When we taught in Saudi - it was GREAT for young children. Saudi law stipulated that workplaces which employed women had to provide daycare (not necessarily pay for it, but provide the opportunity) AND if the mother was nursing, time and a space to nurse. Our infant daughter was on the same campus, a terrific principal arranged my schedule so that my preps would serve as nursing periods, and only twice during the school year did the careworkers have to contact me and have me come and give an "emergency nurse" - but when they did call, someone covered my class and I was able to go to her. It was a terrific atmosphere for us to work in and inspired great loyalty. I don't know if things remain the same there - they aren't that way in other Gulf countries - but schools that provide daycare prove, I believe, that they truly care about entire families.

Having gone back and forth several times, we've found the following:
Teaching overseas has offered (usually, not always) smaller class sizes, fewer management issues (not really behavior, more dealing with kids dealing with their intense social issues at home), more travel,more ethnic diversity, more disposable income, more time with our own children.
Teaching in the U.S. has offered more resources (usually, not always, many public schools have INCREDIBLE resources), more economic diversity, more security in terms of not being at the whim of some administrator with an ego and no legal boundaries, more contact with extended family, and more retirement and heath coverage.
As we age, we find that the latter matters more than the former.

We have never had to pay fees for our children at international schools - nor did we at the school we were at in Jeddah, which was an airlines school at the time although that affilitation has changed. If you are at the school that claims its heritage from the airline school, I can tell you with confidence that NO FEES were ever charged teachers - and they paid tuition for all our children - one teacher had five and yes, they all went to school for free there. (we did pay a nominal fee for daycare for our infant daughter, the monthly fee was the same as a week would have cost in the US) Good luck.

This question of why so early has been kicked around quite a bit, and it just keeps getting earlier. Teachers at our school who had indicated they "might" return rather than a definitive yes or no in October (yes, that's when people were officially asked the first time, earlier requests were made verbally) faced an interesting dilemma. Prior to announcement of what raise would be next year, "maybes" were called on the carpet in November to ask to commit even though the deadline was early December. Reason? School didn't want anyone deciding on basis of money, apparently. Wonder if the board knows how unconcerned the administrators feels educators should be about money when they negotiate their contracts? Let's just assume a double standard exists here.

Aside from that, have had various conversations with administrators about this tendency to recruit earlier and earlier. Some allow teachers to go to that first fair and then the teachers and the administrators communicate during the fair as to whether or not the opening exists and the person is moving on, or whether the teacher is going to "reclaim" the spot. That at least is fairly humane, not to mention practical. It has to be more economical and efficient to go with a proven performer - no new shipping costs, no initial visa cost, only renewal fees. Less hassle with transition - a win/win situation for everyone, except maybe the school head who has a preconceived notion of how things should work. (If teachers were that rigid in the classroom, how depressing it would be.) A few heads moaned and said they wished they had "the luxury" of doing the same. What was preventing them?

There is an atmosphere of competitiveness in recruiting that is counter to what schools foster in principal - a feeling of community, of caring. Why couldn't the heads of major schools simply choose to step back, to slow down the timetable? Do they honesty believe there wouldn't be candidates? Fear seems to be driving lots of this - fear that some other school will get first look at candidates, fear that you might be missing out.

What's the buzz in overseas education right now? It's all about student learning (as if THAT was a surprise). Competitiveness, extended absences during recruiting season, fear, anxiety on teachers' part: how do any of these add up to improved student learning? And now, rather than have this undesireable situation exist from say Feb. on, it starts in October - when students still have 7 months in the classroom.

Don't know where your info. came from on Bangkok, but know a lot of information to the contrary. Personally know at least 8 experienced, currently employed teachers in international schools, who went away without jobs, and several couples who took jobs they didn't want because of one of several possibilities. a) the jobs which were posted, many which remain posted, at ISS were not available at the fair, nor are they available now b) many schools had hired a share of their positions via personal contacts or Skype prior to fair c) many schools felt no pressure to hire as they were bound to attend several other fairs anyway d) teachers without extensive IB experience could not get an interview at many schools (some administrators, of course, are wise enough to not exclude good people because of this) e) people tended to get frantic and felt like they should walk away with a firm offer after spending thousands of dollars to attend the fair, and in this economy were unwilling to wait. Know several couples who were contemplating places they never thought they'd consider simply because there wasn't anything else and they had family to support, left them making hard decisions. Others turned things down because it wasn't a good fit for them or their family for one reason or another, and now are wondering where to go and what to do.

The atmosphere was VERY different this year than in previous years, people seemed more tense. Ran into a couple in an elevator after they had signed contracts and we were obviously the first people they had seen after doing so. When they told us out loud where they were going, the first time they had spoken the words outside of the room where they had signed, the woman had to be helped to a chair - almost fainted! In short, it was NOT a "teachers' fair" - in spite of what administrators will claim.

