Observations from Australia
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Happy to be back and to have caught my breath. I just wanted to come back with some admin Point of View observation from the Australia Search Fair.
First, the market is getting bigger. I was really expecting the Austrlia Search fair to be slow and quit and well SMALL. It really wasnt. Im not saying it was as big as BK, though (havent gotten to touch base with our principals that went yet) but from previous years the global economy and recession is really growing the teacher candidate pool. I think Cambridge is going to be REALLY big, and if anyone can land a contract before then, you would be well advised to do so. I have mixed feelings this year about what part of the race Cambridge will be. A lot of schools this year are "waiting" for the 2 big fairs to sign, from what I experienced Cambridge might be the end of the race this year. Then again with so many candidates it might be the middle of the race, if schools hold out.
Second, I saw a lot of newbies, a lot of newbies, and I really believe that one of the problems as a profession we have to deal with is Teacher Training and Educational programs. I have to think thats the problem because I cant imagine what media outlets some of these teachers get their expectations from??? I kept thinking back over the interviews "did i have that kind of ego when I was starting out?". These schools (colleges/universities) really fill their students heads with very high employment expectations, especially career changers. Their really is an inflated idea of what it means to be an international teacher. A couple examples:
One really enthusiastic candidate, after wed done the Q&A list, and asked if he had any questions, on his second question asked "If we provided a signing bonus, and if he could have the check before leaving?", after telling him we didnt I asked why and his response was "my mates said they got bonuses when they were hired overseas". I asked if these were other teachers, and he said no. I told him for future reference it is uncommon for a school to provide a signing bonus, and no school i knew of could issue a check at a fair.
A really assertive candidate asked if we would help her pay her bills. She had a car loan of $400, student loans that were $1100, and credit card payments that were $250 a month. I told her we provided a standard and competitive salary and what it was, and she said "Oh I mean in addition to my pay packet" (pay packet = salary). My coworker said that "it might be difficult for her to meet her financial obligations and meet her living expenses on our salary" because I was stunned, and still processing.
My last example was an older candidate asked quickly if the school would reimburse him for the cost of attending the fair if we hired him. Now thats not unreasonable to ask and I said we provided a relocation package that may defray some of the costs. He replied curiously that hed funded the entire trip on his card, and he didnt have a way to pay it back as he was still in school. I was curious about this having read his resume, and he clarified that he wouldnt have his certificate or degree until June (which makes him an intern) and this was the curious part but his university career counselor advised him to "act in the interview as if he had graduated and had his certificate, because no one would be interested in hiring him otherwise". I said that was perhaps an error of judgement on his counselors advice, and that one of the first things a school will check if they are offering a contract is his certification, and finding none, will ask for his transcripts, and seeing he hasnt graduated will put him in an awkward position to have to explain. I then directed him to talk with his search associate as soon as possible, but for the remainder of the fair (as his resume couldnt be redone and printed) he should bring those to the schools attention first in the interview.
I dont know what the solution is to this problem. Colleges of education have a business to run, and their success within a university is dependent on enrollment and the tuition dollars it generates.
Third, is what i can only describe as "pernicious ignorance", I get the feeling and my coworker and i talked about his over lunch, and agree. That a lot of new and entry level candidates dont WANT to find out about international education, and dont want to embrace a different cultures methods and pedagogy of education. They want, expect and plan on going to whatever country and school hires them and teach 'the way they were taught'. we got that answer a lot "well thats what our instructor said" or "thats what we learned". From a university standpoint this makes sense, I suppose that you teach to the environment that your located in and for the community that is expected to be served by the college. Their are also regulatory rules that need to be observed when training and indoctrinating new teachers (so maybe an elective in "international education", fixes that problem easily enough) BUT my deeper issue is the underlying feeling that these teachers were NOT open or disposed to thinking outside the educational structures they had learned. The sense I and my coworker got was that "their way (what they learned) was the best way to teach". Now pride is one thing, but arrogance to the point of closing oneself of to other POV's and seems from the standpoint of an educator as being pernicious to ones own professional standards and expectations. How can you develop creativity and flexible learning in your students if you cant do it yourself?
