Sure, a place like NYC has international schools. But those are mostly private schools. But you were looking for districts (public schools), right?

And sure, communities with heavy immigrant presence would mean those influence the districts. But as immigrants often live in grouped communities, you would have a heavily [whatever immigrant community] influenced school that may or may not be internationally minded.

I stand by my statement. For a MINDSET, choose places where education and liberalness and open-mindedness are at the forefront. That often means college towns.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Thames Pirate
>
> Thats not the trick. PE has about as much setup as any studio based course
> whether its science labs or art classes, or theater production or any class
> that isnt a seminar.
>
> But yes some data even absent context in this regard is better than no data
> at all.

PsyGuy, intentionally missing the point and misrepresenting what I said once again.

Anyone can give you numbers, but the trick is what that means in reality--and it will vary by school or even within departments. At our school, the schedule was weird. It worked out that math teachers taught all different preps, often teaching 5 different courses. Meanwhile there were teachers who, in that same number of periods, were teaching three sections of one or two DP courses. And how does one compare PE, with its equipment and space management and such, with the marking required in English? If your department is one without fixed classrooms, it can be far more stressful than working out of your own room. And do homeroom or seminar or pastoral classes or times count?

So yes, we could give a number (at our school it's 23-26/40 periods), but I am not sure how meaningful that is.

I don't have a direct answer for you, but I would look at college towns or super diverse areas. I would imagine there might be some hit-or-miss, too--a whole district might be average, but individual schools could be great. But definitely my gut would be near a college campus, particularly in a liberal area.

Don't mind the perpetual-last-word-derailer. Just ignore and hope people have ideas for you. And if you find any, let us know!

PsyGuy, we rarely agree, but this "a closed mouth gathers no foot" is a great phrase that hits the nail on the head.

You can't win in this scenario. You can only exit. Fighting admin who lack integrity is a losing proposition every time, even if you are willing to compromise your own integrity to do so. Suffering in the short term, keeping your options open, and moving on quickly is the least harmful option.

Writing a review is essential.

While this is true, the odds are still far higher in the US than pretty much anywhere else unless you are teaching in a conflict zone. Then there are the lockdown drills and actual scary lockdowns that happen. Those are far more common. We had two legitimate, scary lockdowns where, thankfully, nobody was actually shot, in my last twelve months in the US. But they were still really awful.

It's just one more reason not to return to the US. That's all. Don't read more into it than that.

I don't often agree with PsyGuy (and I disagree about most of the points he made), but I have to say that I am not eager to return to the US simply for the gun violence issue. I like not having to know the number of steps to my classroom door or consider escape routes or hiding places (though I do it anyway out of habit). Of course that assumes the home country is the US, which obviously isn't the case for a great many of the people on here or in IE.

I have a similar take and look at the following, in no particular order:

Working conditions: How am I treated by leadership? How well resourced is the school? How big are the classes? How are my students? How are the parents? What is the extracurricular load like?

Pay: How well can I live on my salary? What is the savings potential? What will the pay be like moving forward (opportunities for advancement, etc.)?

Social: How do I like my colleagues? What is the expat community as a whole like? Can I make friends in this place?

Wider context of my life: How easily can I pursue my hobbies and interests? How do I like the country and city? If I want to travel, how easily can I do that?

Career: Does teaching still bring me joy? Do I have the opportunities to develop professionally through things like new courses, leadership roles, or just good PD?



No school is perfect. Sometimes you give up one to get another. Sometimes all suck. Sometimes "moving up" means taking a hit in one but gaining in two or three. So when I think about what I miss in a prior school, it will vary; I miss the colleagues and atmosphere of collaboration at one, but not the pay or the workload. I miss the wider opportunities outside of school at one but am excited to advance my career and have more resources at another. I would advise colleagues to be honest with themselves about all of these and to consider which ones they are and aren't willing to compromise on. Do your research.

I love it when PsyGuy puts words in my mouth, then argues with those words. It's like a dog chasing his own tail.

I did not say that, nor is that my position.

Yes, yes. Repeat your claims with no evidence, no backing, and while putting words into another's mouth (keyboard?). Insult me. Be wordier. Attack Heliotrope while you are at it.

Rinse, repeat. Another day on ISR.

For what it's worth to the person who asked: PsyGuy has codified his criteria and calls them "formalized criteria", so he isn't wrong when he says they exist. If that is what you are wanting, you are free to use his definitions. There is no agreed-upon definition, no agreed upon criteria, and only a handful of widely agreed upon schools--and even those often have someone who argues against their inclusion. Any "master list" is a list he keeps and is not stored in some vault other than his head. So do with the information what you will. Feel free to check out the thread on the member forum to see the discussions in action and then check out the individual schools to see what you think they have in common.

Just to be clear, there are not actually formalised definitions or percentages for Top Tier. "Elite" is a PsyGuy term. The top tier schools are those which, over time, have been known to pay well / have good packages, offer career opportunities, require hard work but still allow a good work-life balance, offer good working conditions, are truly international. If that sounds vague, it's because it is. Individual preferences may vary. Also, schools fluctuate over time. Tier 1s tend to be consistently considered the best, and of course there is disagreement as to what the comparison is, too--"the best" compared to other schools? Schools within a region? By pay? Programming? Most Tier 1 schools would have thriving programs across a range of areas, but having thriving programming generally doesn't mean a school is Tier 1. Schools in which you teach and go home are different from schools in which you are expected to work 10 hour days and show up for performance nights with great regularity. So there is no single definition.