What difference does it make to you as a candidate if there are openings for 800 positions and only 350 candidates, but there are only 5-6 openings in your field, and dozens of candidates in your field, and schools won't interview you because of IB or because you're married to the wrong combination?

Of course there were happy faces as well, and perhaps those people who were "wooed" assiduously feel far differently than this - but sure met lots of people, even people who went away with positions, who were not happy with this fair.

Know from experience this process looks far, far more enthralling when you are teaching stateside, long for change, and can attend a fair and flirt with possibility all the while knowing you have a tenured job that you can return to should the perfect job not come up, since you don't have to sign next year's contract until late spring. It's a bit more dire when the contracts had to be back by late November and you're out there without a safety net.

Hi - I don't know much about QSI, but for what it's worth, federal law doesn't mean anything when dealing with international schools. Have you explained to QSI that you NEED to be hired as a foreign hire, including housing, etc.? My current school had hired 'singles' who are in fact connected to military spouses under similar conditions, but they knew the situation thus offered housing, etc. On the other hand, we have been at schools where couples attempt to "double dip" - take actual housing from one spouse and housing allowance from another - this may be what QSI is trying to avoid. Be honest with them going in about all your requirements and situation - that way, if you get the position there are no surprises and if you don't, well, no loss, right?

We have done it both ways - and never again will we go ON VACATION for a month with kids. It's too long, not to mention expensive. In the past, we had the good fortune of having parents with large empty homes - it was easy to move in and not disrupt them too much, in fact we made sure to be a help and leave the house somehow better off than when we arrived - clean something out they meant to get to or do an odd job they'd been putting off. It worked for all.
When their living situations changed and visiting was no longer feasible for lengthy periods, we tried the travel route - ugh. It just gets old. Finally we invested in a place that is wonderful in summer and tolerable in winter - since we don't have the long vacations every year, it just depends on the calendar, when we have the lengthy holiday we go home and survive all cramped into the small cabin. It's still a lot larger than two hotel rooms, and since we're already paying the mortgage, doesn't bite into the budget as much. When vacation is short, then we travel. Funny how even then the kids wish we were back in the cabin - seems more like home.

What Agricola notes is sadly true - the corporatization of our schools has become increasingly apparent. Money is the bottom line, even in the non-profit schools, depending upon their boards. While the benefits of diversifying the teaching staffs at various schools by hiring from many different English speaking countries are certainly unarguable; (our teachers from Austalia, New Zealand, and South Africa add depth and charm to the school) the fact remains that one of their attractions to the administration is their willingness to work for lower wages than Americans and Canadians are used to; this is undeniable. Notice the addition of hiring fairs in locales which serve these populations and their
growing popularity.

The articles in TIE talk about American teachers being unaware of overseas opportunities, that may be so, but when we recently left public school positions to return overseas, most of our stateside colleagues had the same reaction, "why?" Why would be leave better paying jobs (in terms of salary) and home and family for lesser pay. Honestly, had we not originally (years ago) left for other reasons and found out the pleasures of working in an international environment, with both staff and students, we would not have considered it (we actually liked the various public schools we worked in as well as the students). As inflation soars and our salaries fail to compensate, we still wonder frequently why we did it.

One of the TIE articles quotes Cairo school head Monica Greeley, who stated that "what had worked at her school especially in terms of retaining teachers was restructuring the pay scale so that it didn’t take 20 years for teachers to make the money they deserved." That's a commendable idea. Now how about the teachers who HAVE been in the business 20 years or more? If they switch schools, are they put on the same pay step as teachers 20 years their junior with far less education and experience? How many schools honor what those teachers bring to the classroom?

Sadly, what Agricola concludes appears to be true: "What [the overseas education] industry is actually lamenting is the shortage of workers that they can exploit at a lower wage than their education should dictate." Maybe all of those who have allowed this to happen to ourselves should follow his example and go home, or at least to one of the schools where the heads DO get it, and pay their staff as if they are the most valuable resource they have, which they are.

Took poster's advice and downloaded April edition of TIE - enjoyed the effect of the article mentioned regarding difficulties of recruiting featured on the same page with an article about a new charter school opening in New York offering teachers salaries of $125,000 per year, with additional bonuses promised for performance. One suspects that school will have no problem recruiting in spite of the increased duties teachers will assume, which appear to be what most of us do on a regular basis anyway (such as our own discipline.)
Reading the article, one discovers that the principal of this new school will start at a salary of $90,000. A revolutionary idea, actually paying the teacher in the classroom more for doing what most concede is the most important job in education. The school, which is perhaps not surprisingly being started by a teacher--not an administrator--states as its first premise that the teacher is "the determining factor in promoting student learning" and as a second premise, "dramatically higher salaries will attract the most able teachers available."
Reading that article and then the few pieces on the recruiting difficulties faced by overseas administrators when looking for American teachers, the disconnect is apparent. International school adminstrators need to read this article on the NYC school - right to the very last paragraph where it broadens its scope to add that "As is evident today, those wealthier districts with significantly higher salary packages do attract and hold superior teachers..." Likewise, the overseas schools who do the same as these districts have far fewer of the difficulties than those described in the recruitment articles on TIE; one can't help but notice none of the heads at these upper echelon international schools are mentioned or quoted.

