@Heliotrope
Im not among the @Sids of the forum whose agenda is to mitigate attrition and maturation with fear mongering. If ITs had to do 3 year contracts to benefit ISs more than breaking even than ISs would offer 3 year contracts and not 2 as the standard contract length. What the leaders and recruiters on this forum are doing is peddling fear mongering as opposed to actual incentives like coin to motivate ITs into longer periods of service. If you complete your contract and have a strong and positive reference you will be marketable regardless of staying 2 or 3 years (or 4 years for that matter).
Yes, we disagree.
New to The Game...
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Re: New to The Game...
The issue is that I can find people with low-level leadership skills - EE Coordinator, CAS Coordinator, etc. But if they are 2, 2, 2, 2 then I will wait for the people who might not have those low-level skills, but stick around longer, because I can create opportunities for them to grow (and have). So the 2/2/2/2 with some upward trend is still someone more likely to leave after 2 years than someone who will stay, grow their skills, and make my school better.
PG can argue it's better, but it's not inspiring confidence in me as a recruiter at a decent school to take a flutter on that hire.
PG can argue it's better, but it's not inspiring confidence in me as a recruiter at a decent school to take a flutter on that hire.
Re: New to The Game...
@sid and other administrators— I’m curious to know how much the pandemic has shaped your view of 2 year stints— for example, someone with 3 | 6 | 2 | 2. The last three school years have been impacted by the pandemic, so is that something you would automatically consider before writing off that candidate as flighty?
-
shadowjack
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 9:49 am
Re: New to The Game...
FV2020 - absolutely. Given that 2019 to today was and STILL is crazy, the others carry weight too. 6 and 3 mean that in a normal circumstance, it is likely you will be with us for at least 3. Another 2 after that? Remains to be seen as more and more schools are fully face to face and the 'new normal' emerges.
Re: New to The Game...
Agreed. The pandemic needs to be taken into consideration. If someone was caught up in a pandemic situation that messed with your length of stay, make sure you provide the context to help a recruiter understand. It’s a small world, we’ve all heard (been part of) some horror stories, and we also know that some schools and countries handled things much better. What made your situation worthy of leaving?
Lots of people will be getting a pass on shortened stays in the pandemic. Recruiters will be balancing those with your bigger picture.
Lots of people will be getting a pass on shortened stays in the pandemic. Recruiters will be balancing those with your bigger picture.
Re: New to The Game...
@sid @shadowjack Thanks for the reassurance. Wanna hire me? I’m a good teacher and I will stay at least 3 years, lol
Re: New to The Game...
shadowjack wrote:
> The issue is that I can find people with low-level leadership skills - EE
> Coordinator, CAS Coordinator, etc. But if they are 2, 2, 2, 2 then I will
> wait for the people who might not have those low-level skills, but stick
> around longer, because I can create opportunities for them to grow (and
> have). So the 2/2/2/2 with some upward trend is still someone more likely
> to leave after 2 years than someone who will stay, grow their skills, and
> make my school better.
>
> PG can argue it's better, but it's not inspiring confidence in me as a
> recruiter at a decent school to take a flutter on that hire.
This is what happened at my last school and also happens at my current one: people that have been at the school a couple of years are promoted from within after they show what they're capable of and how well they fit within the school - for leadership positions 'fit' is more important than for classroom teaching.
We don't hire any teachers that would have a 2,2,2,2 on their resume and we do pay a substantial bonus if people resign for two years instead of one after their first contract.
> The issue is that I can find people with low-level leadership skills - EE
> Coordinator, CAS Coordinator, etc. But if they are 2, 2, 2, 2 then I will
> wait for the people who might not have those low-level skills, but stick
> around longer, because I can create opportunities for them to grow (and
> have). So the 2/2/2/2 with some upward trend is still someone more likely
> to leave after 2 years than someone who will stay, grow their skills, and
> make my school better.
