Resignation timeline

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

Perhaps you werent nice at all? Perhaps you only perceived your leadership as attacking? Perhaps both you and your other leadership member had congruent misperceptions? Have they prevailed in their legal action, or is it still pending? It appears you may have more adversaries than you are aware of?

So you are an entering IT, and a current union representative, im sure your quite beloved and spoken of fondly behind closed doors and out of sight?

Those expecting to be targets often respond more efficiently and effectively. I agree though that is a simplified conclusion.

That polite conversation with leadership that you are abruptly leaving is highly likely to have additional negative consequences than pulling a runner. Runner or polite resignation is burning a bridge, whether you see the flames or not is immaterial.
That "nice" letter of reference is likely to be bait. If you receive a negative letter of reference your not going to use it. It is well accepted in recruiting that open letters/testimonials are of little utility. that "nice" letter is just an opportunity for the prior HOS to obtain contact with future recruiters and leadership to sabotage an IT when the recruiting leadership attempts to verify the reference.

A gentleman's/ladies departure, sure, and men cover puddles with their cloaks too.

Yes, philanthropy helps your resume, especially your social resume.

Token representation is not better or superior than no representation.

There are few members of leadership whos fingerprints I would want on the future. You misread the quote, its "I touch the future, I teach", not 'I touch the future, I administrate/manage'.

::giggle::
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0Yzo05hbAc

Seeing is believing, Somethings must be believed to be seen...

[Thames Pirate]

Ah, here we go. Making it personal.

I have worked with numerous admin at a number of campuses--three of them rotating into my campus, and my current position is at multiple campuses, one of which also has new admin this year. So I work with more administrators than the average teacher simply because of my multi-campus position. I have also served in a specialized admin/teacher pair PD team. I did that WHILEs serving as a union rep because in our district, the union and the admin actually don't have an adversarial relationship most of the time. I have met with two different superintendents to arrange various programs, etc. It is only this one administrator, who has a history of aggressively going after teachers who do not meet specific criteria unrelated to teaching, professionalism, etc. Again, other admin in the building backed me up, and this admin is currently dealing with a lawsuit. I will again let the data speak for itself. My record is fantastic with many administrators--all but the one, who has a bad track record with a number of otherwise highly regarded teachers. Which one of us do you really think was the aggressor, especially given my comments about not treating admin like adversaries?

I am also not new to IT, just returning to it. While abroad, I worked wonderfully with admin. I do not put my union work on my CV because I recognize that while it is a privilege in my current district to serve my colleagues in this way, in many places this is not true and can be seen as adversarial. In our district, we use it as a way to facilitate the relationship between admin and teachers rather than as a wedge. Most places are not this lucky. I don't shy from the role, but I don't advertise it.

Those expecting to be targets often become targets by behaving as such. They pull runners out of fear, then act surprised when the bridge is burned and feel justified because the school doesn't speak highly of them. Bait, really? If they don't have anything nice to say, most admin aren't going to take the time to write a phony nice letter just to attack later. Besides, you already have a job or you wouldn't have come to them. The letter would be for at least two years out most likely. They certainly won't write a phony letter just to burn you in two years.

Yes, token representation IS better because boards sometimes make decisions without understanding why a teacher might say it's a bad idea. They might proceed with the best of intentions, but when a teacher points out a consideration they hadn't though of, they realize that their intentions and their actions didn't match up.

We could not teach if there were no administrators. To say they do not contribute to the process is to fundamentally and willfully misunderstand their (and thus our own) role in it. Sure, some are bad--so are some teachers.

You really are completely cynical. It's sad.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

Its personal only in your mind. I made an inquiry and postulated potential correlative relationships, with a focus on the impetus to effect a change in the rhetorical locus.

Do you have a source on the average frequency of leadership contact amongst DTs so that I might have a frame of reference from which to form a position?

"I served in a specialized admin/teacher pair PD team", that type of relationship may be illegal in a number of cultural regions. While not usually explicitly restricted, many professional codes, and policies limit such relationship between leadership and faculty. Not that Id be opposed under the right circumstances.

Its the other times that arent most times that generally cause the issues. Leadership isnt a problem, until of course its a problem, but at that point its typically a very bad problem, and more so in IE. ITs rarely have information on system practices or resources to seek redress.

