My husband has an interview tomorrow with a school that has no accreditation. Besides that, several of the teachers there appear to be unlicensed (though there are several that have a Masters of Education). It's a new school, just established last year. My question is how much does that matter in terms of the bigger picture for someone looking to teach internationally for many years?
Everything else that we've seen about the school is positive. The administration cares, and the teachers are happy. We love the location, and the salary is in line. Are these valid concerns or not? Is it common for a new school to not have accreditation yet? And to have unlicensed teachers? This would be his first position in an international school.
Accreditation
You don't say how new the school is, but I would be very wary of a school that is not accredited and which employs credentialed teachers. However, it may be a way to get your foot in the door if you plan to make a career of international education. I would plan to move on if, at the end of your contract these issues have not been addressed.
-
overseasvet2
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:50 pm
non-accredited schools
If you're from the States, check with the state where you received your teaching license. Some won't renew it unless you prove you've been working at an accredited school.
If that is not a problem, I'd be asking the head what the plan is for the accreditation. Lots of overseas schools don't have non-certificated teachers in every classroom but it depends on if this is a habit or simply done out of need. A teaching certificate alone does not make a good teacher.
If that is not a problem, I'd be asking the head what the plan is for the accreditation. Lots of overseas schools don't have non-certificated teachers in every classroom but it depends on if this is a habit or simply done out of need. A teaching certificate alone does not make a good teacher.
Issues
Where is the school located and are they planing on getting accredited?
Its a bit of a long term moot point, because I cant imagine a school lasting long that wasnt accredited by anyone. I would find it impossible to believe that at the very minimum, they didnt have some form of local/government accreditation. So what im thinking maybe they are just so new, that they arent really very far on their accreditation plans.
I would be wary of any fly by night school that just set up some classrooms, filled them with students and put a warm body in the room as a teacher. The problem with that is that at some point the accrediting bodies are going to make the lack of qualified teachers a reason to withhold, or non renew a schools accreditation.
That said there are some strong bennifits of a new school or a school working towards accreditation, and for me those two things come down to 1) Resources, and 2) Energy.
Schools that are working towards accreditation tend to spend a lot of money getting their classrooms and schools up to standards. Which means your very likely to have lot of new and helpful stuff. New textbooks, new manipulatives, and new technology (to name a few).
You are also very likely to experience a lot of energy, people (like admins) wont have the school set on auto pilot yet. They will be responsive, and attentive to student needs, because they are working to build a positive reputation which is so important for a school in the beginning and formative stages of its growth.
The only time Ive ever worked with a school that had no real intention of getting accredited, is when an established school is exploring possible expansion, and they dont know if the longevity of the school can be sustained. Accreditation can be expensive, and in this situation the school is really an experimental school that if its successful will just be absorbed into its parents school (and that schools accreditation), so seeking independent accreditation is just an unneeded expense.
Its a bit of a long term moot point, because I cant imagine a school lasting long that wasnt accredited by anyone. I would find it impossible to believe that at the very minimum, they didnt have some form of local/government accreditation. So what im thinking maybe they are just so new, that they arent really very far on their accreditation plans.
I would be wary of any fly by night school that just set up some classrooms, filled them with students and put a warm body in the room as a teacher. The problem with that is that at some point the accrediting bodies are going to make the lack of qualified teachers a reason to withhold, or non renew a schools accreditation.
That said there are some strong bennifits of a new school or a school working towards accreditation, and for me those two things come down to 1) Resources, and 2) Energy.
Schools that are working towards accreditation tend to spend a lot of money getting their classrooms and schools up to standards. Which means your very likely to have lot of new and helpful stuff. New textbooks, new manipulatives, and new technology (to name a few).
You are also very likely to experience a lot of energy, people (like admins) wont have the school set on auto pilot yet. They will be responsive, and attentive to student needs, because they are working to build a positive reputation which is so important for a school in the beginning and formative stages of its growth.
