I am excited to joing this forum and, like others, wish it had existed during my 11 years overseas. After 4+ years in my last school, with excellent evaluations and huge contributions to the program, I was "non-renewed". Having seen this happen to others of equal quality and in other settings, I wanted to do what I could to try to encourage international schools to implement more just and ethical practices. The following article was my effort to articulate the problem. I would appreciate your reactions, corrections, and ideas.

International School Teaching: A Tenuous Career
by David Addicott, former international school educator

Certainly the hazards of living overseas, where teachers may be subject to risks of health or safety, are readily identifiable and beyond the control of the schools we work for. But, we are also subject to professional risks, which are not so apparent and may be created by the schools themselves.

International schools, whether of the non-profit or proprietary sort, offer little in the way of job security. Generally there are no laws governing how international schools must treat their employees and, of course, there are no unions to protect the rights of their workers. For, that is what we are, workers; not partners nor shareholders. We serve at the pleasure of our school directors and principals. We trust that we will be treated fairly, that policies, where they exist, addressing the rights of teachers will be adhered to, because, when we are treated unfairly, there is little we can do. The process of seeking justice is likely to damage our own careers in a system where hiring by word of mouth is the norm.

Fortunately, being educators themselves, most directors and principals do try to treat their employees fairly and ethically. Moreover, most schools seem to have policies spelling out conditions under which contracts may be terminated and grievance procedures. There is one area, however, in which international schools, in my experience, fail to provide appropriate protection to professional staff: the non-renewal of contracts.

International schools generally employ teachers on 2 year contracts initially and on an annual basis after that. One would think, logically, that the decision to renew a teacher?s contract would be based solely on that teacher?s performance in the classroom and their professional conduct. Schools generally adhere to a system of teacher evaluation which stipulates the process to be followed when a teacher?s performance does not meet the standards of the school. It is understood, obviously, that if the teacher?s performance does not improve, his contract will at some point not be renewed. Many schools, however, reserve the right to simply not renew contracts without either identifing or addressing the shortcoming of the teacher.

This practice not only negates the purpose of teacher evaluations but undermines their use as well. Placing a poorly performing teacher on an ?improvement plan? should be done with the full intention and belief that the teacher will improve. After all the school has invested a fair sum in bringing the teacher on board. The non-renewal option, however, circumvents this process as long as the supervisor is careful not identify an area in need of improvement! Once the teacher is informed that they need to change some aspect of their teaching or professional conduct, the school would be obligated by their own policies to take the teacher through a prolonged process, presumably with the intent of retaining them if at all possible. By not identifying a problem and simply not renewing the contract, the director or principal can remove staff quickly and with no obligation to help the person improve. Not only do such administrators not need any reason to let a teacher go, it serves their purposes to not identify the reason, even if when one exists!

What?s wrong with this practice? From an ethical and humane standpoint, the practice of non-renewal without due process is simply wrong. The impact on the individual (or couple) is devastating and may include the following:
? loss of income necessitated by move, the cost of recruiting, and moving to the entry level salary in the new school.
? loss of self-esteem ? no matter how presented, non-renewal amounts to being terminated, being told you?re not good enough to work here -- a situation made worse when no reason is given and person is left wondering.
? any attempt to complain is likely to make matters worse by being branded as a complainer or trouble maker within the international school administrator community ? the advice often given is, ?you?d be wise to resign and take your good letter of recommendation.?
? friends, colleagues, and prospective employers assume there must be a problem ? the victim becomes socially isolated
? even asking a prospective school about their non-renewal practices would likely result in not being hired

How does this practice affect schools that practice it? Again, there are financial, human and programatic costs to the school, including:
? staff are infected with distrust and fear, lowering morale
? staff are less inclined to invest themselves in the school; the message to those who are left is ?don?t risk, don?t speak up, don?t invest yourself in the school, close your door and don?t volunteer for anything.?
? turnover of staff will increase as teachers seek more hospitable schools, resulting in higher costs and lack of program continuity

Why does this unprofessional, unethical practice continue when so many negative results occur? There are a variety of factors that conspire to maintain this practice, starting with the fact that the administrators hold all the cards (power) and there is nothing in place to restrain them, other than their own sense of fairness. Other factors include:
? Teacher evaluation and the process of helping deficient teachers to improve is difficult, time consuming and easily avoided.
? Administrators may be particularly reluctant to deal with conflicts, unpleasant personalities, complaining parents, or different ways of seeing things.
? Administrators may claim that the problem is simply the teacher?s personality, which can?t be changed, so nothing could be done.
? Administrators use the excuse, ?This is how things are overseas, get used to it? or ?This is how businesses work, it?s normal?.
All of these factors boil down to administrators simply not being willing to do their jobs and to treat their teachers with the dignity and respect they deserve. Teachers in this situation are virtually powerless, unless they are willing to give up any hope of teaching again in an international school. School boards, whether appointed or elected, are more likely to support administrators and not be interested in seeing policies in place to protect the ?rights? of teachers. Boards, like administrators, are more interested in being able to quickly get rid of ?problem? teachers.

What needs to be done? International school administrators should begin to police themselves, realizing that sound ethical treatment of staff is in the best interest of the school and of students. More specifically:
? Schools and their administrators should implement due process, ensuring that employees are not let go unless ample opportunity has been provided to meet the school?s expectations.
? These policies should be accessible to prospective employees, making these schools more attractive to potential candidates. School policies should make it clear that contract renewal can be expected when the teacher?s performance meets the school?s standards, barring situations requiring reduction in force.
? Organizations, such as ISS could provide an industry standard for schools to adopt, resulting in an ?ethical personnel practices seal of approval.?
? Accrediting bodies could evaluate the ethical practices in use in schools abroad and expect standards to be in place that protect the rights of teachers, similar to those in place in US public schools.