The title superintendent does not have the same meaning in IE as it does in DE. Its typically another term for HOS, that doesnt include management or administration of multiple campuses.

I understand its not you its them. You BELIEVE its only this one member of leadership?

So your new to IE, unless your absence was only a year or two?

So which is it you dont shy away from it or you conceal it, those two states are mutually exclusive?

I have never met an IT who pulled a runner and was surprised of leaderships position towards them.

We disagree on the definition of "most admin", many of them would go to considerable lengths to extract retaliation, or discipline an IT. The key in countering that is to make the pathway of doing so exhaustive.

Boards know everything, and are infallible. Ive yet to find one that acknowledged or could even identify an error.

Yes ITs could most certainly function without leadership. If your faculty are all ill, you have no program, classes canceled. If all leadership is gone, the only difference is the conference room doesnt need vacuuming. Classes and functioning of the IS would continue for quit sometime before anyone even noticed leadership was gone.

[Thames Pirate]

I do find it amusing that the more I answer you, the more your language changes.

I do not have a source on DT as a whole, but in our district the average teacher stays at the same building for 9 years while the average administrator is in place for 3 for principals and 5-6 for VPs (our district has a policy of rotating principals). So in our district, the average teacher gets 5-6 admin over 9 years, maybe 7-8 for high schools with multiple VPs. I have worked closely with 15 at least in that time frame. Does that help? I really am not making up the fact that I have worked closely with more than the average number of administrators. Only the one has been problematic, and she has been problematic for other admin as well as other teachers who had spotless reputations. The other admin in the building that year backed me up. So yes, I would say it was just the one. That doesn't mean they all worship me or anything--just that they all work with me professionally and treat me with respect. I do the same for them.

As for the PD, it was a project (not illegal!) in which an admin and a teacher pair from several of our district buildings met and worked through a multi-year PD together. I don't see how working in partnership with admin as the teacher representative for a school even resembles an illegal relationship, but it doesn't matter as it was perfectly legal here. Yes, I am aware that there is no equivalent to our superintendent position in IE, but it's not relevant, is it? My point was that I know how to work collaboratively with different levels of admin and have done so successfully throughout my career.

Sure, schools can function without admin for a day. They wouldn't last long, though. Admin deal with budgeting, facilities, hiring, curriculum, accreditation, and vision. Yes, I could come in and teach my lessons, but only because admin provided the physical space, enrolled and scheduled students, purchased materials, etc. I could teach without accreditation or insurance--until a family brought a lawsuit or, depending on the country, legal charges. I could teach kids, but after awhile, our electricity would be shut off, our garbage cans would be overflowing, and the kids would get very hungry at lunchtime because nobody hired and coordinated a classified staff.

My absence from IE was short, so yes, I am returning, not that it is relevant.

I realize teachers in IE have less recourse than in DSs. However, I am not advocating burning a bridge while on it or even hanging out on a bridge while it burns. I am saying the IS community is small and we need all the intact bridges we can find; burning them unnecessarily benefits nobody except that person looking for some vindictive satisfaction.

I don't shy away from talking about it if asked or if it were to come up naturally. I don't volunteer it or put it on my paperwork. I am not ashamed of it, but it is something that should be mentioned in person. It is generally not relevant one way or another to my application as most ISs don't have a union.

No, if you pull a runner, you shouldn't be surprised at leadership's attitude toward you.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

So I understand you have no authoritative source on average DT/leadership contact, only a point sample as relative to your district. Your districts process is not representative of IE.

If your were fabricating your leadership exposure, I would not expect you to acknowledge it as such, and thus your claim is not self authenticating.

You really have no evidence to verify that there arent other members of leadership who are your adversaries do you? They could simply be concealing their motives and attitude towards you? You cited that they are professional so they may internally have less than amicable dispositions towards you, and you wouldnt know?

Ive been in IE a long time, I dont judge what a faculty and leadership team do behind closed classroom doors, only that such activities could potentially be actionable, and subject you to disciplinary consequences despite explicit restrictions.

You could go a month without leadership, longer if someone else available on staff could authorize the pay disbursements.

1) Budgeting - If you can read a spreadsheet and balance a checkbook you can no IS finances, leadership doesnt actually do this they have a finances and accounting office of professional staff that do.

