Push in.
In almost every situation.
Push out for a little (keep it little) extra support to make explicit connections.

Train the teachers properly so every classroom is a language classroom. Many schools say it, but without proper training it isn't real.

I agree that you should get full waivers for at least 2 children, and probably three. Some schools, good schools too, can't afford to give waivers for more than one or two children.

While waivers might seem cheap, they aren't always. If it's a school, or even a grade level, that is at capacity, putting in your child for free means turning away a fee-paying student. Hardly cheap. In my current school, that's the situation. We're full. Teachers' kids come for free, which means that every teacher's child represents an opportunity cost for the school. In my school, that's not an issue. We're well funded and recognize the value added in terms of getting good teachers and rounding out the student body. In other schools, where money is tighter, hard decisions must be made. One extra fee-paying student could represent a new set of textbooks or a visit from a famous author or those repairs to the gym that have been delayed or ???

On the other hand, if the school isn't full, if there's an empty space in a class that will otherwise stay empty, a waiver costs the school very little.

I have two competing trains of thought.

One is that you are more likely to get hired as a math teacher than a generalist. We need more math teachers, and generalists aren't, in my opinion, as highly respected or needed.

Two is that it's unclear if you'll be a good math teacher. If you aren't already good at math, that could actually work in your favor, giving you a better understanding of the struggles that many students face with math. But for that to be true, you would first have to learn to be good at math, and it sounds as if you have some doubts about the timeline for that. Learning math properly is a major undertaking, especially learning it the way that students should be learning. I'm not talking about memorizing formulas and rules for how to move variables from one side of an equation to the other. I mean having a deep and meaningful understanding of what it means when you're moving variables around, knowing why you're moving then, and why you can do this, that or the other thing, but you can't do something that looks very similar. Knowing at least 3 ways to add a column of numbers, how to demonstrate division using manipulatives, how to teach division so it's not a set of procedural rules (set out your problem like so, move the decimal like so, divide this number into these numbers like so, write this number up here and this other number down here, draw a line, subtract, bring this number down from here to here, divide this number into this new number down here, etc, etc, etc), but rather teaching an understanding of division so that students can work out on their own several different ways to do a division problem, and know why their method will or won't work. Most of us didn't learn this in school, and quite frankly it's why many students struggle, so you might well have to start at the very beginning of learning math. But if you want to be a good math teacher, you'll need to do it.

Short term, it'll be easier to get a job as a math teacher than a generalist. Medium and long term, will you succeed as a math teacher, and how will that impact the rest of your career?

The world needs great math teachers. I hope you'll be one of them, but don't underestimate the work needed.

As a couple you're very attractive. Expect to get good teaching offers from good schools.
For junior admin positions, it's harder to predict. Even Tier 1 schools recruit from outside sometimes, usually not because they don't have talent on staff, but because they recognize that sometimes fresh blood/fresh perspectives are needed. In those cases, they usually want someone who's been on the international circuit and can bring the benefit of knowledge of other schools/other ways of doing things, but even so you have a chance.
But if you get hired as a teaching couple, prove yourself, and wait, you too could in a couple of years become one of those internal promotions.

Personally I wouldn't be skeptical of long stays.
I'd be more inclined to be skeptical of unchecked ambition.

I've known people to make the jumps to Head of School within 10 years, and I've known people to take much longer. The latter have done better in my experience.

There is so much to learn in admin... It would be far too easy to rise above your ability. A longer preparation time could mean a better chance that you're actually ready for the new responsibilities. Or it could mean you were best suited where you were. So hard to tell, and so hard to speak in absolutes.

Agencies do ban schools, but it's only if misconduct is proven. Sometimes, a claim is based more on the teacher's and the school's different interpretations of the facts, rather than on demonstrated breaking of rules.
I'm sure I'll be pilloried for this, but I do see both sides.
Sometimes there are schools who behave in very bad ways, breaking rules and contracts. This is unacceptable. I count myself lucky that I've only worked in a school like that one time, and the contract breaking was limited to systematic and illegal lowballing of the end of service benefit. It was annoying, it was predictable, and we didn't see a way to fix it, so we all just lived with it. Later, some teachers found a way to fix it, and after a two year legal battle, they prevailed.
Sometimes, there are schools and teachers who don't see eye to eye, and generally it is the teacher who ends up moving on, often with a very bad taste in their mouth, but in point of fact the school has not broken any rules, they've just not been, and refused to become, the place the teacher wanted them to be. These cases sometimes result in the aggrieved teacher making loud complaints (on ISR sometimes) that make the school look really bad. I get annoyed by this. I've seen a good handful of teachers who really didn't seem to understand that just because things didn't get done their way, didn't mean the school had broken contract or anything else.
Sometimes there are teachers who behave very badly for their own reasons. I've got a very bad memory of 2 teachers in my career who exploited and manipulated schools into hiring them, and then managed to twist things so severely that the 2 schools in the end paid them a settlement to go away quietly. Having been on the inside of both these cases, I am certain that the schools were in the right.

