AIBU to have never done more than 2 years at a school?

[poppyeleanor]

Wondering about this.

School 1 (NQT) - 2 years

School 2 - 2 years

School 3 - 1 year

School 4 - 1 year 1 term

School 5 - 1 year 2 terms

School 6 - 2 terms

School 7 - 2 years

School 8 - 1 year

School 9 - 1 year

School 10 - 1 year 1 term

(Took 2 years out between schools 9 and 10.)

So I suppose I’m wondering about this. For the most part, there haven’t been sinister reasons.

My NQT school was really bad, and I stuck it out for two years but it became unbearable. I left and got a job in a better school but it was a long way from home, so my next role was closer. However, I didn’t enjoy it and it did have ver high staff turnover.

I then applied for a promotion and got it, and then another promotion. The second promotion was just not a good fit for me at all. I got another promotion then, very rapidly. Stayed for two years then had a big relocation and family and then my current role ... and now I’m going to move on again.

Has anybody else moved around lots?

Most people do know there are other options though. Equally, it's common to have experience in multiple schools. Saying 20 years somewhere is quite rare.

At the moment I'd say unfortunately it's more common to see people move around every couple of years (especially if they're ambitious) than it is to see people spend 5-10 years somewhere really developing their leadership through peaks and troughs, changing cohorts, changing contexts, managing challenging situations, seeing and evaluating the long term impact of their actions .

There's a short termism that is rewarded in some schools and by some leaders that is, in my opinion, damaging for students and also seems to go hand in hand with batshit expectations of staff

e.g. appoint a new leader/ambitious early leader who wants to make a mark, let them come up with projects that show how inspirational they are, have staff implement it with limited time to do it, ignore the fact your school might have 5 of these career types overwhelming staff, the leader takes their data and quality assurance as proof they're brilliant and then when they feel they're being directed by SLT/head too much or think they're so good that other schools will bite their hand off the ambitious one flounces and leaves, forgetting that often they were the cause of some of the school's problems... But it's fine because their pack of impact stats confirm how great they are so it must be the school / staff / students / SLT / head / MAT etc that's at fault.

I've worked with those people. Judging by this thread I'm not the only one. Almost every time it's some other factor why they upped and left, and when they've left the school's that don't promote that sort of approach it's almost always a case they believe they're too visionary and open minded for the school, the school doesn't appreciate change etc so they go in search of the next school that will tell them how awesome they are.

Agree with your last post Lola

@Piggywaspushed I don't think middle school is the answer. I have never taught years 5 or 6, and said I like teaching just the one key stage. I'm sure I could make a request, but in a school with more than one key stage, it's usually expected that you are directed to any or all of it. Just to clarify, I wasn't really being non-committal and haven't done this deliberarely for this reason. It was just an observation that it typically happens this way and has its benefits.

Thanks @LolaSmiles. I think you understood what I was trying to say - and said it much better than me.

@poppyeleanor - I’ve repeatedly said that if it’s working for you, fine, but that moving so regularly isn’t sensible career wise for most people. I genuinely wish you well and I hope you find the right school for you. It’s awful when a school isn’t the right fit and it says a lot about you that you’ve stuck in the profession and tried different schools rather than moved careers.

Teaching is emotive. Most people come into the career (or, more importantly, stay in it) because they care about the kids, and generally staying in schools for longer is better. But I absolutely agree that moving on is better if it’s making you so unhappy. As one wise colleague once told me: school could replace me, my family could not.

In my experience the short termists aren't SLT so this is obviously variable by area.

There are lots of staff in my school who have been at the school for 15+ years, many of whom have no desire to move on , or up. On my 24, I am towards the top end, but not unique. This does, in itself , cause some blockages but most/all school leaders would prefer this to high staff turnover. Nearly all our SLT are internal promotions (again, more blockages!) so people are, often , rewarded for loyalty. So, I find it hard to get my head round these chop/change people who are promoted , for those reasons. I think lola and I have very different experiences there.

