All of my jobs at international schools were pretty last minute. Don't have one yet this year either, but I'm in contact with two European schools at the moment. Keep trying - the game isn't over yet!

A colleague of mine did that last year. After two weeks or so. The directors were pretty put out because of all the hassle and money that had gone into visa, apartment etc, but from what I heard, the only thing they wanted back from him was the cell phone he had gotten from the school.

Generally speaking, I don't think I have the expertise to advise you as to what to do, but if at all possible, try to leave with their consent instead of just running off. It makes it easier on you in the long run.

Wishing you all the best!

Quote:

"These are two extremes. I wouldn't want either for my child.

As an IB teacher, I dislike the straw man argument that other systems are all teacher-led, rigid, spoon feeding environments. This view implies an air of superiority and arrogance that doesn't sit well, and surely can't reflect the ideals of the learner profile."

Don't worry, I wouldn't want either of these extremes for my (non-existing ;-) child either. I was using the extremes only to illustrate that different styles suit different children. And I certainly wasn't referring specifically to the UK curriculum - which I've never even taught! Although that misunderstanding was easy to come up indeed, since this thread was about the UK curriculum and the IB. My fault not to make that clearer!

I agree with you on the second part. There are lots of wonderful and creative pedagogical styles out there, and even inquiry based learning isn't limited to the IB. And many 'regular' public schools have incorporated these other styles into their program, leaving teacher-led, rigid, spoon feeding lessons to a minimum.
In fact, the argument I was trying to make was that although the PYP is the best way of teaching *for me* at the moment, that doesn't mean it is *the best* way there is - period. :-)

Well, there's always their website:

http://www.swissinternationalschool.de/?sc_lang=en-GB

I've applied with them, too, a few times. No luck so far.

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a curriculum or teaching style that suits *every* student. There are students who thrive in a 'rigid', teacher-led education, and students who thrive in an environment where it's totally up to themselves what and how they want to learn. In an ideal world, teachers should teach the way that suits *them* best, while only having students for whom that particular learning style is the best way to learn. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that...

I've taught both in regular national schools in two countries in Europe, and I've taught PYP. Plus I have a healthy interest in other teaching styles (like Reggio Emilia and Waldorf). In every class I've taught I've seen students who I expect would do far better in a different learning environment.

For me, the PYP is pretty much the ideal way to teach (and don't worry: coming from a rather conventional school background, I consider reading, writing and maths (even rote learning) of paramount importance, because without those, your inquiry falls pretty flat!). At least it's the best way for me that I'm aware of at the moment. But I can easily imagine that this is not the case for every teacher. Like the students, some teachers thrive in a structured setting, others in a free setting. And I think each of us knows almost by intuition where on that scale we stand. The trouble is to find the school that suits our preferred teaching practice...

(This is not meant as criticism on the MYP teachers mentioned above btw - it's just a reflection :-)

Good on you! Hope to follow your example soon ;-)

I have no experience with the UK curriculum per se, but the IB - yes, I'm one of those who love it. My experience is mostly from the PYP, but if you want to get into it, taking an IB course corresponding with your areas of teaching will be a great plus on your CV. At least that's what they *say*.

The courses aren't exactly cheap, but you really learn a lot. I did the online course of Making the PYP Happen in the Classroom last year. Online course is about half the price of the course on location (to which you have to add hotel and travel costs). It does have its drawbacks meeting your course leaders and fellow students only online, but on the upside: we got to finish all our assignments. Whereas I've been told that in those residential courses, most assignments are cut off before they are completed, in order to move on to the next topic for reasons of time management. So there you get a lot of incomplete training.

See http://www.ibo.org for info! Or if you want to know more about how the online courses run in practice, let me know :-)

Quote:
"Honestly, as an experienced international teacher, Joyjobs is the LAST place I look for jobs, because the schools I want to teach at would never in a hundred years advertise there. Some might argue that I am missing out on great opportunities; however, "Thanks, but no thanks."
If you want to really go international, get your teacher certification, then join TIEonline. Go to the UNI fair, or the Queens fair or the CIS fair. Then, after doing your two years, join Search Associates, or ISS (international school services)."

Um... this may sound awfully ignorant, but what's the difference between one website collecting job ads and another? What makes TIEonline (which I had never heard of until I came here last week) so much better than Joyjobs or TES?

Answering everyone in one message here :-)

Shadowjack:
As I mentioned, I can understand the reasoning of such 'national international schools', and I can accept their logic. Although I wouldn't say nationality is quite an assurance when it comes to the applicant having 'gone through the system' himself. His parents could have been missionaries, and he could have grown up in the jungle of Africa! CVs usually don't go *that* far back, do they.

For the rest you seem to give a nice account of how the schools and the recruiters in question might think, but it doesn't change the fact that they're *presuming* an awful lot, based on nothing but plain prejudice. Just because the average Anglosaxon has trouble becoming truly fluent in another language (probably first and foremost because there is no real need for them to do so) doesn't mean those of other linguistic backgrounds have the same problem by definition. If we want to participate internationally, being fluent in English is a *must*. We have *reason* to learn English to perfection, both professionally and colloquially - that makes one hell of a difference.