I agree with DCgirl. There are usually positions out there for people with children, but they can be hard to find. While extra English speakers in the classroom might be nice, this is the first time I've heard it suggested that kids make you more likely to be hired. Children are very very expensive for schools, and while most are prepared to pay the required price, they're not really keen to pay for more children than they have to.

IB exams are not invigilated by outsiders. They are taken in the school and usually invigilated by the school's teachers, though other adults can be used. Teachers cannot invigilate for the subjects they teach, except for language oral exams and music performances. IB inspectors make the rounds, and you never know when will be your year for a surprise visit.

I don't know personally of any case where an invigilator would turn a blind eye or otherwise help students cheat. Most schools do their very utmost to keep everything above board, as one serious infraction could jeopardize every students' results. It's just not worth the risk.

Not everyone is honest, but I have faith that the IB invigilators as a group are pretty above board. One bad apple spoils the bunch, but invigilators are not apples. One bad invigilator would probably be torn to pieces by his colleagues if ever discovered.

Without a certificate, few good schools would hire you, but you could probably find a position somewhere. Your options would be limited.

With an MA license, or any license, doors would open.

Long-term, you're far better served getting the license.

If your goal is top tier admin, you should stick to admin posts in tier 1 or tier 2 schools. I've seen a good handful of tier 3 admin get stuck in tier 3 forever, or at least that's my conclusion after knowing them for years and years and never seeing them able to move up.

In my experience, you can/should move up one notch at a time, and there are two scales you could choose from. If you move from tier 3 to tier 2, expect to stay at the same responsibility level: teacher/junior admin/senior admin/head of school. If you move from teacher to to junior admin, expect to stay at the same tier. The reason for this... expectations and responsibilities increase significantly whether you change tier or change post. If you go up in both at the same time, you'll be swimming above your head before you know it.

Now, your question in interesting. Using my theory, moving from junior admin tier 2 to head of school tier 3 would mean you'd be moving down a tier but up 2 steps in the responsibility ladder. Technically it's still only net one step up, but is it really? Are you ready to sit across the table from someone and tell them they're fired? New admin always get excited about being able to hire people and make the decisions that get people smiling, but it takes experience with the really painful decisions to make a good head. If you're an academic coordinator, I'm guessing you haven't had to pull the plug on someone's career, booting him and his small children and wife who makes the tasty treats to the curb with no prospects. You may have known that the person eventually had to go, but did you actually make the decision? Tell him the news? Stand firm when he cried in front of you and promised to do better? Are you ready to be the one who says 'no, we can't implement this program/go on that PD, that you've planned, even though it looks fantastic, even though you've done all the research, even though it appears to be the right thing to do... because we can't afford it'. Ready to be the one who gets blamed for every decision?

Similarly, can you make a budget? For the whole school? Do you know how to set priorities for the whole school? Can you navigate labor law, and make it work for the best of the school? Are you used to thinking about secretaries' needs and how to maintain nurses' certifications? Can you advise the public relations officer on how you want this year's ad campaign handled? Are you familiar with learning theory and do you have pedagogical beliefs about how to run/improve programs for subjects and age levels beyond the ones you're working in now? When you see a problem, do you immediately start running through solutions in your head?

I've been in senior admin for years, and I'd hesitate to take a head of school position, regardless of the tier. In part I just don't want one, and in part I feel I wouldn't be ready. If I decide I want such a post some day, I know what I need to do to get ready, I know where to go to get those skills, and I know how long (ish) it would take me. If you, or anyone, doesn't know the answers to those questions, I wouldn't recommend jumping up to head of school.

I'm sure there are exceptions, perhaps in the well-regulated EU for a start, but mostly I think that if you had a serious long-term medical issue, you would eventually lose your job. Schools would have the option of granting you a leave of absence, but this is much tougher in an independent school than it is in a district back home. Back home, you can go on leave, and months or years later when you're ready to come back, they'll slot you in some place in the district, though not necessarily the exact job you left. In a single school, that's hard. If you go on leave, they have to replace you, and if it's more than a week or two, that can mean having to hire a full-time replacement, who likely won't be enticed by an offer that includes 'and when teacher X is ready to return, whenever that is, you're out the door with a week's notice'. Schools can and do hire long-term subs in some cases, and there are agencies that provide such a service internationally, but most schools are under no obligation to do so. It's all good will. If they like you as a teacher, if they see the liklihood that you'll be able to return in a reasonable amount of time, they will probably work with you to find a solution. If you're not so well respected, if it is unclear when or if you'll return, they don't have much reason to go the extra mile. Also consider the benefits question - taking leave internationally is not just a case of ceasing your salary for a while. The school is providing you with housing, annual flights, your child's tuition, medical insurance and who knows what else. If you go on leave, do they also cease paying for those things? And if they did, could you afford to stay in the country? Most schools have policies about these things, but often those only cover more typical shorter medical leaves, say for a week or two, or maternity leave. The longer stuff might be left out of the policy or even forbidden in the policy.

