School still recruiting from certain countries only: THIS IS 2024!

[IB_Educator]

Currently, ( October 2024), the American International School of Guangzhou accepts job applications from only the following countries:

Ascension, Australia, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, Canada, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Guyana, Ireland, Isle of Man (British Irish territorial), Jersey, New Zealand, Pitcairn Islands, Singapore, South Africa, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands, Saint Helena, Tristan da Cunha, United Kingdom, United States, U.S. Virgin Islands, Antigua and Barbuda, Anguilla, Bahamas, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, British Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands OR a language teacher with a passport from a country that speaks that language.

Is this a Chinese government requirement or is another country-profiling by a 'reputable' school?

[expatscot]

That reads like an interpretation of a government requirement.

Looks like they have been told that they can only employ native English speakers (all the countries listed have English as an official language) except where they are, say, from France and are teaching French.

Strictly speaking, this has always (in the past) usually only applied for languages, including English. I wouldn't be surprised if some official has accidentally misinterpreted it, then dug their heels in rather than admit they are wrong. It would then take someone higher up to correct it but, as is so often the case with China, that doesn't happen if the official making the error is of sufficient standing.

[IB_Educator]

It will be interesting to check if this applies to ONLY this school (AISG) or all other IS schools in Guangzhou.

[secondplace]

Reads very much like the rules that the school has to follow, so they are being up front about it to avoid wasting anyones time.

FYI, this is the American School of Warsaw:

'Overseas hires, please note: Due to the status of the school in Poland, we are limited to hiring teachers who hold citizenship and a passport from the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the United Kingdom.'

So, schools do have country/context rules to follow.

[Thames Pirate]

It is true that sometimes two schools in the same place have different rules. Some schools are fully private, others are semi-private or even public, and that may mean different rules regarding teacher qualification or work rights. So just because a country may not limit who can work there, the school might. But it always makes me leery.

[Asteger]

That list of nationalities you provide sounds perfectly 'normal' in China. I don't meant to say that each province or municipality in China has the same list, but the various jurisdictions in China do form restrictions like this and that is that. Those are the local rules, until they change and make them more restrictive. Schools need to follow them.

Shenzhen is a place, I think, where there used to be a diversity of teachers, and now a much more limited list of 'nationalities' than is. I recall teachers of non-'typical' nationalities not having renewals and having to re-locate. Overall, the schools seem to have suffered more from the imposition of restrictive policies which, obviously, are not international education-friendly.

As for AISG, they are probably just sharing the conditions they work under. No offence, perhaps, on the part of the school.

On the other hand, I am a bit concerned. I don't have a big evidence-base, but I'm wondering about AISG.

Nationality is one aspect of inclusion/exclusion, and there are many others. Willingness to consider teachers with dependents is another. Can a school be inclusive if it seeks to only hire single teachers with no dependents? What about the 'family community' they advertise, too?

I had a first interview with AISG a few years ago, and was invited for a second, which was then cancelled. So sorry! I was told. Things have changed, and we can only now accept candidates with X number of dependents, not more than X. (I had X + 1 and so just exceeded this new, magical limit.) At the time this was blamed on Covid and (presumably) precarious finances (which at AISG has to be false - they were not hurtin'). Recently, a much more experienced candidate than me applied to AISG. A very chummy 1-hour initial interview occurred - with good vibes all round like I had experienced before - and then this teacher was told of the same thing, that there had been this sudden change and that, sorry, the school could now no longer consider applicants with dependent numbers 1 above what that candidate had (which was incidentally 1 more than I had had a few years ago).

Was so disappointed hearing this from an obviously very well-qualified candidate applying to a non-profit, US gov-funded, nominally inclusive school. I had to wonder if they have some sort of 'which excuse to offer' strategy in their recruitment playbook. Was shocking to hear the exact same justification a few years later. We both wondered, if this was the real 'policy' then why did they speak with both of use so long and nicely in the first interview anyway? (... and then in my case schedule a second?)