>
> PG can argue it's better, but it's not inspiring confidence in me as a
> recruiter at a decent school to take a flutter on that hire.
This is what happened at my last school and also happens at my current one: people that have been at the school a couple of years are promoted from within after they show what they're capable of and how well they fit within the school - for leadership positions 'fit' is more important than for classroom teaching.
We don't hire any teachers that would have a 2,2,2,2 on their resume and we do pay a substantial bonus if people resign for two years instead of one after their first contract.
Discussion
What the leaders and recruiters on this forum are doing is peddling fear mongering as opposed to actual incentives like coin to motivate ITs into longer periods of service. If you complete your contract and have a strong and positive reference you will be marketable regardless of staying 2 or 3 years (or 4 years for that matter).
@SJ
You dont know they are going to hang around longer, youre just guessing. They may very well have stayed 3, 4 or more years at a previous IS but that means all of zero for how long they will stay at your IS. You think like every leader thinks that they are awesome and if an IT doesnt like you, your leadership style, or your IS, it most be their issue and not yours. Youre just guessing.
You say you can create opportunities for them but theres nothing that says they wont take those opportunities and move with them to somewhere else. Youre just guessing.
Your rational amounts to hope.
@FV2020
Everyone pretty much gets a COVID pass.
@SJ
You dont know they are going to hang around longer, youre just guessing. They may very well have stayed 3, 4 or more years at a previous IS but that means all of zero for how long they will stay at your IS. You think like every leader thinks that they are awesome and if an IT doesnt like you, your leadership style, or your IS, it most be their issue and not yours. Youre just guessing.
You say you can create opportunities for them but theres nothing that says they wont take those opportunities and move with them to somewhere else. Youre just guessing.
Your rational amounts to hope.
@FV2020
Everyone pretty much gets a COVID pass.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Discussion
PsyGuy wrote:
> What the leaders and recruiters on this forum are doing is peddling fear
> mongering as opposed to actual incentives like coin to motivate ITs into
> longer periods of service. If you complete your contract and have a strong
> and positive reference you will be marketable regardless of staying 2 or 3
> years (or 4 years for that matter).
I doubt it's meant as fear mongering. It's just common sense. Most admin and most teachers will say (and with good cause) that a teacher will be better in their third year at a school than in their first, so there's a rationale for preferring teachers that are more likely to stay longer.
It's also not a stretch to think that a teacher with 2-2-2-2-2 on their CV is on average more likely to leave after two years than someone who stayed 3+ years at their most recent school.
Having a string of 2 year contracts doesn't make you unmarketable for all schools, but when applying to a competitive school it'll count against you, and at some schools it will land your CV onto the 'NO'-pile without a second glance.
> @SJ
>
> You dont know they are going to hang around longer, youre just guessing.
> They may very well have stayed 3, 4 or more years at a previous IS but that
> means all of zero for how long they will stay at your IS. You think like
> every leader thinks that they are awesome and if an IT doesnt like you,
> your leadership style, or your IS, it most be their issue and not yours.
> Youre just guessing.
Indeed, you can't be sure someone will stay longer, but it's definitely more likely. I assume SJ speaks from experience, and it's been my experience as well.
I don't think that a lot of leadership thinks they're awesome - quite the opposite actually. Probably the same as teachers. I've also had multiple Heads being very open about their and their schools' shortcomings. There are also plenty of leaders that will see a trend of teachers leaving sooner than expected as a personal failure.
> You say you can create opportunities for them but theres nothing that says
> they wont take those opportunities and move with them to somewhere else.
> Youre just guessing.
Yes, all people move on at some point. Some might do so when their first contract after being promoted is up, others will after many more years. So?
> Your rational amounts to hope.
I'd say SJ's rationale is based on experience and common sense.
It seems that you have had some bad experience with leadership some time ago and now think all leadership everywhere is the same of the one that traumatized you.
> @FV2020
>
> Everyone pretty much gets a COVID pass.
I agree.
