruiters and mediocre leadership to spin this idea that ITs need to add value beyond their obligations but they dont have to reciprocate. Elite tier ISs dont have to contend with keeping ITs beyond a contract to add value.

[interteach]

It looks like your lack of recruitment and instructional supervision experience is showing.

A two-year contract is a decent balance for both schools and teachers to get a sense of fit. It is also admittedly advantageous for both parties since it eliminates having to head into a job search or recruiting shortly after a teacher arrives. There are a few schools either of poor quality and/or in difficult areas that will provide a one-year contract, but that's about it.

I don't recall ever hearing other recruiters/administrators talking about "adding value." I do hear a lot of talk of commitment, ability, relationship building, interpersonal skills, vision - real human skills rather than an impersonal "adding value." There are poor administrators who view teachers as puzzle pieces and not really as people but they don't inspire much loyalty, they don't get a great deal of peer respect and they often don't do that well in their careers.

One of the traits of an elite school is the average length of tenure for teachers. Those of us who have recruited for such are wary of tourist teachers - and that's teachers with a string of 2 year contracts no matter what you insist.

I have also hired exemplary early career teachers with short tenures, but only because their files, their interviews and their reference checks indicate that they are looking to teach not to travel. They all stayed a while when they found the right place.

[PsyGuy]

@interteach

I have no lack of recruitment and instructional supervision experience

I agree two years is a reasonable balance to determine fit, and if the fit for the IT isnt there you fulfill your two years and move on to a better fit, no harm no foul. There is no, we arent a good fit for the IT but you should stay and suffer for the ISs benefit, because reasons.
There are ISs of various level of quality that due to labor and immigration reasons only award a one year contract.
"Commitment, ability, relationship building, interpersonal skills, vision, real human skills" those are value adds.
Lots of poor leadership have long careers, lots of poor ISs can afford poor leadership, I would direct you to the paid site of this sites leadership review section if you require further illumination.

ITs who make a career in IE of two year contracts are not tourist teachers. Tourist teachers much like tourists are visitors to the IE profession, they enter too accomplish their goals and then they exit, and they care little of their impact and time while in IE.

Happy to hear you agree and have hired ITs with short tenures who: 1) You complete your contract. 2) Have a positive reference. 3) Have a reasonable response for the movement in an interview.

[Heliotrope]

It's quite simple: if an IT has a string of 2 year contracts, any school interviewing this IT will assume that the IT will probably only stay for 2 years at their school as well.
For some lower tier schools that might not be a problem because they're used to '2 years and done' teachers, but better schools will prefer ITs to stay longer, and will prefer someone who has demonstrated that they're willing to stay longer at an IS before.
So in the example, the 5-10-2-4 years IT will have a much better chance at a tier 1 school.

And the 2 year contracts are good for both ITS and ISs, as it's a good period to feel each other out. And ISs are almost always more than happy to renew contracts if the IT does a job consistent with the references provided. I've always been able to stay as long as I wanted, so I wouldn't be too eager to have a 3 or 4 year contract instead of a 2 year one at the start of a new school.

An IT would be just as hesitant about joining a school which is known to fire ITs after two years as well.

[interteach]

While you may be able to assert that having a string of 2 year contracts does not make someone a tourist teacher, those who hire would say differently. It is certainly possible that within your circle such circumstances don't raise that concern, but again I don't think you are currently involved in hiring, and perhaps haven't been for a while (if ever).

The tourist teacher label is the most positive that is available. An additional concern with teachers who only last for an initial contract and then move on is that they never get much of a chance to stretch and grow. In most fields of work including international teaching most people don't hit their stride until their third year, at which point they usually start to grow and develop as professionals. A two year contract helps a school determine if that is the case.

Candidates who say they can be functioning at full speed in a two year contract often send up a red flag about lack of being able to adjust to a new context and an unwillingness or inability to reflect and grow. It's another sign of a possible tourist teacher or worse a teacher unwilling to examine practice.

So within some circles you may be right - 2 years repeatedly does not a tourist teacher make. But in the circles that matter when it comes to hiring it is a concern that warrants investigation for a school that values teachers willing to look at their practice and length of tenure. Elite schools are especially sensitive to average length of tenure - that's coming from the hiring side.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

We disagree.