The only time Ive ever worked with a school that had no real intention of getting accredited, is when an established school is exploring possible expansion, and they dont know if the longevity of the school can be sustained. Accreditation can be expensive, and in this situation the school is really an experimental school that if its successful will just be absorbed into its parents school (and that schools accreditation), so seeking independent accreditation is just an unneeded expense.
Vietnam
The school is in Saigon. After doing some digging I discovered this: SNA is an approved candidate for accreditation by WASC and is registered by CASCU Consortium of American Schools, Colleges and Universities and by the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training. It was established in 2006, but moved to a new building last year. (And by digging, I'll admit I couldn't see that on the bottom of my netbook screen the first time because of the small print. oops!)
They still have unlicensed teachers, though, and there were some red flags at the school presentation yesterday. It sounded like new hires pay for a plane ticket over there and they reimburse half, holding the other half until the end of the first year. Health care was a question, but the bigger thing was contact days. Summer break sounded like it was only a week or two and per the calender on their website they do have summer school. We'll just have to wait for the interview later today to clear things up, I guess.
They still have unlicensed teachers, though, and there were some red flags at the school presentation yesterday. It sounded like new hires pay for a plane ticket over there and they reimburse half, holding the other half until the end of the first year. Health care was a question, but the bigger thing was contact days. Summer break sounded like it was only a week or two and per the calender on their website they do have summer school. We'll just have to wait for the interview later today to clear things up, I guess.
-
lightstays
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 9:07 am
- Location: Americas
Re: Vietnam
I agree with your assessment that Saigon would be a great place to live. You are seeing some red flags though. You are right in not ignoring them. My sense is that this school is showing that it wants to have financial leverage on it's employees. This is a relational issue that will probably continue to put you in an uncomfortable place for at least a year. Also the summer break thing really sucks. I doubt that they are paying competitively enough to legitimately ask their employees to do that. To me, the whole thing feels like it is exploitative.
I don't know what situation you are in. Personally, before international teaching things were going very well for me in the States, but I knew in my heart that I needed to work in an international setting. I would have taken almost any reasonable opportunity to be overseas. Hey, some of us thrive in adversity, to the extent that we play victim roles and can be exploited by narcissists, but I won't get into that. Two years goes by quickly. Make the choice that will be best for you.
I don't know what situation you are in. Personally, before international teaching things were going very well for me in the States, but I knew in my heart that I needed to work in an international setting. I would have taken almost any reasonable opportunity to be overseas. Hey, some of us thrive in adversity, to the extent that we play victim roles and can be exploited by narcissists, but I won't get into that. Two years goes by quickly. Make the choice that will be best for you.
Problems
They have problems, with that kind of package. They need to keep their teachers their for some reason. Sounds like its a lot of work, and they are going to be cheap with resources. I take it you saw this presentation at the SF fair? They are a third tier school, you can do better. Id only consider it if you were truly desperate, or you had some specific reason for going there.
After looking at the total package for that school, we decided to pass. It's tempting to accept an offer, any offer, when it''s been a difficult hiring year and we're so motivated to go overseas.
However, we are pretty far along in the interview process for two schools in China now and the accreditation issue has come up again. Really, it's more of a question this time. Is there any kind of standard accreditation that a non-IB international school should have?
Both schools have local accreditation and one has IGCSE. Should we be looking for something more, or does it matter? We are happy with the locations of both schools, and feel comfortable with the schools themselves.
However, we are pretty far along in the interview process for two schools in China now and the accreditation issue has come up again. Really, it's more of a question this time. Is there any kind of standard accreditation that a non-IB international school should have?
Both schools have local accreditation and one has IGCSE. Should we be looking for something more, or does it matter? We are happy with the locations of both schools, and feel comfortable with the schools themselves.
Many non-IB schools are accredited with WASC or CIS, and I'd say both are fine. When you say "locally accredited" in China, that sends up red flags for me. As far as I know, there are no international schools which are only locally accredited. I worked for one which was government run, but still had WASC accreditation. I have also worked for locally accredited schools, but these were nowhere near true international schools.