> What the leaders and recruiters on this forum are doing is peddling fear
> mongering as opposed to actual incentives like coin to motivate ITs into
> longer periods of service. If you complete your contract and have a strong
> and positive reference you will be marketable regardless of staying 2 or 3
> years (or 4 years for that matter).
I doubt it's meant as fear mongering. It's just common sense. Most admin and most teachers will say (and with good cause) that a teacher will be better in their third year at a school than in their first, so there's a rationale for preferring teachers that are more likely to stay longer.
It's also not a stretch to think that a teacher with 2-2-2-2-2 on their CV is on average more likely to leave after two years than someone who stayed 3+ years at their most recent school.
Having a string of 2 year contracts doesn't make you unmarketable for all schools, but when applying to a competitive school it'll count against you, and at some schools it will land your CV onto the 'NO'-pile without a second glance.
> @SJ
>
> You dont know they are going to hang around longer, youre just guessing.
> They may very well have stayed 3, 4 or more years at a previous IS but that
> means all of zero for how long they will stay at your IS. You think like
> every leader thinks that they are awesome and if an IT doesnt like you,
> your leadership style, or your IS, it most be their issue and not yours.
> Youre just guessing.
Indeed, you can't be sure someone will stay longer, but it's definitely more likely. I assume SJ speaks from experience, and it's been my experience as well.
I don't think that a lot of leadership thinks they're awesome - quite the opposite actually. Probably the same as teachers. I've also had multiple Heads being very open about their and their schools' shortcomings. There are also plenty of leaders that will see a trend of teachers leaving sooner than expected as a personal failure.
> You say you can create opportunities for them but theres nothing that says
> they wont take those opportunities and move with them to somewhere else.
> Youre just guessing.
Yes, all people move on at some point. Some might do so when their first contract after being promoted is up, others will after many more years. So?
> Your rational amounts to hope.
I'd say SJ's rationale is based on experience and common sense.
It seems that you have had some bad experience with leadership some time ago and now think all leadership everywhere is the same of the one that traumatized you.
> @FV2020
>
> Everyone pretty much gets a COVID pass.
I agree.
Discussion
What the leaders and recruiters on this forum are doing is peddling fear mongering as opposed to actual incentives like coin to motivate ITs into longer periods of service. If you complete your contract and have a strong and positive reference you will be marketable regardless of staying 2 or 3 years (or 4 years for that matter).
@Heliotrope
Claiming common sense is just a synonym for self evident, and the rebuttal against both is the same, your claims are not self authenticating.
Identifying some individual edus or even a group of them that an IT in their third year will be better than one in their first year. Thats not a claim youve provided substantive data to support. The inflections in the curve of edu improvement are at 1, 2, 4, and 8 years. An IT in their 4th career year is but in their first year of an IS isnt going to be any worse than an IT in their 6th career year but third year at the same IS. There is likely to be an adjustment period but that period isnt a whole year and isnt even a significant or substantial part of the year.
Based on what? Whether an IT stays at one IS vs. another IS are independent events. Just as the probability of flipping a fair coin is 1:2 if that coin produces heads in 8 consecutive tries the probability of producing heads on the 9th attempt is still 1:2. Further there are far too many variables that go into an ITs decision to stay or go. The strategy of leaders on this forum is to use fear mongering to indicate that doom and gloom and the end of an ITs career will happen if they dont give value to an IS by staying longer than their obligation.
It doesnt count against you. It can just as likely be an advantage having exposure to more teaching and learning environments and cultures. Among other benefits.
It is not more likely, they are independent events.
I know of know leadership that actually elicit those affective behaviors. I suspect you have observed leaders who are simply more practiced actors. We disagree.
Its fearmongering.
If leaders are so awesome and beloved whys this site and its director reviews exist? Its the ultra rare IS leader thats not a sociopath.
@Heliotrope
Claiming common sense is just a synonym for self evident, and the rebuttal against both is the same, your claims are not self authenticating.
