Is it true recruiters view previous experience at QSI schools negatively?
I'm considering a QSI school, but several people have told me they were told at fairs (by QSI teachers) that recruiters were refusing to interview teachers who were applying from QSI schools.
I don't want to take a post that will limit my chances to move on and up later in my career. Does anyone have any firsthand experience of this, or know colleagues who moved on from QSI?
Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
-
shopaholic
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:42 pm
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
I'm a recruiter and I take a dim view of QSI. I would consider your CV in its entirety before deciding, but QSI definitely won't help you get an interview or a job.
-
shopaholic
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:42 pm
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
Thanks, Sid.
So basically, a stint at a QSI school would harm my chances of moving on later... This is good to know...
So basically, a stint at a QSI school would harm my chances of moving on later... This is good to know...
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
Any job is better than no job, but yes. At best a short stint at QSI would be a neutral thing on your CV.
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
I moved from a QSI school to a top tier Asian School as did 5 of my current colleagues, though from different QSI schools. I think its your body of work that attracts attention, and sure if you spend years at QSI that might say something about you. However, a contract or two at a QSI school is not going to doom your international teaching career especially if you take advantage of working in a smaller school and take on responsibilities you might not have the opportunity to tackle in a larger school.
Depending on the school's location I wouldn't immediately turn my nose up at working for QSI, and if you have family and multiple dependents it might work out well for you.
Depending on the school's location I wouldn't immediately turn my nose up at working for QSI, and if you have family and multiple dependents it might work out well for you.
-
shopaholic
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:42 pm
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
Sid, what if the QSI school will give me IB experience? Would working for QSI school for 3 or 4 years teaching IB still be undesirable? I'm not teaching IB at my current school, so initially thought the QSI school would be better, but I want to be very careful because I am ambitious about the future...
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
I don't agree with Sid (and I usually do) about his characterization of QSI curriculum being teacher center and lots of testing. I was an educator in the states for a long time and I felt we tested the student to excess, QSI has been so much better for me in this area. I can assess students however I want, using multiple measures. I can asses using projects, reports, collaborations, really anything. I appreciate being able to determine what type of assessments are best suited for each unit of study and/or for each student. I find the curriculum pretty rigorous, but not really teacher centered, more as teacher as a facilitator of student learning. I have colleagues that have moved on from QSI and are happy at their new places and colleagues who left and came back. I am going on my 4th QSI school and almost everyone I have worked with at every school has been experienced, certified, and a lot have MA degrees too. QSI has worked for us, so I wouldn't discourage you from taking a position with QSI.
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
I worked at a QSI school for a few years then moved back to the states. It was my first international teaching job. I just accepted a position back overseas. (I'm guessing it only helped me in that I wasn't screened out of jobs that required overseas experience) One thing I noticed when I came back to the states was that I wasn't up to date with trends in education. Part of the reason was that QSI does all of its PD in house from other educators. A lot of the PD revolved around Mastery learning and no one uses that anywhere else so I'm guessing Sid and other recruiters aren't that impressed with any PD you get at QSI. I had a few friends/colleagues get into better school after QSI because they were either overqualified in the first place or had a plan to make their resume look better while at QSI. For example, getting another certification or a masters. If you're using QSI as a springboard to a better international school I would highly recommend having a plan to improve as an Educator that does not rely on QSI. The good news is that QSI will not work you to death so you will have time to work on this.
As far as the curriculum goes I noticed that what QSI does to create curriculum isn't exactly best practices. They have a bunch of teachers go out to Seattle for a conference and work together to create the curriculum. (These are volunteers who get a few perks in order for their volunteer service) It essentially boils down to this: QSI picks a textbook series it likes. It then almost literally copies and pastes the textbook objectives for their unit objectives. For example, Chapter I of a third grade math textbook will list several chapter objectives. If you go to Unit I of the 3rd grade math curriculum at QSI it will list those same objectives with maybe one or two differences. Now QSI will tell you that you can teach those objectives in any way you want as long as you teach those objectives and that is true. But since the objectives match the textbook almost exactly you can sense what ends up happening in most teachers classrooms to a certain extent.
Another problem is QSI has no problem having people teach outside of their certification area. For example we had a guy who taught 10 years of SPED in the states and they had him teaching third grade. I'm not alone in this but its pretty common knowledge that at QSI if you have a teaching license of any kind you are eligible to teach ELL. So for yourself, I would make sure they're not having you teach outside of your certification area. If you're a history teacher I'm sure a recruiter will be a bit confused as to why you taught PE or 5th grade ELL at QSI.