Review
IGCSE isnt an accreditation its a curriculum. Students "study" subjects and then take an exam administered and managed by the University of Cambridge. If you score a C or above on 7 exams, Cambridge awards you a International Certificate of Education. All of that happens through Cambridges accreditation, and their test centers. The two (education and examination) are two distinct systems and processes.
When it comes to accreditation there are 4 types of accreditation:
1) Local Accreditation: Is by the local government and its ministry of education. Its what makes the school legal in the host country and typically provides a diploma or certificate after completing the state mandated curriculum. Its typically the lowest level of accreditation.
2) Religious Accreditation: There are a number of accrediting bodies for various religions (catholic, jewish, islam) and includes Montessori schools.
3) National Accreditation: These are the agencies that are responsible for accrediting schools in typically western cultures, and the most common are:
A) The regional associations (WASC, SACS, NWAC, MSA, NEASC, NCA) in the USA.
B) COBIS (Council of British International Schools) GCSE or other 6th form credential from the UK.
C) Canada, and Australia.
These are the most common, but other schools that serve a predominate language speaking population are likely to be accredited by the host schools government (such a s a French school, or Korean school). These arent talked about as much, because a usual requirement is being able to teach in the native language of these schools.
4) International Accreditation: These are external organizations that offer a curriculum and accreditation, the most common that you will see are:
IB (International Baccalaureate)
IGCSE/CIS (Cambridge/Council of International Schools) GAC (AES, ACT Education Solution, New South Wales College).
The IGCSE/CIS relationship needs a bit of explaining. The IGCSE is an examination program that leads to a credential (ICE), it is solely a curriculum. CIS or Council of International Schools is an accrediting organization, but they dont have a curriculum or credential associated with their organization. They accredit a school against its own philosophies (mission and vision statements) goals, objectives, etc. Basically, each organization provides half of a program, so you see a lot of schools that offer the IGCSE as having CIS accreditation.
The GAC (Global Assessment Certificate) is kind of hybrid between the IB Diploma program, and Advanced Placement (AP) program. Schools follow the GAC curriculum, and are accredited on the basis of following that curriculum, but the school conducts its own student assessment and issues its own diploma and transcripts (though may use GAC logos, etc). This in addition to the ACT (college admission test) serve as a graduation credential. The benefits of the program are that it can be completed in a single year, and allows for instruction in languages other then english. It is not very popular at real international schools, but is becoming more common in private schools that serve a local student population (primarily in asia).
So to answer your question, an international school should be accredited by (1-4 are the most common):
1) IBO (IB Diploma)
2) CIS (IGCSE Certificate)
3) USA Regional Accreditation: WASC, SACS, NWAC, MSA, NEASC, NCA ("American" Diploma)
4) COBIS (offering a GCSE or other 6th form program)
5) Canadian Provincial Accreditation (Canadian diploma)
6) Australian Territory Accreditation (Australian diploma)
7) Religion Affiliated Accreditation (Diploma)
8) A National Ministry Accreditation, which may just be the local government (Certificate or Diploma).
When it comes to accreditation there are 4 types of accreditation:
1) Local Accreditation: Is by the local government and its ministry of education. Its what makes the school legal in the host country and typically provides a diploma or certificate after completing the state mandated curriculum. Its typically the lowest level of accreditation.
2) Religious Accreditation: There are a number of accrediting bodies for various religions (catholic, jewish, islam) and includes Montessori schools.
3) National Accreditation: These are the agencies that are responsible for accrediting schools in typically western cultures, and the most common are:
A) The regional associations (WASC, SACS, NWAC, MSA, NEASC, NCA) in the USA.
B) COBIS (Council of British International Schools) GCSE or other 6th form credential from the UK.
C) Canada, and Australia.
These are the most common, but other schools that serve a predominate language speaking population are likely to be accredited by the host schools government (such a s a French school, or Korean school). These arent talked about as much, because a usual requirement is being able to teach in the native language of these schools.
4) International Accreditation: These are external organizations that offer a curriculum and accreditation, the most common that you will see are:
IB (International Baccalaureate)
IGCSE/CIS (Cambridge/Council of International Schools) GAC (AES, ACT Education Solution, New South Wales College).
