Typical? Sign another 2 years if receive $ for training.

[astarte]

I am hoping that people can give me an idea what their experiences with training/professional development is at other schools.

My current school is trying to propose that if a teacher receives training that requires money (for example IB or IGCSE courses) then they need to promise to stay for another 2 years. If they leave before that happens, the cost of the training will be deducted from their last months pay.

One of the administrators suggested that this is standard. I find that hard to believe of even a 3rd tier school (I would argue that I am at a 4th tier).

What are other people's experiences? How is training/professional development offered at other international schools?

[shadowjack]

This is not standard at good schools. Investment in staff is an ongoing affair. That said, most schools will provide training at the beginning of the contract, and the teacher is there for two years anyways. For instance, my new school is providing me with IB training within a month of my start date.

Others' experiences may vary.

[overseasvet2]

Sometimes there are limits during one's last year of contract. If you are in your first year, this seems odd.

[ChoirGuy]

I've heard of everything from providing training in the end year of a contract with the understanding you will need to pay it back if you leave at the end of the year; waiting until a new contract is signed before agreeing to pay for training (new contract being either 1 or 2 years); or just paying for the training no matter where you are in a contract.

I think the "waiting for resignation date" is the most common, but the problem with this is that if the date is in January, much of the training budget may already be used.

[sid]

I've often seen a rule that one cannot go for training in one's final year of a contract, or very similar, if one goes for training, and then decides not to return the following year, the cost of the training must be paid to the school. To me this is fair, as if the school pays the money for the training, they want the school to get a reasonable amount of benefit from it.

It would indeed be simpler not to send anyone for training until after the contract renewal date, but so much conferences/workshops take place before that date, and registration for others also has to happen in advance. So that option isn't really an option unless a school decides its PD priorities based on what's available in the spring.

Until today, I have not heard of a school requiring two years service post training. Or, as this could logically turn in to, four years (if the training is early in the first year of a two-year contract, and the teacher was required to sign a two-year extension, that would make a four-year commitment for one PD event. Ouch). This seems excessive to me.

[PsyGuy]

Its standard for lower tier schools, you get your PD at the end of your second year on condition that you renew, though most schools only require a one year renewal. Upper tier schools typically train at the end of your first year if not sooner.
The difference though is that upper tier schools have much lower turnover, so losing money on PD when a teacher leaves at the end of their contract is much less of an issue. They know they provide a better package and people are either their for good or the likelihood of finding better IS is less probable. Low tier schools know that most of their faculty are on the revolving door and are just their to build their resume until they move somewhere better, and most of them will. Schools dont spend money they arent going to benefit from. Why train what is essentially going to be someone elses teacher.

[durianfan]

I'm at a 3rd tier school and they gave me training my first month. But that was it - nothing else no matter how much I asked for it. They gave new teachers training this year but most of it was online, which in my opinion is fairly useless.

I do know that earlier this year they wanted all of PYP to do training onsite, but told them that they had to sign for another 2 years. Everyone refused and the admin quickly backed down.

My advice would be to wait out your two year contract and then leave for another school where you get regular training, or see if you can make some kind of deal with the school - like if the school pays for the IB training then you'll pay for the flights/hotel - I know teachers who have done this, although it's still costly, but when you're in a very for-profit school then your options for training are limited.

[Cheery Littlebottom]

This sounds odd. I've never had such a proviso thrust under my nose. Admittedly, I am not thrilled by my perceived equity (or inequity) of how training is farmed out in my school, but this is a new one on me.
Having said that, who would pay a good few thousand bucks to train someone who was about to leave? But signing for 2 years? Smacks of desperation.

[PsyGuy]

Good schools dont have that problem to the same degree:

1) They train earlier in the contract, and see staff as an investment, that pays off in schools that manage their schools with teachers as an "asset", not a "resource". They know that training early allows the school to benefit from that training sooner, and thats better.

2) Their staff isnt on a constant revolving door. People walk in with the knowledge knowing they are going to be walking out. Lower tier schools know they cant recruit teachers int he long term. So yes they are desperate, youve worked out for 2 years and too get you another two years its worth throwing you a "bonus" in the form of a PD allowance that also benefits the school.

[AnnieT]

My last school was fairly crap, but they only insisted on one complete year of service after training. They did not even try to claw it back when they did thier normal sackings on the last day of term.