2) Facilities - Leadership walks around new capital project construction, they dont build anything, and ISs even bottom tier ones have custodial staff to effect repairs and housekeeping functions.

3) Hiring - True someone needs to sign the contracts every 2 years.

4) Curriculum - Leadership knows nothing about curriculum, Ive yet to see a member of leadership with competence and expertise in all departments of academics. Many of them arent even competent in their former teaching fields. I recently worked with a leadership member with a history degree that quoted the civil war occurred prior to the revolutionary war. If leadership understood curriculum they wouldnt implement Common Core, and so many other Pop.Ed ideas.

5) Accreditation - Some specialized members of leadership facilitate accreditation, however its not a complicated process, and most of the process is a collaborative effort that is largely completed by ITs and instructional staff. Leadership just assembles it into a binder.

6) Visison - Ownership creates the vision, ethos, mission, strategy. Leadership just follows the instructions.

Leadership didnt provide the physical space, ownership and the construction company did. Admissions staff enrolled the students. The counselor creates the schedule, in many ISs this is a junior leadership level appointment, its not senior or executive level leadership. leadership doesnt purchase anything, the finance and procurement staff do, and ITs do much of the work and research.

Accreditation doesnt lead to lawsuits, there are many non-accredited ISs in IE. The only foreseeable option for a lawsuit based ona ccreditation is is an IS misrepresented their accreditation status, and then ITs would still not be sued, theres no money or specific performance a court could award against an IT.

Most food service departments are largely self contained, leadership has little interaction with them.

The IE community isnt very small on a global scale. No one even knows the absolute number of ISs.

Im going to conclude from your stated actions vs. your claims your inherent position on your union membership.

[Thames Pirate]

Funny, I gave you my numbers--I do work with more than the average teacher--and you heard that I made it up. Because I didn't qualify my initial statement as being more than average for my district, you heard that I must somehow be comparing to all DT or IE or whatever it is you wanted me to provide that I didn't. That said, I can also say that given the number of rural districts in the US and their low turnover and given that our district is a fairly representative sample with, if anything, higher admin movement, it's a reasonable extrapolation that my numbers are representative of DT as a whole. Not that it matters. My point is that I have and do work with a lot of administrators, and I have done so successfully in all but the one instance. But of course I must be fabricating it because you cannot independently verify it.

No, I cannot verify to you that only the one admin is an adversary. For all you know I am not even a teacher but some prison inmate behind a keyboard making all this up. Because I didn't provide palm readings on all admin, I must be making things up. My professional reputation, my references, my working relationships--all meaningless because I can't produce them to a stranger on a blackboard?

We were not behind closed doors plotting, we were on a transparent PD team that presented regularly on our work. It just wasn't practicable to have all teachers and admin attend--one of each from each school got to do this, and I was chosen by my admin to represent my staff. When I moved schools, a different teacher took my place. But because I didn't provide details to a stranger on a blackboard, we must have been doing something fishy, right?

No, budgeting isn't hard, but when you start doing it, you are doing administrative tasks. Finding a warm body to sign a contract isn't hard, but if you are the one responsible for it, you are doing administrative tasks. Taking bids on construction, hiring custodial staff, etc. are administrative tasks. If you are coordinating accreditation, you are performing administrative tasks. So by your reckoning either these need not happen or doing these somehow doesn't make a person an administrator. After all, being an admin doesn't mean you do admin tasks, it means you grow little red horns and a tail. Admin are evil, not just people who do the administrative tasks as part of the process. And just because you don't understand what Common Core is doesn't mean leadership doesn't. Just because at your school the staff wasn't involved in writing the mission statement doesn't mean the same isn't true at other schools. Admissions is admin in many schools, leadership creates the master schedule in most, and junior leadership is still admin! Admin approves all purchase orders and the contractors. The point isn't which tasks do or don't get done. It's that doing these tasks does NOT make one an adversary, and they ARE necessary for teachers to do their jobs.

I have no idea where you got anything about lawsuits having only to do with accreditation; lawsuits can stem from any number of things, and all of them trace back to administration.

The IE pool IS still small on a global school, and it is even smaller when you are talking about higher profile schools. You can't play dirty, especially at such a school, and not expect word to get out. It really does.