As for where I'm applying - so far only to those schools that *don't* require their teachers to be native speakers, but reading Sid's comments, I might just become bold and broaden my field. :-) (Thanks for the tip!)

Trojan:
Being of a general honest nature, it had never even entered my mind to do that, but it sure is tempting! I admit my brain was immediately conjuring up a cover story which would explain my having grown up bilingually. However, I know I'm a very bad liar and I'm not so sure I could keep up that charade all through my years of employment at a school. But perhaps I can keep it in store as a last resource...
Fortunately for me, I doubt it has anything to do with looks though. White skin, brown hair, blue eyes? Nah... That shouldn't be a problem. Besides, if that was what they were judging their applicants on, I don't think I'd want to work for that school!

Sid:
Thanks for the heads-up! :-)
The problem does exist indeed. In the past few weeks only, I've come across at least a dozen ads stating this requirement. And all from European non-national international schools. Actually, I'm considering taking it up with the IB, for as I said, this Anglosaxon bias really doesn't correspond with their philosophy. (Unless I totally misinterpret their philosophy, but I don't think my English skills are bad enough to be *that* far off...)

I wouldn't know about the payment, but at least on Joyjobs I regularly see ads for ESL teachers at international schools.

IMO, it's always a good idea to have more than one iron in the fire - like your learning support and educational psychology. The more you have to offer, the more likely it'll be that a school would be interested in hiring you.

Speaking the language of the country might or might not be seen as an advantage, I think. But to be as open as possible about where you want to go, that'd be a problem anyway. Tying yourself down to one country or one L1 is never a good idea...

Thanks for the heads-up! I'm doing that for the first time this year. So far no positive replies yet, but we'll keep it up!

I've been wondering about this lately: how international are international schools *really*?

As a non-native speaking teacher, I confess I get a bit frustrated sometimes. There are lots of interesting international schools hiring here in Europe, but many of them put up one damning requirement: you have to be a native English speaker in order to apply.

Now I have my CPE, I've lived, studied and worked both in the UK and in the US and I'm absolutely fluent in the language both in written and in oral form, with but a minor, apparently rather indeterminable accent. In fact, I *think* in English. And apart from that, I've got all kinds of goodies on my CV that tend to be high up on the list of desirable or required skills, experiences and qualifications.
So why won't they at least give me a chance to present myself?

I can understand and accept that British schools prefer to hire British teachers and American schools prefer to hire American teachers etc. But why should international schools limit themselves to native English speakers only? How does that reflect on their internationality?

Schools' websites often proudly announce that their school has a student body representing (say) 30 different nationalities and 25 languages. Well, that's very interesting, but that's hardly the school's own merit. It just depends on who happened to move to the area. If you really want to advertize your school's internationality, let me know how many nationalities and languages are represented in your teaching staff! If they're all native English speakers, you might as well call yourself an Anglosaxon school, because it's not just the language, it's also the school's culture and teaching approach that are affected by the teachers' cultural background.

Besides, what message does it convey if you *only* want native English speakers as teachers in your school?
First of all, apparently you seem to think that anyone who is not a native English speaker is unworthy to teach at your school. Native English speakers apparently are automatically seen as superior. But if we have superior teachers based on their nationality/native language, then we also have *inferior* ones. So much for the laws against discrimination based on nationality...

Secondly, most of the students in international schools tend to be non-native English speakers. And no matter what fancy international education they will receive at your school and elsewhere, by definition they'll never, ever become native English speakers. In other words, they'll always remain *inferior* (see above) to the native English speakers. Wow, that's a great message for the parents, isn't it...

Instead, if both native and fluent non-native English speakers are employed side by side as equals in an international school, students and parents can see that even if you're a non-native, you can achieve the same as native English speakers. Isn't that far more inspiring?

Okay, so we non-natives might (might!!) lack a *real* American/British/Australian whatever accent. But apart from it being preposterous to simply presume so, I also wonder why a slight non-Anglosaxon accent would be considered worse than for example a Texan drawl.
And besides, students hardly ever keep the same teacher all through their entire school career. They're bound to encounter a different accent in their teacher's speech every year. So what's so bad about including a few non-Anglosaxon accents in that? Why should the whole world need to learn that specific Anglosaxon accent? And *which* Anglosaxon accent in that case? They vary widely!

The most grating example of this narrow-mindedness IMO is when IB schools will only accept applications from native English speakers. That doesn't quite go with their much valued Learner Profile and its component of open-mindedness, does it? An IB *World* school? Forget it - those are IB Anglosaxon schools... (Not all of them, mind you - far from it. There are lots with a real international teaching staff. But there are also too many that insist on having native English speakers for their teachers. I even came across an IB school the other day of whom I know the director - he's a former colleague of mine. I recall for a fact that he was no native English speaker; he is a national of the country in which we worked together. And now he's inviting applications for teachers for his school - but only native English speakers need apply. That's what I call hypocrisy...)

So what should I do? You think it would work if I moved to for example Australia and get Australian citizenship? Lots of my countrymen moved there after the war, so my last name wouldn't be all that odd coming from there. And then 'englishize' my first name a bit... I know it'd be rather impossible to try it as an experiment, but it'd be interesting to see whether in that case these Anglosaxon 'international' schools suddenly *would* accept my application...