The main school in Dhaka, for example, is by all accounts a neat place--very collegial, organised, lots to offer--but you are living in Dhaka, which isn't for everyone! Frankfurt is another example where the main school ticks all the boxes except savings potential, which by virtue of being in Europe, is limited; it stacks up very well against other ISs in Europe, but you can't save the way you would at most big Asian schools. The top ISs in Africa often only show up if the list is regional. A great school might not make the list because it is for-profit or full of mostly local students.

Finally, there are personal considerations that make small, relatively unknown schools Tier 1 in most regards without their names ever showing up on anyone's radar. A small city might have a school that offers a smaller pay package than the main school in the capital, but the cost of living is so much lower that it actually allows for more savings. It might not have the major programming, but it is sufficient and allows for more independence and freedom in teaching. It might not have the prestige, but it has the lifestyle. It doesn't have the infrastructure, but it has solid, consistent, and effective leadership. So one man's Tier 1 is another man's horror show and vice versa.

But for the purposes of this type of forum or context, there are schools that are generally considered Tier 1. You can find lists and discussions of individual schools on the paid side.

Tier 2 are generally those which are generally truly international, very good, but maybe have had some systemic problems, are newer and lack the prestige, or simply don't pay as much. They are solid schools, often scratching at being listed or on-again-off-again on the list of Tier 1s or simply unable to measure up to the competitor in the same city. Or maybe they are in locations that tend to be less desirable.

Tier 3s are often ISs in name only or real horror shows. But many of them are also only too small, too local, or too poor to make the higher tiers and can be great places to work depending on an individual's needs and wants.

There is no master list. There is no agreed upon definition. There is no Tier 4 and no Elite Tier. There is a lot of subjectivity. And therefore there are no set hiring criteria or even measurable trends. But there are schools which are generally known to be "top," and of course these tend to require a bit more and be harder to get into, especially in competitive subjects. That's all.

D) HR at that school doesn't have their ducks in a row.

I have the job I want and am unlikely to be looking in the near future or to need a leg up. But think what you want if it makes it easier for you to write off the actual substance of what I am saying. Or take umbrage at the language I used so you can ignore the substance of what I said. Whatever helps you sleep, I guess. You are entitled to feel what you want.

I was willing to be patient to a point as people wanted to wait a few months or wanted a few more published studies. We're there now. There is, for almost all of us, no rational reason not to get vaccinated. There is only an emotional one (people being "unsure" or "feeling unsafe" or what have you).

I get that. I do. People are entitled to their emotions, and those emotions are valid. But your (generic you) emotions lead to actions (or inactions) which have consequences for the rest of us. There is (for the overwhelming majority of us) only an emotional reason not to get vaccinated. When that emotional reasoning causes harm to others, you should expect pushback. Since refusing vaccination causes continued risk to those who cannot actually get vaccinated--particularly many of our students--it is no longer a matter of personal choice, but one of collective action. The international school community has opted for collective action in requiring vaccines. Our choices are to put collective and individual well being first or to stick to some arbitrary principle based on emotions over science. If that's your choice, you are within your rights to refuse vaccination and to refuse to provide required information. But choices have consequences.

I seriously wonder about the logic of some posters. Any argument about veganism, travel choices, etc. has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Covid vaccination. Nothing. "If you really cared about" is not relevant and is an attempt to shift the conversation.

There are three considerations when talking about whether people should get the vaccine: Personal safety, collective safety, and personal choice. The science on both personal and collective safety comes down on the side of getting vaccinated for almost all people. That only leaves personal choice. For this the discussion falls into "liberty" (whether or not we have the right to choose to ignore personal and collective safety), "religion" (my deity told me to reject all needles or something), and "selfish a*****e" (I don't wanna because something on the internet makes me want to ignore personal and collective safety). Since liberty is well established for most of us--most of us are able to reject getting vaccinated if we so choose, though of course that choice does have consequences--and I don't really know of ACTUAL religions that are fundamentally opposed to modern science and medicine, though of course there may be some--we are left with the "selfish a*****e" people who simply don't want to get vaccinated and then use arguments like liberty and religion to justify their choices. In order to save face, they might also try to attack the well-established personal and collective safety. Thus the inane arguments about ARR, stupid conspiracies about microchips or infertility, etc.

In short, the only reason for the overwhelming majority of those choosing not to get vaccinated is "selfish a*****e," and if a school, recruiter, or country wants to exclude those people, I have no problem with it.

If we have to be divided between those who understand science and those who try to give crackpot theories equal footing with science, well, I am happy to be divided. Not all views are equally valid or worthy of the same respect. If that is divisive, I am okay with that. I am all for respecting people's right to make idiotic choices, and I am all for respecting people as fellow human beings in spite of their idiotic choices, but don't expect me to respect the idiotic choice itself. And when an idiotic choice puts others at risk, don't expect me to stay silent on the issue.