I think it also depends on what level you teach. Since QSI is a mastery level program by middle and high school kids learn to game the system and just keep retaking quizzes and tests to get a higher grade. Now we can argue how often that happens but the perception is definitely out there and I'm sure recruiters are aware of it. It's not really an issue in the elementary level.
The perception I received was that either recruiters took the view you worked at QSI so no your damaged goods or you worked at QSI and if you could survive there you'll be fine at our school.
In general you'll find three types of teachers at QSI
1. The family who has more that 2 kids and stays with QSI because QSI will accept bigger families when most schools won't.
2. People who hate and/or are reluctant to go to job fairs and will transfer around to other QSI schools. For some reason when I was there several teachers also went to Saudi Arabia. It was so many that we started referring to it as the QSI/Saudi Pipeline. These teachers did this because they were reluctant to go to a hiring fair
3. Newbies such as yourself who get a few years experience and then, hopefully, move on bigger better things.
As far as the curriculum goes I noticed that what QSI does to create curriculum isn't exactly best practices. They have a bunch of teachers go out to Seattle for a conference and work together to create the curriculum. (These are volunteers who get a few perks in order for their volunteer service) It essentially boils down to this: QSI picks a textbook series it likes. It then almost literally copies and pastes the textbook objectives for their unit objectives. For example, Chapter I of a third grade math textbook will list several chapter objectives. If you go to Unit I of the 3rd grade math curriculum at QSI it will list those same objectives with maybe one or two differences. Now QSI will tell you that you can teach those objectives in any way you want as long as you teach those objectives and that is true. But since the objectives match the textbook almost exactly you can sense what ends up happening in most teachers classrooms to a certain extent.
Another problem is QSI has no problem having people teach outside of their certification area. For example we had a guy who taught 10 years of SPED in the states and they had him teaching third grade. I'm not alone in this but its pretty common knowledge that at QSI if you have a teaching license of any kind you are eligible to teach ELL. So for yourself, I would make sure they're not having you teach outside of your certification area. If you're a history teacher I'm sure a recruiter will be a bit confused as to why you taught PE or 5th grade ELL at QSI.
I think it also depends on what level you teach. Since QSI is a mastery level program by middle and high school kids learn to game the system and just keep retaking quizzes and tests to get a higher grade. Now we can argue how often that happens but the perception is definitely out there and I'm sure recruiters are aware of it. It's not really an issue in the elementary level.
The perception I received was that either recruiters took the view you worked at QSI so no your damaged goods or you worked at QSI and if you could survive there you'll be fine at our school.
In general you'll find three types of teachers at QSI
1. The family who has more that 2 kids and stays with QSI because QSI will accept bigger families when most schools won't.
2. People who hate and/or are reluctant to go to job fairs and will transfer around to other QSI schools. For some reason when I was there several teachers also went to Saudi Arabia. It was so many that we started referring to it as the QSI/Saudi Pipeline. These teachers did this because they were reluctant to go to a hiring fair
3. Newbies such as yourself who get a few years experience and then, hopefully, move on bigger better things.
-
shopaholic
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:42 pm
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
Thanks, TheBeard.
I do want to eventually get IB training and move into an IB school in Europe. For my CV, do you think no IB experience is better than IB experience at QSI? I'm better off staying where I am until another, non-QSI school offers me IB training?
I do want to eventually get IB training and move into an IB school in Europe. For my CV, do you think no IB experience is better than IB experience at QSI? I'm better off staying where I am until another, non-QSI school offers me IB training?
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
You're welcome. I'm not sure. QSI didn't have IB when I was there. Some questions that might help you: Can you find out does QSI actually use IB or would you only have IB experience in name only? What kind of IB experience are the schools you want to get into requiring from teachers? I think this might be a question more for Sid.
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
I agree with everything mybeard says, which is one reason we left. The in-house PD drove me crazy.
QSI does offer "real" IB, after all IB was created in part to level the playing field. My daughter graduated with her diploma and going to QSI has never held her back. I think teaching IB at a QSI school if you've never taught it before would be a great way of getting your foot in that door.
QSI does offer "real" IB, after all IB was created in part to level the playing field. My daughter graduated with her diploma and going to QSI has never held her back. I think teaching IB at a QSI school if you've never taught it before would be a great way of getting your foot in that door.
Re: Do recruiters avoid people who worked for QSI?
A lot's been said quite well.