So stepping off my soap box, does international education just attract the teachers with the bigger egos or do you have to have a certain level of arrogance to be perceived as having value to an international school?
Fourth, is what I can only describe as a "lack of fundamental skills". From this I dont mean lack of methodology or pedagogical training, I mean skills such as organization, preparation, etc. We had a number of candidates who didnt know what school they were interviewing for, where we were located, where Denmark is on a map or what the IB/IBO was. I mean these are things that could be googled from your phone. It would take a couple minutes. Peripheral to that my coworker brought up how "well dressed" the candidates were (and shes a woman and Im a guy so she notices those things, where as someone has to tell me) but how a number of resumes were printed on regular copy paper (that I did notice). Which brought us to discussing job search and interview skills. Now its been a while since Ive attended a career counseling session, but my experience is that universities really emphasis these, so i have to think that schools/departments of education and teaching need to really conduct their own. I have to think the generalized approach to job seeking in the corporate/private sector is different then in education (though they got the dressing for an interview right).
We saw a lot of resumes that had skills sections, objectives at the top and "References available on request" at the bottom. We also saw a lot of "inflated" job descriptions. We know your proud of your on campus position watching the education desk at your school, but to say you made coffee and unlocked the meeting room equals "Facilitated workspace collaboration with directed service interaction" sounds like BS, and it sounds like BS because it is BS. Maybe that kind of "creative license" flies in the corporate world, but not in education.
Going back to skills and experience (and my coworker feels different about this then i do). I feel that you should list your job history even with non-teaching education related experience, but you leave off the descriptions and bullet points "2010 - Retail Sales Associate, H&M - Sydney, Australia" tells me all I really need to know. My coworker thinks you should have a separate and completely education focused resume where the above position isnt even listed. What we both agree too is that you dont need to list ant accomplishments/achievements at such a position, its irrelevant if you increased your direct sales by 32%.
The one size general purpose approach to job search just doesnt work very far once in education (and probabley many fields). The second issue is the lack of sensitivity to regional and cultural standards of practice. In some countries its standard to ask for some combination of age, gender, race, marital status. In others that would be prohibited, but again a lack of organization/preparation can solve this.
Fifth, is what it means to be qualified. Many candidates we saw ignored the the position requirements. I dont know who to fault for this, maybe the schools for preaching that you should apply for every job you can, or the candidates desperation, but you cant "talk" your way into a qualification.
We have a MYP/DIP science position open and we had a number of middle school/lower secondary teacher candidates who only had a generalist certification, which might allow you to teach 6-9 science but not upper science. What they fail to understand is that no matter how good a teacher you may be our regulatory and accreditation rules would not consider you certified or qualified to teach the upper secondary/DIP level courses. This is a BIG PROBLEM. It also happens when your certified/qualified in biology but not chemistry. Being a great biology teacher may make you a good teacher overall, but unsuitable/unqualified to teach chemistry. In education, no matter where you are in the world there is a minimum standard to teach, and the accrediting agencies, education ministries determine what that is, and its not negotiable. About half our interviews were throw away interviews because the candidate wasnt qualified.
On the same note, what we heard from several other schools was the concern of what a Native English Speaker is. While different schools will have different definitions (some I agree with some I dont) if your not one of those nationalities, then dont sign up for an interview your just wasting time. There were a number of Filipino candidates who insisted they were native english speakers, and while I agree with them that they are when the school puts in ALL CAPS that ONLY nationals of USA, UK, AUS, NZ will be considered, they mean it (this one young Filipino woman was so mad, she looked like she was going to crazy murder someone).
This also applies to westerners as well however, if the position requires having valid working papers or EU citizenship, it doesnt matter how good or qualified you are, your not eligible. One guy we overheard sounded like a great candidate but the school was an all girls school in the middle east, and no matter how good he was they were only hiring woman. He actually got upset and started talking about illegal discrimination, etc. Which in some places of the world, isnt discrimination.
Really, and my coworker and I talked about this, but if you dont meet the experience, certification, degree, nationality demographic requirements why are you applying? Whats the reason, is it a misunderstanding of global labor practices, desperation, or ego (you just think your that good)???