I have no idea why union membership, especially in a state in which union dues are compulsory, is relevant to anything. If anything, it underscores my point that if our mostly union member district can have such a positive relationship with its admin, both on a building level and on a district level, there is no reason to be so absolutely bitter about the role of administration.

Of course, no matter what I say I know you can just come back with all the "what ifs." I don't allow students to play the "what if" game, drawing up less and less likely scenarios forever. You seem quite fond of the game. What if the school does this horrible thing or what if that unlikely scenario is true. What if you are actually that inmate and are making it all up? We could go on. but the point is the same.


If you don't need to burn the bridge, don't. If someone burns a bridge, let it be the other guy. That way at least you did your best, both as a human and a professional, to keep it standing, and if you want it later, it might still be there. Don't get sucked into the what if paranoia and let it trick you to burning a bridge you don't have to.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

Numbers arent data. Here are some numbers: 3, 4, 4.15, 5, 6, 7, 7.71, numbers are just names until assigned to observations. You work with more leadership than is average for YOUR district, thats a point sample. Your "givens" are assumptions, assumptions you dont have data to support are representative of education either nationally or globally. You assume your district is rural, you assume it is representative of other rural districts, you assume your turnover rates are congruent with other attrition and maturation rates. Your conclusion that your extrapolation is reasonable is contingent on the acceptance of those assumptions.

Your point/claim that "you work with a lot of administrators" is relevant only within the paradigm you have self defined. You dont know how many memberships of leadership DTs or ITs outside of your district work. You have no foundation for in data to make that claim. You claim you work with more than an average number of administrators because you deem it so.
You further have little evidence to show youve been successful, at best you can demonstrate that you havent been grossly or egregiously unsuccessful.

You could still be an incarcerated inmate in a penal system and still be an IT, NB was an IT despite his confinement, which during his period of custody and which continues, no Canadian providence has taken action on his certificate, other than pending investigation.

Im sure there was little fishy about it, though ichthyology is not an area of expertise. You were on a transparent faculty/leadership PDA team, now Im interested, that sounds particularity interesting. While Im sure your region has no explicit sanctions for torrid liaisons between administration and faculty, its very interesting that they have such a lax disposition.

I agree all of those are administrative tasks, they do not however require an administrator (leadership) to execute. The vast majority of leadership is predisposed to anti-IT goals.

I fully understand CC, anyone who believes it is anything other than a compilation of bare minimum standards that are redundant in IE, is misunderstood. It is far more often true than not, that ITs have no input in constructing any type of organizational statements.

Admissions is professional staff not senior leadership in ISs, junior leadership creates the master schedule creates the master schedule, rarely senior leadership, or executive leadership.

Junior leadership is in the a region between faculty and leadership, titles are just name

No where in your triad is there any evidence or supposition to support the claim that leadership are not adversaries.

[expatscot]

OK, so in the hope that I'm not adding fuel to a fire, I'm going to chip in!

I'm relatively new to teaching. In my previous career, you did not tell your employer about your resignation before you had another job and until you were ready to hand in your notice. The reason for this was two-fold; firstly, it avoided any potential problems between you and your boss, and secondly (in the UK at least) a verbal confirmation of resignation can be accepted in lieu of a written one, so even if you later changed your mind your employer could hold you to it.

Moving in to teaching in the UK, it was a bit of a shock that you were expected to tell your manager that you were applying for a job in another school if you wanted to move. This causes difficulties if someone is unhappy, doesn't like where they work, or simply just fancies a change. However, references given by employers in the UK can only include very basic information about attendance, sickness, formal disciplinary matters, etc. and not personal statements about the individual - they can and have been taken to court if the statement is defamatory and cannot be justified. They are also subject to the Data Protection Act in the UK in that any personal documentation an organisation - employer or agency - holds on you can legally be requested and must be provided, so you can get a copy of your reference.

I get why international schools want people to indicate whether or not they are leaving before they get a job. From their point of view, they need to know who is staying and which positions they need to recruit for. Speaking personally, if I was in a Head's position where a teacher I liked was leaving, I would give them a good reference being a fair person, but if that teacher then (after a fair, for example) said that they wanted to stay I would keep them on and withdraw any offer on that position made. I know that's unfair on the person to whom it's been offered, but I always prefer the known to the unknown.