Identifying some individual edus or even a group of them that an IT in their third year will be better than one in their first year. Thats not a claim youve provided substantive data to support. The inflections in the curve of edu improvement are at 1, 2, 4, and 8 years. An IT in their 4th career year is but in their first year of an IS isnt going to be any worse than an IT in their 6th career year but third year at the same IS. There is likely to be an adjustment period but that period isnt a whole year and isnt even a significant or substantial part of the year.
Based on what? Whether an IT stays at one IS vs. another IS are independent events. Just as the probability of flipping a fair coin is 1:2 if that coin produces heads in 8 consecutive tries the probability of producing heads on the 9th attempt is still 1:2. Further there are far too many variables that go into an ITs decision to stay or go. The strategy of leaders on this forum is to use fear mongering to indicate that doom and gloom and the end of an ITs career will happen if they dont give value to an IS by staying longer than their obligation.
It doesnt count against you. It can just as likely be an advantage having exposure to more teaching and learning environments and cultures. Among other benefits.
It is not more likely, they are independent events.
I know of know leadership that actually elicit those affective behaviors. I suspect you have observed leaders who are simply more practiced actors. We disagree.
Its fearmongering.
If leaders are so awesome and beloved whys this site and its director reviews exist? Its the ultra rare IS leader thats not a sociopath.
Re: New to The Game...
Readers will have to make up their own minds about who is right and who is a sociopath.
On one side we have a collection of experienced school leaders and recruiters, all saying the same thing.
On the other side, a sole experienced teacher, someone with a long and loud history of recommending that people lie and cheat for their own advantage.
On one side we have a collection of experienced school leaders and recruiters, all saying the same thing.
On the other side, a sole experienced teacher, someone with a long and loud history of recommending that people lie and cheat for their own advantage.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: New to The Game...
@sid
Indeed.
Talk to any psychologist and they'll tell you that past behavior is the best predictor for someone's future behavior - patterns tend to repeat. It's not a coin flip, it's not random chance.
Indeed.
Talk to any psychologist and they'll tell you that past behavior is the best predictor for someone's future behavior - patterns tend to repeat. It's not a coin flip, it's not random chance.
Discussion
@Sid
Leaders and recruiters with an agenda.
@Heliotrope
No they wont, thats bunk. That old adage of past behavior predicts future behavior has merit when referring to high frequency behavior over short time intervals when the conditions of the behavior and the person remain unchanged. This model doesnt support the scenario of an IT deciding on length of tenure for a particular IS.
Leaders and recruiters with an agenda.
@Heliotrope
No they wont, thats bunk. That old adage of past behavior predicts future behavior has merit when referring to high frequency behavior over short time intervals when the conditions of the behavior and the person remain unchanged. This model doesnt support the scenario of an IT deciding on length of tenure for a particular IS.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Discussion
I'm not saying patterns will always repeat, just that they tend to do so.
If we have 100 ITs with a 2-2-2-2-2-2 on their CV and another 100 ITs with 2-4-6, I'd happily bet my life's savings on there being more of the second group with a >2 added to that string on their CV after their next school than of the first group.
Recruiters will have similar expectations, rooted in experience. They know it's not the coin-flip you say it is.
If we have 100 ITs with a 2-2-2-2-2-2 on their CV and another 100 ITs with 2-4-6, I'd happily bet my life's savings on there being more of the second group with a >2 added to that string on their CV after their next school than of the first group.
Recruiters will have similar expectations, rooted in experience. They know it's not the coin-flip you say it is.
Reply
@Heliotrope
Im claiming in this scenario that such sequences are not subject to tendency and thus do not constitute a pattern.
Beating a drum doesnt cause the rain, even if it rains after beating a drum.
We Disagree.
Im claiming in this scenario that such sequences are not subject to tendency and thus do not constitute a pattern.
Beating a drum doesnt cause the rain, even if it rains after beating a drum.
We Disagree.