@interteach

We disagree and your using the term inaccurately. A tourist IT enters IE and an IS for a few years and then exits IE, going back to whatever they were doing before. A tenured Uni. Professor who takes a couple years sabbatical and leave, shows the spouse the Mediterranean WE lifestyle gets the kids graduated through an IS and then goes back to their Uni. Thats an example of a tourist IT. An IT who has made a career out of two year contracts is still a career IT, theres nothing touristy about it. Being a tourist IT has to do with the movement in and out of IE, not the movement within IE and between ISs.

[interteach]

I'm not using the term inaccurately at all. It's completely accurate within the circle of usage in which I know it and use it. It's clearly a term that's used differently in your circle. So the only inaccuracy is based on context and circle of usage.

My circle is people who hire teachers in international schools. I don't know what yours is.

[Doctor]

Regarding the term tourist - teacher, I think I was right all along not just because no tourist is going to stay in anyone place for 2 years but because I actually googled it and got just what I thought: tourist teachers only stick around for months, not years: https://teachertourist.com/ Maybe I'm like a travelling teacher but I'm certainly not a tourist teacher.

Also hitting you stride after 3 years, really? Is a reset button hit every time you start a new contract? If a teacher has a string of ten 2-year contracts, then he has hit his stride during the second contract, going by the 3 - year rule anyway.

[Illiane_Blues]

In my circles, ITs at my current and previous schools and other ITs I talked to at workshops, the term is only ever used for ITs that do one contract and then move on to a new country.
I think most ITs do this during their first years abroad. I remember wishing I could change schools/countries every year at the very start. Nothing wrong with ITs who choose to do so, but some schools will be out of reach because of that choice.

[Thames Pirate]

Doctor wrote:
> Regarding the term tourist - teacher, I think I was right all along not
> just because no tourist is going to stay in anyone place for 2 years but
> because I actually googled it and got just what I thought: tourist teachers
> only stick around for months, not years: https://teachertourist.com/ Maybe
> I'm like a travelling teacher but I'm certainly not a tourist teacher.
>
> Also hitting you stride after 3 years, really? Is a reset button hit every
> time you start a new contract? If a teacher has a string of ten 2-year
> contracts, then he has hit his stride during the second contract, going by
> the 3 - year rule anyway.


As far as the website, it's a house swapping and sharing site for teachers who travel, do maternity covers, temp jobs between postings, etc. But as far as the term tourist teacher goes, I, like others on here, have pretty much heard it used exclusively for two-and-out teachers.

No, you don't "hit your stride" at three years, but there is a process of getting to know a school--it's systems and programs, its parent and teacher community, who is nominally vs. actually in charge, etc. This process is slowed by also needing to get to know the country/city.

Let's assume you are someone who got a few years' experience as a domestic teacher and are going to your first international post. So the first few months at least, your teaching is "survival mode" teaching. You are designing and delivering lessons, sure, but you are doing the minimum in that regard. You are probably using curriculum either given to you or which you have already used. You can be all kinds of charismatic, relate well to kids, find excellent methods of delivery and meaningful assessment--in other words, be a good or even great teacher--in that mode. But you are probably not planning field trips, interdisciplinary work, or new units. You are not pushing your practice to the next level. Those things happen once you have the lay of the land and have the time and space (emotionally and mentally) to breathe. That won't happen until February of your first year at the earliest for most (slightly shorter if you know the language, country, etc., but you get the idea). If you are a two-year and out, by October of the following year you are thinking of the next thing, worrying about recruiting--once again putting your actual teaching more on the back burner. By February, you are mentally preparing for your next job and teaching in "survival mode" again. Why rewrite the curriculum when you aren't going to be there?

So someone who only does a series of contracts never gets good at writing new units, particularly collaboratively, or building lasting systems or programs. They aren't going to start a service project that becomes the school's legacy. They aren't going to create that science-history-librarian project that involves research and an exhibition. They might take some PD and apply some stuff to a planned project or unit or to their behaviour management practice--and that's great--but for a recruiter at a top school, they want the builders and collaborators, not just the people who improve a bit of their classroom practice.

Committing to a third year means that in year two, you are implementing ideas you had after February year one. You repeat and solidify those ideas in year 3, even if you are back in survival mode and planning to move on, because you have already done them at least once in year 2. They then have potential to last, particularly if the people with whom you collaborated end up staying.

