The International Schools Review Forum

Yes, teachers aren't obliged to stay longer than two years, but school aren't obliged to hire teachers with a string of two year contracts.
The reality is that a lot of the better schools will hold it against you if you have such a CV, and they're free to do so, just a teachers are free to leave after two years.
If you're aiming to end up at a tier 1 school, it would be helpful if your CV shows a few longer commitments.

PsyGuy wrote:
> There is no stigma or damage to your utility by NOT staying 3 years or now
> as @sid claims 4 years at an IS for whatever nonsense bunk theyre
> prophesying. It is nothing more then fearmongering by leadership to reduce
> maturation and attrition with cheap talk rather than incentivizing ITs to
> stay longer and make greater commitments with something other then benefits
> and coin. If recruiters and leadership wanted or needed longer commitments
> from ITs they could offer longer contracts. If you have a two year contract
> you are obligate to two years and nothing more and staying an extra year
> adds nothing. As long as 1) You complete your contract. 2) Have a positive
> reference. 3) Have a reasonable response for the movement in an interview,
> you can bounce around IE as much as you want. There is no you have 2 or 3
> contracts before you must somehow do more than your contract, or its doom
> and gloom.


Except that at a good school they want to see signs of stability. Recruiters look at patterns, and if the pattern is 2 and done, they are definitely more leary of hiring you than if you are more stable. As has been said, your first couple of contracts is where you make lateral or vertical moves - by your third contract you want to show SOME stability in situ. Having a string of 4 or 5 contracts, all 2 years makes it much harder when you finally figure out what school you want - especially if it is a higher quality school. It is one of the things that differentiates teachers from other teachers when other things are equal.

I keep hearing top tier schools don't like short term contracts from teachers and this forum. My experience may be unique and I could have just been lucky, but I interviewed with several tier 1 schools and was hired at a top tier school and none of them seemed to care at all that I never worked past my initial contract. Only one school asked about it and responded positively to my answer granting a second interview that I eventually couldn't take. I was very worried that having three short term jobs would hurt my chances, but at least for me it wasn't the case at all. I plan to stay at my next school for a very long time.

@Heliotrope

No thats not reality. ISs and leadership dont care about 2 years vs. 3 years. As long as 1) You complete your contract. 2) Have a positive reference. 3) Have a reasonable response for the movement in an interview, you can bounce around IE as much as you want.

@Sj

Except three years is no more stable than two years and ITs are rarely equal in all factors but one. The point at which it would matter would be the same trivialities as hair color. As long as 1) You complete your contract. 2) Have a positive reference. 3) Have a reasonable response for the movement in an interview, you can bounce around IE as much as you want.

@Tyshine

Because there is no such issue. Its fearmongering among lower tier ISs that thy wont be marketable or competitive with upper tier ISs if thy dont stay for longer contracts. Elite/first tier Is know they ahve the best deal in town they arent concerned about their turnover like lower tier ISs are. Its much cheaper to sell a mythology that ITs have to put their time in at longer contracts or they wont be marketable than it is to offer them incentives that are tangible. Youre absolutely right, top tier ISs couldnt care less about your string of contracts or how long they are. They are just as likely to value your ability to adapt and be flexible across a number of different ISs and regions over 2 year contracts as they are someone who spent more time at a smaller number of ISs for longer periods of time.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> No thats not reality. ISs and leadership dont care about 2 years vs. 3
> years. As long as 1) You complete your contract. 2) Have a positive
> reference. 3) Have a reasonable response for the movement in an interview,
> you can bounce around IE as much as you want.

In my experience the better the school, the fewer (if any) teachers they employ with a string (4 or more) of two year contracts.
So it depends on what type of school you're looking for. To get into a tier 1, generally having had longer commitments will help your application, while having a string of two year will work against you. It won't make it impossible, but harder.
With all other things being equal, they will prefer a teacher who demonstrated being able to commit for more than one contract (and don't give me your "ITs are rarely equal in all factors but one").

@PG - 3 years is 50% more stable than two years.

Lots of opinions and anecdotal evidence, wouldn't it be interesting if there was some quantitative data which I know would be impossible to gather and keep current but interesting nevertheless.

I know of several top tier schools in different parts of the world that have recently begun to shift ITs onto local salaries after 3-5 years on staff. In one case, several of my friends got totally shafted and are leaving after 3 years because of it. All new hires sign this new contract, which means the schools are incentivizing them to leave after just a few years—this was a money saving measure. I’m not totally sure I understand why it saves money, but it’s happening. I’m not sure a generalization can be made that the top schools value tenures of longer than 3 years...I’m sure some schools do but they’re by far the small minority.

@SJ

No it isnt, stability has a threshold, and neither two nor three years meet that threshold.

@s0830887

A couple of factors:
1) At four too five years ITs that are wanting to stay have settled down, possibly marrying a local or have adapted to the lifestyle and thus have external incentives to remain as opposed to an IS providing them benefits and coin.
2) Four years may have been the point that the increased salary at step four without an OSH package was more than step one with an OSH package for a new hire.
3) At about the four year mark an IT has contributed whatever they had to bring. Theres a benefit to bringing in new ideas and perspectives.
4) It may have been some legal protection mechanism (such as tenure, etc.) that the IS wanted to avoid keeping ITs past a certain point.
5) Cleaning house with regularity can absolve the IS of "camp" mentality (IE. summer camp). Traditions dont form and you have an abundance of newness energy. Essentially, the IS gets a planned cleaning of its institutional identity every few years. Its the IKEA approach to IE staffing, its better to get new but cheap assets more frequently.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @SJ
>
> No it isnt, stability has a threshold, and neither two nor three years meet
> that threshold.

The threshold is 'over two years'. Anything over two years has a degree of stability, with more years being more stable, up to a point of course (9 years won't be much better than 8 years).

@Heliotrope

That threshold is not two years, and three years is not more stable than two by any degree. Neither nine is no more stable than eight just as three is no more stable than two.

Sure it is.

@Heliotrope

Exactly.

PsyGuy wrote:
> Exactly.

I don't think you read that correctly.
You said it isn't, I said it is.
As in: the threshold is 'over two years'. Anything over two years has a degree of stability, with more years being more stable, up to a point of course (9 years won't be much better than 8 years).

@Heliotrope

I decoded it correctly you stated "sure it is", youre agreeing with me.
However, in light (is it lite or light) of your clarification, we disagree. The threshold is not two years.