[PsyGuy]

This reads as if its the most inclusive list the IS could state. It sounds pretty progressive, many ISs in the region still list US/UK/AUS/CAN (which is FAR more common), as their only allowable demographics even though they would be allowed a broader demographic.

While Im sure outlier examples can be found against, I tend to disagree with @Thames Pirate. These are immigration issues at the national level that aggregate down to what some ministry will approve a visa and (nationally or regionally) a work permit for, in such cases IE and DE tend to fall into the same category when it comes to visas with a few more categories for a work permit.
In this case being an NES appears to be the controlling factor, but even when you get into the weeds such regulations either tend to be exhaustive in the regions permitted and/or there is some definition describing a period of formal education that must have been completed in English, and someone then just put a list of those English dominate regions together.

None of this means anything in regards to inclusivity. What an IS communicates and what it actually does are often very different things. This sounds like a progressive list based on regulations but you can go look at their leadership, for example and get a picture of how diverse they are.
https://www.aisgz.org/about-us/leadership
There are plenty of ISs and leadership that say one thing for appearances and do something or dont do something entirely unaligned with what they say.

[Molson]

Asteger wrote:
> That list of nationalities you provide sounds perfectly 'normal' in China.
> I don't meant to say that each province or municipality in China has the
> same list, but the various jurisdictions in China do form restrictions like
> this and that is that. Those are the local rules, until they change and
> make them more restrictive. Schools need to follow them.
>
> Shenzhen is a place, I think, where there used to be a diversity of
> teachers, and now a much more limited list of 'nationalities' than is. I
> recall teachers of non-'typical' nationalities not having renewals and
> having to re-locate. Overall, the schools seem to have suffered more from
> the imposition of restrictive policies which, obviously, are not
> international education-friendly.
>
> As for AISG, they are probably just sharing the conditions they work under.
> No offence, perhaps, on the part of the school.
>
> On the other hand, I am a bit concerned. I don't have a big evidence-base,
> but I'm wondering about AISG.
>
> Nationality is one aspect of inclusion/exclusion, and there are many
> others. Willingness to consider teachers with dependents is another. Can
> a school be inclusive if it seeks to only hire single teachers with no
> dependents? What about the 'family community' they advertise, too?
>
> I had a first interview with AISG a few years ago, and was invited for a
> second, which was then cancelled. So sorry! I was told. Things have
> changed, and we can only now accept candidates with X number of dependents,
> not more than X. (I had X + 1 and so just exceeded this new, magical
> limit.) At the time this was blamed on Covid and (presumably) precarious
> finances (which at AISG has to be false - they were not hurtin').
> Recently, a much more experienced candidate than me applied to AISG. A
> very chummy 1-hour initial interview occurred - with good vibes all round
> like I had experienced before - and then this teacher was told of the same
> thing, that there had been this sudden change and that, sorry, the school
> could now no longer consider applicants with dependent numbers 1 above what
> that candidate had (which was incidentally 1 more than I had had a few
> years ago).
>
> Was so disappointed hearing this from an obviously very well-qualified
> candidate applying to a non-profit, US gov-funded, nominally inclusive
> school. I had to wonder if they have some sort of 'which excuse to offer'
> strategy in their recruitment playbook. Was shocking to hear the exact
> same justification a few years later. We both wondered, if this was the
> real 'policy' then why did they speak with both of use so long and nicely
> in the first interview anyway? (... and then in my case schedule a
> second?)

I think the problem in organizations is communication. You assume they have great internal communication.

Recently we were told by our HoS that we have to be conscious of dependents because of the decreasing enrollment, our budget is very close to exceeding what we should spend on salaries and benefits. People don't realize the additional cost of a dependent.

Sometimes a principal will want you and HR or the HoS will say no because of the budget.

[berry737]

I don't like seeing the pickings of 2024 schools still only getting them from certain countries. I get the visa and immigration rules in play, but it just doesn’t fit with the spirit of international education. Some of it also raises questions when schools say they are inclusive but have restrictions on dependents or flip the rulebook out of nowhere. But because it’s easy to frame it as saving money versus fostering a diverse, inclusive environment, it might come across as more about saving money rather than fostering a diverse and inclusive environment.