The curriculum design is indeed a big piece of the issue. It makes it easy for teachers to teach in outdated ways. One poster mentions freedom to design assessments, but the way that works at QSI is actually part of the problem. Teachers are free to innovate (some would argue how far they can take that freedom), but there is no expectation/requirement for innovation. It's not systemic, it doesn't set things up so teachers put their brains together and work hard to improve year after year.
So if a teacher comes from QSI, I know that teacher hasn't been pushed recently. They might (or might not) have had freedom to push themselves, but there's no guarantee.
I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they spent a year or two at QSI. Everyone needs a job and anyone can accidentally find themselves in a less-than-stellar system. It doesn't mean the teacher is less than stellar; they might be amazing. But if a teacher stays in QSI for a long time, that's a message of some kind. It could be a different message for different people, but... It could mean the teacher is happier not pushing the boundaries. It could mean the teacher prefers working alone. It could mean the teacher prefers a textbook based curriculum. It could mean the teacher has a family and needed to do what they needed to do. It could be the teacher never noticed the limitations of the QSI system, or perhaps had never seen anything better.
So if you've been at QSI and you want to convince me to hire you, I'll want to see a spark in you, I'll want to know that you're looking for more.
As for the IB thing, I presume you mean the Diploma? In which case, QSI is a perfectly fine place to get that experience. The DP is so specific about what needs doing, it makes limited difference which school you're in. Just make sure to move on before too many years pass.
The curriculum design is indeed a big piece of the issue. It makes it easy for teachers to teach in outdated ways. One poster mentions freedom to design assessments, but the way that works at QSI is actually part of the problem. Teachers are free to innovate (some would argue how far they can take that freedom), but there is no expectation/requirement for innovation. It's not systemic, it doesn't set things up so teachers put their brains together and work hard to improve year after year.
So if a teacher comes from QSI, I know that teacher hasn't been pushed recently. They might (or might not) have had freedom to push themselves, but there's no guarantee.
I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they spent a year or two at QSI. Everyone needs a job and anyone can accidentally find themselves in a less-than-stellar system. It doesn't mean the teacher is less than stellar; they might be amazing. But if a teacher stays in QSI for a long time, that's a message of some kind. It could be a different message for different people, but... It could mean the teacher is happier not pushing the boundaries. It could mean the teacher prefers working alone. It could mean the teacher prefers a textbook based curriculum. It could mean the teacher has a family and needed to do what they needed to do. It could be the teacher never noticed the limitations of the QSI system, or perhaps had never seen anything better.
So if you've been at QSI and you want to convince me to hire you, I'll want to see a spark in you, I'll want to know that you're looking for more.
As for the IB thing, I presume you mean the Diploma? In which case, QSI is a perfectly fine place to get that experience. The DP is so specific about what needs doing, it makes limited difference which school you're in. Just make sure to move on before too many years pass.
Response
A lot of valuable contributions have already been posted, so I'll save post my POV, and its just that it depends. QSI certainly has significant problems and id never recommend them because of their Mastery curriculum, and how they design curriculum which is very much nothing more than organized textbook page turning. The only real cause to focus on QSI is that you have a sizable family thats a logistical non-starter in large parts of the rest of IE or they are your only option for getting IB experience.
The issue of marketability and utility though is a comparison of options. What are you comparing the opportunity of QSI too? Yes recruiters have valid issues with ITs who come from QSI, but they also have issues with ITs that come from other ISs and those in the bottom lower third tier as well. If all your options are similar and you need a job and QSI is offering you the best contract of those available to you then it is what it is, and maybe you get out of there quickly while moving up and on to something better.
If QSI is your only or best option to get IB experience (doesnt matter if its DIP, MYP, PYP) make a plan to do that for your two and then get out and move on and up. The utility of IB added to your resume is stronger than any negatives of working for QSI. just dont stay any longer than you need too.
The issue of marketability and utility though is a comparison of options. What are you comparing the opportunity of QSI too? Yes recruiters have valid issues with ITs who come from QSI, but they also have issues with ITs that come from other ISs and those in the bottom lower third tier as well. If all your options are similar and you need a job and QSI is offering you the best contract of those available to you then it is what it is, and maybe you get out of there quickly while moving up and on to something better.
If QSI is your only or best option to get IB experience (doesnt matter if its DIP, MYP, PYP) make a plan to do that for your two and then get out and move on and up. The utility of IB added to your resume is stronger than any negatives of working for QSI. just dont stay any longer than you need too.