The International Schools Review Forum

In the process of wrapping up my initial year in DE and I have found myself feeling reflective regarding the past year. Thinking about changes, improvements I would like to make for the upcoming year, and reconsidering what my ultimate goals within the profession are. The more I have given thought to the latter, the more I see myself moving towards an administrative role long term, specifically as a HOS/Director in IE.

I have a general plan in place following my second year in the classroom to apply for a M.Ed in an Ed Admin program that should take ~15 months, putting me on track to receive the degree in the Fall of my fourth year. It is at this point that I am trying to decide what the best way forward to reach my HOS goal is.

Scenario A: After earning a M.Ed in Ed Admin and four years in the classroom, either transfer within the district (top 20 largest in US) into an AP position, or look elsewhere. A few quality references and four years experience should be enough to find a decent AP/VP position domestically without too much trouble. After 2-3 years, transition into a similar position in IE.

Scenario B: Having received the M.Ed in October of year four, pull a reverse-Fievel and embark on the voyage into IE Administration. Optimistically, I luck or can sell myself into a junior admin post in a low T2 school that I can work my way up. Realistically, it's possible the best I get is senior admin at bottom of the barrel T3, or junior admin at a bad T3 school.

Given those two options, what would you do if the intention is to eventually reach the HOS ranks?

When you say HOS/Director, can you give us a better picture of what you envision? There is a big difference between the principal/HOS of a small local IS where your the senior and executive leader and you do everything and being the HOS of a large or well established IS where your the executive leadership of dozens. Understand that the vast majority of ISs even elite tier 1 ISs are relatively small (tiny even) compared to some of the massive consolidated DE districts with central office complexes. You will find ASs that have superintendents but its really just them and a few principals/APs/DP/VPs add the counselor and the tech director and the librarian and you can get everyone around a board table. Thats very different than a district that needs two tables just to get the superintendent and the crew of assistant, associate and deputy superintendents into one room together, and havent even gotten to the coordinators and directors at central office, much less the campus principals and APs/VP/DPs. They are very different organizational structures to navigate.

There are 3 general avenues into leadership in IE:
1) Grow In: You start at an IS as an IT, you work well with leadership, parents and ownership, and then when there is an opening you get the job because ownership trusts you and leadership and parents like you. This pathway is faster at lower tier ISs, where there is a lot of turnover and longevity often means your only one of the few staff to renew.
2) Work In: You get a M.Ed in Ed.Ld, you add a credential, you build some leadership or management experience and you work your way up into leadership. This may and often requires some work in DE. This is the pathway that accounts for the majority of leadership. Candidates were leadership in DE, and they were hired as leadership in IE.
3) Edge In: You make friends and build a network, maybe you marry into, but someone in ownership likes you and gives you the job, or someone in leadership helps you get into the job. This is the least common path into leadership.

Assuming this Masters in Ed.Ld provides a credential through the regulating authority, it depends what you want to do. If your goal is HOS at one of the elite or first tier ISs than you are better staying in DE and moving up though DE. The reasons being:
1) Your more likely to have more opportunities to get into leadership simply because of the vastness of the organization. The hardest part of leadership is getting that first break, but once youre in, moving around among ISs and into positions of more responsibility is easier.
2) Those opportunities at 1st elite tier ISs are relatively few, executive leadership tend to stay for long periods of time, often they retire out of those positions. When those vacancies become available and your a viable candidate it will be easier for you to leave DE for IE than it will be for you to leave IE, especially if youre in the middle of or start of a typical 3 years contract for senior leadership.
3) There is a preference for ownership to hire externally at 1st and elite tier ISs as opposed to internally. Most ownership wants to bring in new ideas, vision and new value as opposed to someone in senior leadership moving up. If your at a 1st/elite tier IS as an AP or as principal you may get the courtesy of an interview but youre probably not on their short list to move up.

If however your goal is a small IS or of a lower tier and thus moving into leadership in IE sooner, than your better off getting the Masters and the credential and moving into IE. These ISs have much shorter attrition, as those leadership have goals that require them to move on as well, creating the opportunities for new leadership to make their bones. In those situations being there and being known and well thought of is often all you need to move into leadership, even if the executive leadership (HOS) means supervising a handful of ITs, an AP and a secretary/office manager in a tucked away primary IS somewhere.