So yes, staying that third year and beyond DOES make a difference to your practice. It also shows you aren't out the door the moment things aren't 100% to your liking. That's why the good recruiters--the ones who have a vision for their school and want to build something great for students--balk at a string of short contracts.

[interteach]

Really well said. Thanks for the elaboration.

[GrumblesMcGee]

(disclaimer: I'm a relative newcomer--a well-read and connected one when it comes to the world of IE, but a newcomer nonetheless)

Everyone's right. "Tourist teacher" has been used a bit loosely. I've seen it applied to teachers who do their contract and then hop to a new country. I've seen it applied to neophytes to IE who don't plan to stick around long. So no one on this forum is particularly wrong in defining the term.

That said...it really fits better with the latter definition: teachers who are new to IE and just looking to see the world (or get some other short-term benefit) with no real long-term commitment to teaching abroad. The best examples are the brand-spanking-new ones with little travel experience, or the backpackers who show up without a job and are hoping to land one for a semester.

Sure, you can spin someone who's taught a decade of two-and-dones as a "tourist," but it's a bit unfair. But sticking around for the full contract, and then staying in IE--somewhere else--really wipes away the "tourist" aspect of it, unless you're warping the connotation of tourist away and turning it into a permanent state of being. Maybe we need a new term for such people, like "wanderlust teacher."

[Thames Pirate]

A teacher out solely for the chance to travel is just that regardless of whether they are called tourist teachers, Wanderlust teachers, or whatever. The point is that they do not make good hires compared to those who are likely to stay 4-8 years.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

You can know an IS and city in weeks, its doesnt take years and nothing magical happens that extra third year. I push my practice everyday from day one, maybe you wait until; the second term, and maybe thats why YOU ned a third year. None of that has any bearing on your claim that you have to do an extra third year or more or you wont be valuable to future ISs, and your career will stagnate and be doomed.

You dont need more than two years to get good at "writing new units, particularly collaboratively, or building lasting systems or programs". Maybe you do, but thats TPF. You can start a service project legacy your first term, plan field trips, the same with a science-history-librarian program. You can build over two years but even if we assumed you couldnt even if that as impossible, than ISs can offer longer contracts and incentivize ITs to stay longer and increase their value add. A leader can sit down with an IT and say, you dont have any complaints but you havent done much while your here, I can write a reference with hat you have or e can extend your contract another year and really give you an opportunity to add value, or whatever. The other ITs who ere super awesome an amazing who did all that in 18 months with time to spare, they dont have to prove anything with a third or longer year. Of course ISS would like to retain and keep those ITs, theres a way of doing that its called "adding value" for the IT.

@GrumblesMcGee

We already have terms for those:

Tourist IT is the IT who enters IE and works a couple years (1-4), show the spouse a different lifestyle, get the kids an IS diploma, and then they leave IE going back to their HOR.

Backpacker IT is the IT who spends less than a year and moves from IS to IS. That doesnt mean its illegitimate there are ITs who focus on the supply/relief/substitute aspect of IE, and they typically move between IE and EE. They might be a month here, a term there, then they move on down the trail.

Traveler IT is the IT that does there contract and then moves on to another country or region. They come see the sights, live the culture and then move on to something new.

House IT is the IT who works for one IS/DS for there contract and then staying in the same location because they reside there, typically have economic reasons for moving on, move to another IS in the same region.

Dispatch ITs live in a given region and IE is just some portion of their work schedule. They combine various less than FTE appointments from one IS to another.

We just dont use the backpacker, traveler, dispatch and house IT because thy dont come up often and tourist and traveler ITs got commingled.

[Heliotrope]

I've seen what @Thames Pirate described at many of my previous schools: where the '2 and go' ITs don't invest, and basically just mind the store. They do the minimum required and don't make any improvements that would require investing extra time or effort.
The IT that stays longer does put in extra hours to give the kids the best experience possible, and to improve the school.
Especially if they want to stay longer AND have kids of school-going age.

What @PsyGuy calls a 'Traveler IT' is what almost everybody I know in IE calls a 'Tourist IT', and you don't see a lot of those (if any) at tier 1 schools because recruiters prefer to hire ITs that will stick around longer than 1 contract.