[PsyGuy]

@expatscot

Many of those protections are exclusive to WE and even more so to DE. In IE, as an Independent IS, leadership and ownership can do whatever they want as long as it appears to have face validity (as long as they dont say were dismissing you because your a minority, etc). Any number of rationals or no rational can be used as a justification for dismissal. Unlike in the UK and your HOR, you are unlikely to have the ability or resources to fight an unlawful or unreasonable dismissal.
ISs and leadership can say anything about you that they want, even if they give you a neutral reference, its little more than a phone call away to get the real story.

[Walter]

@expatscot: "Speaking personally, if I was in a Head's position where a teacher I liked was leaving, I would give them a good reference being a fair person, but if that teacher then (after a fair, for example) said that they wanted to stay I would keep them on and withdraw any offer on that position made."

And I wouldn't think about doing something like this. This would be appallingly unprofessional and unethical.

[PsyGuy]

I concur with @Walter, in addition you would likely have legal issues and repercussions as well. Most likely such action would be in violation of your ISs policy, potentially (depending on ownership structure) having serious disciplinary ramifications. Leadership can and do get dismissed for that type of behavior, though not nearly as often as they should.

[Thames Pirate]

A voluntary team of teacher + admin from each school (admin were invited, the schools who chose to join were part of the team, and they asked teachers) along with the director of secondary ed attended a sessions with the instructor, then did discussion groups on the topics. We did some readings, some targeted observations of classes (with the teacher's permission--some teachers didn't want us in their rooms), Q&A with students, and further discussions to look into how students approach learning (not how teachers approach it). We did document our observations and discussions, and materials were made available to all staff. We used our learning to bring it back to the staffs of our respective buildings and continue the conversations on that level. We also reported to the board and presented our work to them.

So a documented discussion as part of a focus group is fishy? We have teacher representation at district discussions around scheduling--admin, selected teachers, classified staff, etc.--where a few teachers represent the interest groups. This was no different. Again, our work was documented, shared with staffs, shared with the board, and very public. There was no benefit to being part of the group other than the learning that came out of it.

I don't know what's fishy about a work group like that.

[PsyGuy]

@Thames Pirate

I specifically stated that "there was little fishy about it" in regards to your faculty/leadership PDA team, as my assumption was it involved activitys of a more torrid nature between teachers and administration.

::giggle::

[Thames Pirate]

Okay, you are officially a nasty person. You make something totally normal into something torrid, use tongue in cheek comments to defend yourself, and mock after stating you were curious.

No, nothing torrid about a work group. It was educational, informative, and fun, but it wasn't sexy. It wasn't fishy. And I hope I have satisfied your curiosity and given you ample opportunity to mock something you have created in your mind. You do have a tendency to build up fantasies of how things work and then operate as if they were reality. It's an interesting tendency.

[dantespal]

Why so many of you insist on arguing and going back and forth with people you claim to detest never fails to amuse me.

The original question, to me, was getting at the increasingly long lead time that schools are asking for. To me, it is unreasonable to make a person decide what they'll be doing the next school year in October. In that case, I'd have no issue telling them that I'll stay and then telling them once I got a job that I changed my mind. I'm not a slave and have agency.

I'd let the hiring school know that I'll be telling my current school immediately so that they wouldn't be surprised if a call did come trying to ruin the job for me. Where it gets hard is recommendations. I usually try to keep a relationship with an AP or other admin who is willing to help out a good teacher with a rec and doesn't care that I didn't pledge myself to 2 more years just a month after the year begins. In my experience it hasn't been too hard.

While I understand not burning bridges unless you need to, I don't understand the mentality that says 'never cross admin because that is bad.' There is no dignity or strength into letting people walk over you.

I am currently working back in the US, in a right to work state. Here, schools relish that they can fire anyone at anytime for any reason, yet still act surprised and hurt when a teacher uses the same privilege.

But, nothing is black and white. Hopefully everyone was given the critical thinking skills to make the best decision for themselves without caring overly much what someone who doesn't care about them thinks. By the way, except for one post that I wouldn't go back to if I were starving, every workplace has offered to let me come back and maintained some form of contact. So I must be doing something right. You should never bargain from a position of weakness unless you want to lose. Forcing yourself into a decision 10 months ahead of time is screwing yourself for no reason and no gain.