PsyGuy wrote:
> When you say HOS/Director, can you give us a better picture of what you
> envision? There is a big difference between the principal/HOS of a small
> local IS where your the senior and executive leader and you do everything
> and being the HOS of a large or well established IS where your the
> executive leadership of dozens. Understand that the vast majority of ISs
> even elite tier 1 ISs are relatively small (tiny even) compared to some of
> the massive consolidated DE districts with central office complexes. You
> will find ASs that have superintendents but its really just them and a few
> principals/APs/DP/VPs add the counselor and the tech director and the
> librarian and you can get everyone around a board table. Thats very
> different than a district that needs two tables just to get the
> superintendent and the crew of assistant, associate and deputy
> superintendents into one room together, and havent even gotten to the
> coordinators and directors at central office, much less the campus
> principals and APs/VP/DPs. They are very different organizational
> structures to navigate.
>
> There are 3 general avenues into leadership in IE:
> 1) Grow In: You start at an IS as an IT, you work well with leadership,
> parents and ownership, and then when there is an opening you get the job
> because ownership trusts you and leadership and parents like you. This
> pathway is faster at lower tier ISs, where there is a lot of turnover and
> longevity often means your only one of the few staff to renew.
> 2) Work In: You get a M.Ed in Ed.Ld, you add a credential, you build some
> leadership or management experience and you work your way up into
> leadership. This may and often requires some work in DE. This is the
> pathway that accounts for the majority of leadership. Candidates were
> leadership in DE, and they were hired as leadership in IE.
> 3) Edge In: You make friends and build a network, maybe you marry into, but
> someone in ownership likes you and gives you the job, or someone in
> leadership helps you get into the job. This is the least common path into
> leadership.
>
> Assuming this Masters in Ed.Ld provides a credential through the regulating
> authority, it depends what you want to do. If your goal is HOS at one of
> the elite or first tier ISs than you are better staying in DE and moving up
> though DE. The reasons being:
> 1) Your more likely to have more opportunities to get into leadership
> simply because of the vastness of the organization. The hardest part of
> leadership is getting that first break, but once youre in, moving around
> among ISs and into positions of more responsibility is easier.
> 2) Those opportunities at 1st elite tier ISs are relatively few, executive
> leadership tend to stay for long periods of time, often they retire out of
> those positions. When those vacancies become available and your a viable
> candidate it will be easier for you to leave DE for IE than it will be for
> you to leave IE, especially if youre in the middle of or start of a typical
> 3 years contract for senior leadership.
> 3) There is a preference for ownership to hire externally at 1st and elite
> tier ISs as opposed to internally. Most ownership wants to bring in new
> ideas, vision and new value as opposed to someone in senior leadership
> moving up. If your at a 1st/elite tier IS as an AP or as principal you may
> get the courtesy of an interview but youre probably not on their short list
> to move up.
>
> If however your goal is a small IS or of a lower tier and thus moving into
> leadership in IE sooner, than your better off getting the Masters and the
> credential and moving into IE. These ISs have much shorter attrition, as
> those leadership have goals that require them to move on as well, creating
> the opportunities for new leadership to make their bones. In those
> situations being there and being known and well thought of is often all you
> need to move into leadership, even if the executive leadership (HOS) means
> supervising a handful of ITs, an AP and a secretary/office manager in a
> tucked away primary IS somewhere.

Superintendent/Chief Executive duties but on a smaller scale than what you see in larger domestic districts. Something along the lines of Director at WAB or HOS at ISB are the top examples that come to mind. I'm well aware those are considered elite schools, and in the case of China, I don't have much interest in any school. However, I would like to have a similar type role at a school that's generally regarded as being T1 or high T2.

Sticking it out domestically until I can fulfill a principal contract seems the best option for moving into a lateral position at a respectable IE school off the bat. From your outside blood hiring perspective, to get to an elite chief ex. position, it might be better to try and make a mark at a couple t2 schools, or a single school with multiple renewals and hope for an opening. Competition and timing will always make it tough. Even if I couldn't get into an elite school, general admin compensation packages grant me more options in the areas I'd be willing to live at for a few years.

Move into admin domestically, then move to IE - but be prepared that you might have to move down a level if you are going to a decent school so they can assess you.

I would concur with @SJ, its not uncommon for a campus principal in DE to enter IE and find they are marketable at AP/VP/DP level appointments.

shadowjack wrote:
> Move into admin domestically, then move to IE - but be prepared that you
> might have to move down a level if you are going to a decent school so they
> can assess you.


Makes sense

If you really want to be competitive for high-level posts, you'll need a doctorate. This is either an absolute requirement or a very strong tradition at almost all of the best and/or largest. For a Principal post, or a HOS in a "basic" international school, a masters will do, but for the truly high-flying, a doctorate.

Four years is a very limited amount of time in the classroom. A, it won't give you the depth of knowledge and experience you'll need to properly support teachers in your new role. I can't imagine doing my job without having spent far more time than that in the classroom. In my experience, most teachers are barely out of the survival phase after two years, and just starting to get some decent skills after four. Very few are advanced, and even those lack exposure to the wider variety of scenarios a leader will have to deal with. B, it won't make you competitive overseas. It's possible to get basic admin jobs after four years, but again, the high-flying stuff will want more. It's hard to make the jump from teaching to leadership, and there are plenty of candidates out there with 10+ years in the classroom, including some years as HOD, who still can't find their break. Not that they aren't ready, it's just that there more interested parties than there are posts.