Hope you understood the places mentioned have excellent packages - yes, they get lots of applicants, but they are mostly large schools and some - like in China - continue to experience growth. So go for it!

Again, second hand info - but adminstrators at our school and - according to them - neighboring schools - spent the entire time interviewing, made many offers, and got few acceptances. They claim it was the teachers being choosy. (Obviously your colleagues who had little luck would disagree.)
Our school made many offers, received few acceptances. People's combined reluctance to consider locales that weren't on their radar and their unwillingness (for US teachers - as well as teachers coming from top end schools) to take what on paper looks like a large salary cut resulted in this. Yet despite the inflation in the area, the school's package looks nowhere near as good as it did five years ago, while the teacher's workload has increased - both in terms of student load and additional expectations - like just about every educational initiative someone can sell them.
One gets the feeling that the teacher "shortage" will continue to affect certain areas of the world while schools in China, Singapore, Indonesia and eastern Europe will wonder, what shortage?

According to people who were looking to hire at New York - there were 3-4 times as many openings as applicants. Certainly a teacher's market. That being said, some schools walked away only having hired a fraction of their openings. Surveys would have to be taken to determine the reasons for this with any reliability, but for those of us who've been in the circuit awhile, an obvious reason comes to mind: Pay and benefits.
Whereas international school salaries were once typically 1.5 - 2 times stateside salaries (not counting the tax free aspect) in addition to other benefits, now many schools count the tax benefit AND the housing so that they can claim being more attractive than stateside salaries. And the Canadians? Gettng paid in US currency, which so many schools offer, has certainly not been a benefit in recent years. Rather than address the pay question, which most boards are loathe to do, schools have begun to fill positions from markets where the salaries are less than the US in order to fill spots - thus an influx of teachers in American schools overseas that are from Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa.
How long can school boards and directors expect teachers to flood them with applications in markets where the teachers are the ONLY expats from western countries getting paid equal or less than they would at home? In the Middle East, the huge number of expats whose children fill the schools are there because they get such attractive salaries compared to their home countries. Not so for the teachers.
Look at schools which have truly excellent pay packages. They demand high performance from teachers but reimburse them accordingly and they have no difficulty attracting applicants. Many administrators complained about having to compete with Shanghai American School last year for applicants as SAS was hiring so many teachers and offered such attractive pay and benefits. The solution was the directors going back to their boards and demanding to remain competitive. Those that did not had the same complaints this year attracting teachers - oh, but it was the fault of the teacher shortage.

When we taught in Saudi (4 years), we were in possession of our passports AND, at all times, an exit visa. This was the policy of the school which employed us - they declined to be in charge of our lives, they realized that we were. During the first Gulf War, this provided us with perhaps meaningless comfort, in retrospect, as we couldn't have gotten out anyway, but nonetheless we had far fewer bitter feelings about our school during that time than many others at other schools where passports were held. The problem with unforeseen situations is that they are unforeseen; who knows when an emergency might require your immediate flight home? Do you want to trust someone else that they will make this happen if need be?

With your education and experience, I am betting you could get hired both as a foreign hire and as an uncertified teacher, at least that is what you should aim for - certainly a school would love to get you for less money, so don't offer that option. Most international schools have a bit of leeway to hire some uncertified people; every school I've been at (all reputable schools with solid credentials) has had some. I've had colleagues with advanced degrees and NO teaching experience come in and do fantastic jobs because they know their subjects so well and were so creative.
While the big recruiting fairs are over in terms of attending to get hired as overseas hire, there are lots of openings remaining. Our school admin came back from the recruiting trail with jobs still unfilled, even after 6 weeks of recruiting. They spoke of 1200 openings in New York and only 340 candidates interviewing. It's an ideal time to push the envelope and get a school to hire you even without certification. Contact schools directly - offer to visit if they're interested enough and you're close enough for it not to be a huge burden. There are numerous places you can get job listings, such as tieonline.com You can probably work on required coursework as you teach and get your certificate to boot. Best of luck.

Do you understand how retirement programs work? You pay into them - or, when you work at a school system stateside, it pays into one for you. Then, when you retire, you get the benefits which you have earned. If you work in one state, you cannot transfer the benefits from that state to another as the systems are different, you've paid into one and not the other. Overseas schools allow you to pay into a variety of retirement plans and often have generous matching or exceeding contributions - but they have no connections with states' retirement systems, which are systems for public employees, not private schools.