The IGCSE/CIS relationship needs a bit of explaining. The IGCSE is an examination program that leads to a credential (ICE), it is solely a curriculum. CIS or Council of International Schools is an accrediting organization, but they dont have a curriculum or credential associated with their organization. They accredit a school against its own philosophies (mission and vision statements) goals, objectives, etc. Basically, each organization provides half of a program, so you see a lot of schools that offer the IGCSE as having CIS accreditation.
The GAC (Global Assessment Certificate) is kind of hybrid between the IB Diploma program, and Advanced Placement (AP) program. Schools follow the GAC curriculum, and are accredited on the basis of following that curriculum, but the school conducts its own student assessment and issues its own diploma and transcripts (though may use GAC logos, etc). This in addition to the ACT (college admission test) serve as a graduation credential. The benefits of the program are that it can be completed in a single year, and allows for instruction in languages other then english. It is not very popular at real international schools, but is becoming more common in private schools that serve a local student population (primarily in asia).
So to answer your question, an international school should be accredited by (1-4 are the most common):
1) IBO (IB Diploma)
2) CIS (IGCSE Certificate)
3) USA Regional Accreditation: WASC, SACS, NWAC, MSA, NEASC, NCA ("American" Diploma)
4) COBIS (offering a GCSE or other 6th form program)
5) Canadian Provincial Accreditation (Canadian diploma)
6) Australian Territory Accreditation (Australian diploma)
7) Religion Affiliated Accreditation (Diploma)
8) A National Ministry Accreditation, which may just be the local government (Certificate or Diploma).
Accreditation
Please be careful about this misinformation from Mr Psy. There is NO connection, relationship, understanding or anything else between CIS and IGCSE. The latter is the international version of the UK GCSE. It doesn't accredit schools - it authorizes them to teach their program and assess students using its examinations. The IB is exactly the same - it has no accrediting role. It authorizes schools to use the PYP, MYP or IBD - or all three.
CIS, meanwhile, is a longstanding player in the world of Accreditation and is the only international arbiter of school performance. WASC, NEASC, MSA et al are domestic US accrediting agencies with relatively small international divisions. You will often see schools hat have joint accreditation CIS/WASC, CIS/NEASC etc. In such cases, the dominant player is CIS whose protocol is used. (In fact, NEASC claims co-authorship of the CIS protocol, but all the work is done by CIS.)
Another useful gauge of how good a school may be is to look whether it is a member of a regional association: ECIS or CEESA or EARCOS for example. Such organizations have their own filter to eliminate less than worthy schools. However, be careful. Unscrupulous schools have been known to claim all kinds of associations and memberships on their websites.
CIS, meanwhile, is a longstanding player in the world of Accreditation and is the only international arbiter of school performance. WASC, NEASC, MSA et al are domestic US accrediting agencies with relatively small international divisions. You will often see schools hat have joint accreditation CIS/WASC, CIS/NEASC etc. In such cases, the dominant player is CIS whose protocol is used. (In fact, NEASC claims co-authorship of the CIS protocol, but all the work is done by CIS.)
Another useful gauge of how good a school may be is to look whether it is a member of a regional association: ECIS or CEESA or EARCOS for example. Such organizations have their own filter to eliminate less than worthy schools. However, be careful. Unscrupulous schools have been known to claim all kinds of associations and memberships on their websites.
Uhm No
Walter doesnt read very well, and is very misinformed. The IBO accredits its own schools, its own curriculum, and its own diploma. They accredit THEIR program and diploma, just like every ministry and board of education accredits their nations curriculum and diplomas/certificates. He uses the term "authorizes" as if it means something different then accredited, but it doesnt. An authorized IB school/program is accredited by the IB, and in the case of a schools diploma program it means their curriculum is accredited to meet the requirements expected for a student to pass the IB diploma exam.
