>
> What I’m more vexed by is the arguing that sounds a lot like a “yeah huh”
> and “nuh uh” that I expect I’ll be hearing when I do have school aged
> children.

Point well taken. International education is the least regulated education system out there and there is a good deal of misinformation. Sadly, a great deal of it comes from the person who posts the greatest amount in this forum. As long as you are willing to accept that it's a nuanced process and you vet schools carefully when you apply you should be fine.

PsyGuy wrote:

> No, we disagree mainly because your wrong. I have significantly more
> recruiting experience than it seems you do, since your approach like most
> leadership that want to maintain the mysticism of recruiting in IE.
> Having tools to assist in recruiting instead of this witch doctor who has
> to have some connection to the force to understand or do it. Yes, we
> disagree about how the hiring process works.
>

It's not a matter of mysticism. It's more an understanding that there are many more moving parts in recruiting and hiring than your system allows, as well as qualitative data, and purely subjective opinions.

Your data isn't the only thing that matters, and it's just not possible to reduce hiring (and lots of other things) to a mechanistic view or formula if you want to do so successfully. And if the statement "data is the only thing that matters," then the definition of data needs to be substantially expanded to include non-quantifiable information and allow for uncertainty and extremely wide interpretation - something that your reductive approach doesn't seem to want to allow.

So let's get some data:
1. Do you currently recruit teachers for international schools, or have you done so for at least three years in the past five? (And I mean recruiting on a school/division-wide basis, not just vetting or giving an opinion on a departmental candidate).

2. If the answer to the first question is positive, did you exclusively rely upon your system to hire?

3. If the answer to the second question is positive, how did it work out?

Rarely-->Never

"Right its all magic. They dont need to speak in those terms they just have to come down to those terms.
We disagree."

It's not that we disagree. It's that you are simply wrong here. It rarely comes down to the terms you assert. Since you don't have much/any experience recruiting and since at least one of your hiring fair experiences was not registering but trying to interview on the periphery, I don't think you have a solid understanding of the hiring process.

What's more, I think that repeatedly posting your point system does a strong disservice to those looking for positions if they accept what you say. It's not helpful for candidates, for recruiters and ultimately for students. If you are going to store posts to cut and paste, they should at least be a fair representation of the topic at hand. At the very least, you should include a disclaimer that you are not and have not been an active recruiter. At the best, you would not attempt to speak ex cathedra about something you don't know.

You will likely post something to the effect of "We disagree" to keep your post percentage high, but that in itself is a symptom that what you post here is more driven by a desire to be the most frequent poster rather than someone who is willing to authentically engage in dialogue and is willing to admit that sometimes they don't know. And that's counterproductive, to put it maybe too politely.

As someone who recruits, take the previous poster's points guide to hiring attractiveness with many grains of salt. I don't find it accurate in any way when assessing the fit of a candidate for a position, and I don't know of anyone who hires speaking in the terms that such a points system would indicate. There is only the right candidate for the position.

If you're teaching Algebra I, II and Geometry you'll likely be looking at the medium-large to large end of school size, but that's where a number of the good jobs are.

Having pre-Calc or Calc helps, but if you can show demonstrated enthusiasm and ability in differentiating instruction for somewhat mixed classrooms with the math classes you teach (and can show a strong track record of partnering with learning support) you'll have a significant advantage. Teachers with strong experience and willingness to differentiate tend to move to the front of the line, and math is an area where recruiters especially like to see differentiation skills.

I would say it's possible but not guaranteed, and you'll need to be flexible and do some hard thinking about what will work for you.

As a math teacher you are likely to be in demand if you have strong references although I don't know what kind of math you are best at teaching.

My advice (which will run contrary to several others here so take what I say with a grain of salt) would be to sign up with Search Associates and/or consider to AASSA fair for South America. The advantage to both is access to their databases, although I don't know how extensive the ASSASA database is. With the Search database, schools will state if they hire candidates with non-teaching spouses, some housing information (but not a lot), and if families can get by on one salary. Use the "get by" data and the salary/savings data as guidelines rather than absolute truth. It should make it easier to get a sense of how you stand. I have not heard of a school giving a stipend for non-teaching spouses. Some better/elite schools will try to find a job for a non-teaching spouse but it's best not to depend on that happening. You will also want to look at savings potential in addition to cost of living. It will take some time to sort out the extent to which jobs will or won't work for you.

As for dogs, I've had colleagues with dogs at every international school I've worked at but it's something to ask about, especially if housing is provided by the school. You may also want to think about climate and a German Shepherd. How would one fare in the tropics? I hope some dog owners will chime in.

Also bear in mind that taking a pet overseas can be costly. Meeting quarantine requirements and payments, shipping, and figuring out what to do with a pet during vacation periods are factors you may want to take into consideration early on and as you research schools and countries that look good. If you will be leaving your pet behind during breaks you will want to consider if your pet will be OK without you for 3+ weeks.

It can be done and has been done, but do your financial and logistical homework and think about your dog's best interests. You might also want to consider an earlier job fair (AASSA is one of the earliest) so that if things don't go your way you can still keep your current job. You will likely need to be upfront with your current admin about looking for an international job to get references, but you can also let them know that what you are doing has an element of being exploratory since there are a number of factors to take into account with your search.

Yes. There is usually a native speaker in human resources or another administrative office who will be willing to do so. Give them a thank you gift. :-)

No your just wrong.

No your wrong its pretentious.

I'm also not fully sure that the acronyms you refer to in this forum are true technical language. They may save time typing and make someone look like they may know something, but I nevertheless find them pretentious in an open forum context.

"Essential perquisite" strikes me as an oxymoron. I believe you need to turn off auto-suggest.

No stats. Just observation. I find the jargon-heavy to be similar to Wilde's definition of a cynic: Someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. Similar to the way I feel you, based on your post history, approach what you do in that your nominal job is being a teacher but your profession is being cynical about education. Although I've come to doubt that you actually are a currently practicing teacher.

I'm wary of acronym and abbreviation overload. I find a correlation between those who need to rely on technical jargon and lack of actual expertise.

Really well said. Thanks for the elaboration.