This is why I asked you questions about your area(s) OP as the only place locally I know that promotes people so rapidly and often/has high staff turnover as matter of course has recruitment issues and is quite deprived (Luton fwiw). My school (affluentish) is beginning only now to have retention issues and there are pockets of high turnover with staff coming and going (English and science mainly). This has affected morale and results in those departments.

I guess my point hooverz was that you might actively really like a middle school. Lots of teachers love them.

Thanks, Jane

I care about the kids, but I do put myself and my family first. That honestly isn’t as selfish as it sounds, it just means I won’t make myself miserable and stressed.

By the same token, there have been times where stepping away has actually been the moral stance. For example, when I had my first baby, I could have had months on sick leave and temporary teachers for the kids, but I thought it was fairer to all concerned if I resigned and allowed the school to organise a permanent replacement. I’m not intending to sound like a saint there, by the way, just trying to explain I’m not selfish. I try to do what’s right for me, right for the school and right for my family.

The only middle school areas I know of are Suffolk and Somerset, are there more?

I’m nowhere near either of those places, if the other poster isn’t either then moving may not appeal, as lovely as I’m sure they are!

The PP did imply it was an option.

Middle schools still exist in 14 local authority areas. There are still in excess of 100 middle schools.

There are also new schools setting up which only have years 7-8 or 9 at present where one could work one's way up over a few years to the horror/terror/ stress of KS4 and/ or do a few years and then move on.

@LolaSmiles

I don't think jane was being emotive there at all

Well, she was. I accept that sometimes a conversation can be had and that's better than someone desperately looking for another role to avoid being given something they don't want, but this isn't really the case.

Most teachers aren't planning when they'll leave before they start (ie, in 18 months or two years), but things so come up and change and the kids in your classes can't really be a factor in whether you'll move home, have children of your own, look after parents etc.

The idea of leaving classes 'in the lurch' is ridiculous. Timetables change from year to year, and where I currently work, mid year too! Kids don't have an automatic right to have me as their teacher as long as they wish. Just as I can't pick and choose which year groups or sets I want; whether I can remove the difficult ones or request the delightful ones making progress, refuse the mid year admissions who haven't studied my subject before...

In my area the short termists manage to get SLT in selected schools piggyThey tend to find that they're not the bright new thing if they get a job at other schools and leave feeling victimised to because it turns out nobody gives a damn about their desire to start in September and have a new policy by October.

I know what you mean Jane. It's not something I think people understand until they've been in a school long enough to appreciate the impact of changes and initiatives, and staff turnover.
Like you, I hope the OP finds somewhere they can settle and stay put for a while as it will be a really valuable process for them, and stable staffing is better for the pupils.

Most teachers aren't planning when they'll leave before they start (ie, in 18 months or two years), but things so come up and change and the kids in your classes can't really be a factor in whether you'll move home, have children of your own, look after parents etc.
And yet many teachers do take the short term school hopping approach.

Nobody is suggesting people stay one place forever. Equally I don't think anyone would have an issue with an occasional short stint somewhere because, as you say, life can throw things at you.
But (thinking broader than the OP here) someone who makes a habit of moving every couple of years does raise questions about their leadership, desire to work through change, whether they have staying power in one place etc and that would make quite a lot of schools have reservations. After all, why bother doing induction and investing in training if they're likely to disappear in 18 months? Why risk destabilising existing structures, routines and policies if the person making the changes is unlikely to stay long enough to see the changes through and embed them?

The only middle school areas I know of are Suffolk and Somerset, are there more?

Yes. Many more.

Seriously OP. You keep saying that you are not selfish for moving on show frequently and have taken the moral stance but you haven’t answered previous posters who have questioned, as middle management, how can you be sure that what you have introduced and what you have overseen, has actually had any impact?

4 schools in 3 years, although maternity break between 3 and 4

At the moment I'm planning to try and stick the year out at my current school and then leave teaching