The difference between "accredited" and "authorized" are matters of degree. Authorized is used to describe an accredited program that offer a credential, the accreditation is wholly a component of the authorization. Accredited is used by programs that dont offer a credential, but monitor the use/implementation of a programs curriculum (curriculum would include curriculum based standards/objectives/guidelines).
CIS is not a player, they just say they are. CIS accredits a school against the schools own standards. They arent an arbitrator of anything (especially performance). All they do is certify that a school is doing what is says it does. There are no outside standards or requirements mandated. Their is no prescribed curriculum. CIS doesnt evaluate school performance, because they have nothing to evaluate it against. CIS doesnt have an assessment or credential.
Whatever roles regardless of how small they might be (and they aren't), CIS is certainly not the dominate player. CIS is used primarily by IGCSE and other schools offering a national curriculum as an accreditation "rubber stamp". The basic recipe goes like this:
Acme school wants to offer a IGCSE program, so they write up their curriculum documents, educational philosophy, mission and vision statements. Then they contract with CIS to certify (accredit) that they are actually teaching a IGCSE curriculum. CIS is little more then an external auditor.
Since he brought it up, The University of Cambridge doesnt even authorize schools for the IGCSE (its a voluntary consultation only process). The IGCSE program is an examination only program. Much like the IB, or AP examinations, except its an exam only process. Students take the examinations at authorized examination centers.
Regional affiliations (with only a very few exceptions) are nothing more then clubs. The only thing they demonstrate is that a school can afford to pay the membership fees, and the only thing they really provide is a copy of their newsletter.
The difference between "accredited" and "authorized" are matters of degree. Authorized is used to describe an accredited program that offer a credential, the accreditation is wholly a component of the authorization. Accredited is used by programs that dont offer a credential, but monitor the use/implementation of a programs curriculum (curriculum would include curriculum based standards/objectives/guidelines).
CIS is not a player, they just say they are. CIS accredits a school against the schools own standards. They arent an arbitrator of anything (especially performance). All they do is certify that a school is doing what is says it does. There are no outside standards or requirements mandated. Their is no prescribed curriculum. CIS doesnt evaluate school performance, because they have nothing to evaluate it against. CIS doesnt have an assessment or credential.
Whatever roles regardless of how small they might be (and they aren't), CIS is certainly not the dominate player. CIS is used primarily by IGCSE and other schools offering a national curriculum as an accreditation "rubber stamp". The basic recipe goes like this:
Acme school wants to offer a IGCSE program, so they write up their curriculum documents, educational philosophy, mission and vision statements. Then they contract with CIS to certify (accredit) that they are actually teaching a IGCSE curriculum. CIS is little more then an external auditor.
Since he brought it up, The University of Cambridge doesnt even authorize schools for the IGCSE (its a voluntary consultation only process). The IGCSE program is an examination only program. Much like the IB, or AP examinations, except its an exam only process. Students take the examinations at authorized examination centers.
Regional affiliations (with only a very few exceptions) are nothing more then clubs. The only thing they demonstrate is that a school can afford to pay the membership fees, and the only thing they really provide is a copy of their newsletter.
Oh dear
Mr Psy made it clear in January that he didn't understand how recruitment worked. Now he's shown us that he doesn't understand how accreditation works. Obviously he hasn't been on an accreditation team - hardly surprising given the level of ignorance he displays about the process. The notion that there are no outside standards or requirements is ludicrous and the idea that process is simply a rubber-stamping exercise is even more stupid. Take a look at the accreditation protocol for CIS before you witter on next time.
And please don't perpetuate the silly story - with your Acme School non-example - that CIS accreditation has some kind of tie-in with IGCSE. Many more CIS-accredited schools offer IB than they do IGCSE. Why do IB schools need the accreditation? Because accreditation is a path to school improvement; because just by offering the IB does not mean that you are an accredited school.
And please don't perpetuate the silly story - with your Acme School non-example - that CIS accreditation has some kind of tie-in with IGCSE. Many more CIS-accredited schools offer IB than they do IGCSE. Why do IB schools need the accreditation? Because accreditation is a path to school improvement; because just by offering the IB does not mean that you are an accredited school.