Well thanks for the space to rant. I'll update this post later with my positives, which there were several.
First, the market is getting bigger. I was really expecting the Austrlia Search fair to be slow and quit and well SMALL. It really wasnt. Im not saying it was as big as BK, though (havent gotten to touch base with our principals that went yet) but from previous years the global economy and recession is really growing the teacher candidate pool. I think Cambridge is going to be REALLY big, and if anyone can land a contract before then, you would be well advised to do so. I have mixed feelings this year about what part of the race Cambridge will be. A lot of schools this year are "waiting" for the 2 big fairs to sign, from what I experienced Cambridge might be the end of the race this year. Then again with so many candidates it might be the middle of the race, if schools hold out.
Second, I saw a lot of newbies, a lot of newbies, and I really believe that one of the problems as a profession we have to deal with is Teacher Training and Educational programs. I have to think thats the problem because I cant imagine what media outlets some of these teachers get their expectations from??? I kept thinking back over the interviews "did i have that kind of ego when I was starting out?". These schools (colleges/universities) really fill their students heads with very high employment expectations, especially career changers. Their really is an inflated idea of what it means to be an international teacher. A couple examples:
One really enthusiastic candidate, after wed done the Q&A list, and asked if he had any questions, on his second question asked "If we provided a signing bonus, and if he could have the check before leaving?", after telling him we didnt I asked why and his response was "my mates said they got bonuses when they were hired overseas". I asked if these were other teachers, and he said no. I told him for future reference it is uncommon for a school to provide a signing bonus, and no school i knew of could issue a check at a fair.
A really assertive candidate asked if we would help her pay her bills. She had a car loan of $400, student loans that were $1100, and credit card payments that were $250 a month. I told her we provided a standard and competitive salary and what it was, and she said "Oh I mean in addition to my pay packet" (pay packet = salary). My coworker said that "it might be difficult for her to meet her financial obligations and meet her living expenses on our salary" because I was stunned, and still processing.
My last example was an older candidate asked quickly if the school would reimburse him for the cost of attending the fair if we hired him. Now thats not unreasonable to ask and I said we provided a relocation package that may defray some of the costs. He replied curiously that hed funded the entire trip on his card, and he didnt have a way to pay it back as he was still in school. I was curious about this having read his resume, and he clarified that he wouldnt have his certificate or degree until June (which makes him an intern) and this was the curious part but his university career counselor advised him to "act in the interview as if he had graduated and had his certificate, because no one would be interested in hiring him otherwise". I said that was perhaps an error of judgement on his counselors advice, and that one of the first things a school will check if they are offering a contract is his certification, and finding none, will ask for his transcripts, and seeing he hasnt graduated will put him in an awkward position to have to explain. I then directed him to talk with his search associate as soon as possible, but for the remainder of the fair (as his resume couldnt be redone and printed) he should bring those to the schools attention first in the interview.
I dont know what the solution is to this problem. Colleges of education have a business to run, and their success within a university is dependent on enrollment and the tuition dollars it generates.
Third, is what i can only describe as "pernicious ignorance", I get the feeling and my coworker and i talked about his over lunch, and agree. That a lot of new and entry level candidates dont WANT to find out about international education, and dont want to embrace a different cultures methods and pedagogy of education. They want, expect and plan on going to whatever country and school hires them and teach 'the way they were taught'. we got that answer a lot "well thats what our instructor said" or "thats what we learned". From a university standpoint this makes sense, I suppose that you teach to the environment that your located in and for the community that is expected to be served by the college. Their are also regulatory rules that need to be observed when training and indoctrinating new teachers (so maybe an elective in "international education", fixes that problem easily enough) BUT my deeper issue is the underlying feeling that these teachers were NOT open or disposed to thinking outside the educational structures they had learned. The sense I and my coworker got was that "their way (what they learned) was the best way to teach". Now pride is one thing, but arrogance to the point of closing oneself of to other POV's and seems from the standpoint of an educator as being pernicious to ones own professional standards and expectations. How can you develop creativity and flexible learning in your students if you cant do it yourself?
So stepping off my soap box, does international education just attract the teachers with the bigger egos or do you have to have a certain level of arrogance to be perceived as having value to an international school?