Whether schools cover pre-existing conditions is up to them. I've know many who do and many who don't. I've heard the horror story of a family who specifically inquired in advance about medicine for a specific expensive condition, only to find on arrival that the insurance policy had been changed after they asked (because they asked?) to specifically exclude that exact condition.

But it's not all doom and gloom. For normal medical stuff, like needing a week or two off to recover from an operation, it's all pretty normal and expected. You may not get paid for all the time off, if it exceeds your annual limit of sick days, but you'd get unpaid leave with all benefits.

Ours is lovely. 100% coverage with a long list of approved providers for all normal medical stuff. 80% if you go outside the list of providers, but the best doctors are on the list, so that would be a silly move. No deductibles, very high annual limit.
80% coverage on eyes and teeth with approved providers. No deductibles, but the annual limit for dental is a bit low for my liking. If you need a major dental experience, you'll be ok, but if you're unlucky enough to have two major dental issues in one year, you'd probably be over.

International coverage, world-wide. 100% coverage for all emergency and normal care. I think for some non-urgent things they want you to get treated in country, but I'm not sure of the specifics. Medical care is good and easy here, so I don't do non-urgent things when I'm away.

If you have a hospital stay, you're entitled to a private room.

My only beef is that there is almost no preventive care provided. Dental check-ups and cleaning are at your expense if no problems are found. If the check-up reveals a need for action, then it's covered. They will cover a well-woman/man check-up if you're over 35, and a more thorough one if you're over 40, but not cover dermatology screenings for pre-cancerous lesions, even if you have family history. Again, if the screening reveals a problem, then it'll be covered, but not if you're cleared. Etc, etc.

All family members are covered to the same level, at no cost to the employee. Really, a pretty sweet package.

I concur with other posters. In a limited and decreasing number of schools, you can get commissary privileges. Nice perk.
I have no personal knowledge of anyone getting a diplomatic passport for working in an American school. You're not a diplomat, you're not working for the US government, why would you? (Technically any school can throw "American" in its name. The more official ones receive some funding from the US State Department, but that doesn't make them US government entities.)

This is a really tough situation, and I feel for you.
Much of the job scenario comes down to the contract. If you were hired as a single, your job should be there for you regardless of what happens with your BF. If you were hired as part of a couple, it is as you've been advised: up to the school. Be prepared to make a sales pitch, as they may well be wary of the extra risks that could come with a recently separated single taking up a post in a new country.

If you're on a joint contract, and you both move there, but then subsequently break up, the school may split the joint benefits between you, or assign you both single-status benefits, or, in an option not mentioned before, assign the full value of the joint benefits to one person. In many joint contracts, one person is contractually assigned the joint benefits, and the other is assigned a salary only, with no benefits (often it's technically a local-hire contract). This works out fine while a couple is together, but if they split, it leaves one person high and dry. In such a case, the school might well know that the "right" thing to do is different than the "contractual" thing to do, but laws and finances might prevent them from doing more than the contract says. Schools in Central America are usually operating on pretty tight budgets, and don't necessarily have the funds to give unplanned benefits to someone just because her BF split up with her. This is the way it was at the school I worked at in Central America, quite a few moons ago, and I did observe a wife left without benefits when her husband divorced her. She ended up with nowhere to live for the remainder of her contract, and had to resign at the end of the year. (The principal actually wanted to keep her, but the Board had a very strict policy that local-hire contracts, which hers technically was, could never be converted to recruited-hire contracts.)

Could you improve your relationship through a move? I won't say it's impossible, but it's really hard. The top-ten list of life stressors includes both moving and starting a new job; rekindling a marriage/relationship can be up there too. Doing them all at once can be tough - go to http://www.roadtowellbeing.ca/questionn ... ssors.html to see how your scores would add up if you made the move. Moving means making a million decisions together, about what new-staff activities to take part in, what time to go home, what car to buy, how to furnish your apartment, how to navigate across the city in traffic. How are you right now at making joint decisions? Does it bring you together or lead to fights, accusations and guilt?

Good luck in all your decisions.

[quote="PsyGuy"] the presumption is that they are, [/quote]

No, "your" presumption is that they're true. "The" presumption, or at least "my" presumption, is that they may or may not be true.

I have great difficulty understanding how there can be a general presumption of the truth of anonymous web postings.