If I were you, I'd plan on a longer path to leadership. It's more typical.

sid wrote:
> If you really want to be competitive for high-level posts, you'll need a
> doctorate. This is either an absolute requirement or a very strong
> tradition at almost all of the best and/or largest. For a Principal post,
> or a HOS in a "basic" international school, a masters will do,
> but for the truly high-flying, a doctorate.
>
> Four years is a very limited amount of time in the classroom. A, it won't
> give you the depth of knowledge and experience you'll need to properly
> support teachers in your new role. I can't imagine doing my job without
> having spent far more time than that in the classroom. In my experience,
> most teachers are barely out of the survival phase after two years, and
> just starting to get some decent skills after four. Very few are advanced,
> and even those lack exposure to the wider variety of scenarios a leader
> will have to deal with. B, it won't make you competitive overseas. It's
> possible to get basic admin jobs after four years, but again, the
> high-flying stuff will want more. It's hard to make the jump from teaching
> to leadership, and there are plenty of candidates out there with 10+ years
> in the classroom, including some years as HOD, who still can't find their
> break. Not that they aren't ready, it's just that there more interested
> parties than there are posts.
>
> If I were you, I'd plan on a longer path to leadership. It's more typical.


I figured as much, regarding the doctorate. I've found a masters program that looks solid. Going to start looking at Ph.D options over the summer.

I get the importance that experience holds, especially in this field. Four years is a limited amount of teaching experience, but the few districts I've started looking at only require three for their vice principals, which is where I'm looking to start domestically in regards to admin.

I dont agree much with @Sid regarding the doctorate, maybe by the time you are there it will have become a defacto standard, as its growing especially in tier 1 ISs and more so in elite tier IS, but there are still HOSs of tier ISs with Masters degrees. You have a ways to go before your there anyway. The other side of the doctorate coin is that once you have a doctorate its harder to find classroom IT positions, especially with an Edu doctorate, which would make it more difficult to build classroom experience.

Spend at least 7-10 years teaching in the classroom. If you want to be taken seriously as an admin, you have to know what it's like to be in their shoes. You get one chance to make a first impression, if you're wet behind the ears as a new AP, you'll get zero respect from the staff.

@twoteachers

Leadership doesnt need to be taken seriously or respected by ITs, they have the power, the rest is immaterial. Just go over to the paid side director evaluations on this site, you will find plenty of them that arent respectable.
Leadership doesnt need a reference from faculty or staff, they need ownership and their senior leadership to be happy, nothing else matters, certainly not what some ITs rolling their eyes think.

PsyGuy wrote:
> I dont agree much with @Sid regarding the doctorate, maybe by the time you
> are there it will have become a defacto standard, as its growing especially
> in tier 1 ISs and more so in elite tier IS, but there are still HOSs of
> tier ISs with Masters degrees. You have a ways to go before your there
> anyway. The other side of the doctorate coin is that once you have a
> doctorate its harder to find classroom IT positions, especially with an Edu
> doctorate, which would make it more difficult to build classroom
> experience.


I wouldn't pursue a doctorate until I began a domestic admin role, at which point I wouldn't think it's productive to return to the classroom.

Please spend more time in the classroom. Then move into a coaching position and THEN consider whether or not you may be an affective administrator. Four yrs is not nearly enough time to understand the classroom. Spend some time coaching to get your feet wet to understand what leadership is like and coping with the demands of teachers, students and families. There's way more to admin then what is assumed and we're surrounded by too many jr admin who have been given roles they are grossly underprepared for.

I strongly disagree with @Basmad6 on two issues. The first being that you need something closer to a decade to understand the classroom and that you should take the slow crawl to leadership. Whats there to understand about a classroom the IT talks here, the students sit there. Is there more to it than that, sure, does it take longer than 4 years, no. Research has described 4 inflection points that edus make significant professional growth: 1 year, 2 years, 4 years and 8 years, by the end of 4 years your 3 out of 4 points away. Those first three points are rather instructional to an IT, your at least to the point of understanding how a classroom works.

How much does leadership really need to know how a classroom works, when that isnt the tasking of leadership, its like saying an ambulance driver needs to understand driving more than the emergency medical care portion of the role. Leadership doesnt spend the majority or even a minority of their time in "classroom" tasking, thats what ITs do. How much of it do the retain, how many years in the office does it take before they are one of those leadership who are criticized (insert eye rolls here) for being too long gone from the classroom.

My second issue is yes we have lots of leadership that are under prepared for leadership, but they are getting leadership coin and building leadership resumes, why should the LW leave coin on the table if they dont have to to stay in the classroom because some ITs have what amounts to as 'reasons'. No ones going to protect and advance your interests better and with more enthusiasm than you, why absorb real losses because someone else whos opinion means all of nothing thinks you will be better at the job, or be more respected by ITs. Horrible leadership still gets leadership coin and benefits, and respect and an empty sack from ITs is worth an empty sack.

Basmad6 wrote:
> Please spend more time in the classroom. Then move into a coaching position
> and THEN consider whether or not you may be an affective administrator.
> Four yrs is not nearly enough time to understand the classroom. Spend some
> time coaching to get your feet wet to understand what leadership is like
> and coping with the demands of teachers, students and families. There's way
> more to admin then what is assumed and we're surrounded by too many jr
> admin who have been given roles they are grossly underprepared for.


For what it's worth, I coached two sports this year, and plan to continue doing so. I also volunteered to be in a group of teachers and admin that are planning the rollout of a schoolwide "house program", and I've gotten the green light to start a school newspaper next year.