Fourth, is what I can only describe as a "lack of fundamental skills". From this I dont mean lack of methodology or pedagogical training, I mean skills such as organization, preparation, etc. We had a number of candidates who didnt know what school they were interviewing for, where we were located, where Denmark is on a map or what the IB/IBO was. I mean these are things that could be googled from your phone. It would take a couple minutes. Peripheral to that my coworker brought up how "well dressed" the candidates were (and shes a woman and Im a guy so she notices those things, where as someone has to tell me) but how a number of resumes were printed on regular copy paper (that I did notice). Which brought us to discussing job search and interview skills. Now its been a while since Ive attended a career counseling session, but my experience is that universities really emphasis these, so i have to think that schools/departments of education and teaching need to really conduct their own. I have to think the generalized approach to job seeking in the corporate/private sector is different then in education (though they got the dressing for an interview right).
We saw a lot of resumes that had skills sections, objectives at the top and "References available on request" at the bottom. We also saw a lot of "inflated" job descriptions. We know your proud of your on campus position watching the education desk at your school, but to say you made coffee and unlocked the meeting room equals "Facilitated workspace collaboration with directed service interaction" sounds like BS, and it sounds like BS because it is BS. Maybe that kind of "creative license" flies in the corporate world, but not in education.
Going back to skills and experience (and my coworker feels different about this then i do). I feel that you should list your job history even with non-teaching education related experience, but you leave off the descriptions and bullet points "2010 - Retail Sales Associate, H&M - Sydney, Australia" tells me all I really need to know. My coworker thinks you should have a separate and completely education focused resume where the above position isnt even listed. What we both agree too is that you dont need to list ant accomplishments/achievements at such a position, its irrelevant if you increased your direct sales by 32%.
The one size general purpose approach to job search just doesnt work very far once in education (and probabley many fields). The second issue is the lack of sensitivity to regional and cultural standards of practice. In some countries its standard to ask for some combination of age, gender, race, marital status. In others that would be prohibited, but again a lack of organization/preparation can solve this.
Fifth, is what it means to be qualified. Many candidates we saw ignored the the position requirements. I dont know who to fault for this, maybe the schools for preaching that you should apply for every job you can, or the candidates desperation, but you cant "talk" your way into a qualification.
We have a MYP/DIP science position open and we had a number of middle school/lower secondary teacher candidates who only had a generalist certification, which might allow you to teach 6-9 science but not upper science. What they fail to understand is that no matter how good a teacher you may be our regulatory and accreditation rules would not consider you certified or qualified to teach the upper secondary/DIP level courses. This is a BIG PROBLEM. It also happens when your certified/qualified in biology but not chemistry. Being a great biology teacher may make you a good teacher overall, but unsuitable/unqualified to teach chemistry. In education, no matter where you are in the world there is a minimum standard to teach, and the accrediting agencies, education ministries determine what that is, and its not negotiable. About half our interviews were throw away interviews because the candidate wasnt qualified.
On the same note, what we heard from several other schools was the concern of what a Native English Speaker is. While different schools will have different definitions (some I agree with some I dont) if your not one of those nationalities, then dont sign up for an interview your just wasting time. There were a number of Filipino candidates who insisted they were native english speakers, and while I agree with them that they are when the school puts in ALL CAPS that ONLY nationals of USA, UK, AUS, NZ will be considered, they mean it (this one young Filipino woman was so mad, she looked like she was going to crazy murder someone).
This also applies to westerners as well however, if the position requires having valid working papers or EU citizenship, it doesnt matter how good or qualified you are, your not eligible. One guy we overheard sounded like a great candidate but the school was an all girls school in the middle east, and no matter how good he was they were only hiring woman. He actually got upset and started talking about illegal discrimination, etc. Which in some places of the world, isnt discrimination.
Really, and my coworker and I talked about this, but if you dont meet the experience, certification, degree, nationality demographic requirements why are you applying? Whats the reason, is it a misunderstanding of global labor practices, desperation, or ego (you just think your that good)???
Well thanks for the space to rant. I'll update this post later with my positives, which there were several.