Those two things are, surprisingly, no longer required. While I understand the need to grow your pool of examiners, I also found it weird that it was so open. That said, it can work to a candidate's advantage in a case like this as the graders ARE still the ones with insider information (already familiar with the IBIS system, the expectations of the assessments, and the subject reports, for example). A grader may not be as familiar with the ATLs or Learner Profile, but that is often jargon for things good teachers are doing anyway. An IB teacher is just a (hopefully good) teacher who has taught the assigned curriculum to prepare for the assigned assessments. All the philosophical stuff is what a good teacher with AP experience is hopefully mostly doing; the rest is simply frame working and jargon, and let's face it--the assessments are what is different and requires some training.

The "how do I structure my course so my students score well" question is what an experienced IB teacher already can answer, while an AP teacher can answer the question for AP. Both would have content knowledge and pedagogical experience, and a good teacher would already help students become inquirers, risk-takers, etc. Both would come from a place of developing critical thinking skills while still helping kids learnt he nuts and bolts of passing the exam in question. So it is familiarity with the exam in question that is a big part of the "how do I structure my course." Sure, it isn't the same thing as teaching the course and knowing how many of the literary works need to be in translation or that an IA should address one of several core concepts, but ultimately it means you as an AP teacher know what will be asked of students in the IB.

So if you can become a grader, it can help, as sid said. If you can't, you can still familiarise yourself with the overall program and with the subject guide for your subject (for free!) so you can address it in your application / interview. And you can always take the online course, which may or may not actually familiarise you with the program, but gives you a nice piece of paper. Or you can do all three. Or none. Completely up to you. If I had to pick one of the three, I would probably pick the grading.

Like I said, it was mostly musings--but I guess the takeaway is that the answer is "it depends." I fully agree about teaching and admin being reactive and the whole system being an obsolete model, though that was never anything I addressed or about the topic of recruiting peaks and valleys. I was more musing on the "quiet" being about the shifts in the timeline. I do think, however, that it will take a few more years to "normalise"--whether that's the old model or something different.

We all knew PsyGuy was going to disagree with me simply because I made the statement.

OP, it's an option, and it is one likely to help more than the course. You also get paid for marking, so it may be something you want to do regardless. Or do both. Or neither. Your call. PsyGuy is going to argue, regardless of what anyone says, simply because it's me. No need for you to get involved in that ugliness or for us to drag this thread back into the mythical Japanese horseback teacher territory (ancient, deleted thread that was about PsyGuy wanting to claim I was wrong simply because it was me making the statements). Do what you will with the advice or wait for opinions from someone on here who is an actual administrator and recruiter ( maybe sid?) and not the stealth fair crasher (another ancient thread).

At the end of the day recruiting is about maximising your marketability and finding the right recruiter with the right opening at the right moment. Jobs can be simple math of "years of experience" or meeting someone in an elevator. There is no one-size approach.

Agree with all of the above--it REALLY depends. There seems to be some serious consolidation in many places. I think most schools saw numbers fluctuate wildly from patterns as people were less likely to move on to the next posting last year. Just like many international teachers, many international workers decided to return home or were recalled--and as things went digital, I think the demand for moving overseas may temporarily shrink. Travel restrictions made people realise the value of being close to home. So yes, I think the field will shrink slightly. It will take a few years--I am thinking four or more--to really rebound to pre-Covid demand for ITs globally.

In terms of movement within those already in IT, I think it is going to also take a few years to settle. Last year people wanted to stay put because of the uncertainty. There was probably less movement over this past summer than in previous years. As things loosen, those who had itchy feet but were hunkering down may want to start moving--but of course there has to be somewhere for them to go.

What I wonder most is how the timeline of recruiting will change. The creep of getting earlier and earlier was troubling in my view. There seems to be a push from some schools to start earlier and earlier--but is this sustainable? And if the trend becomes that you line up your position a full year before moving--say the summer/early fall of the year before you move--will that make people in good schools gun shy? And when new leadership comes in, how hard will it be for them to make decisions on who stays or goes--and how will that impact their ability to attract and retain good staff? Will the timeline spread out regionally? Or could it consolidate back to the Jan-Mar window that used to be the norm? Obviously, visa processes will play a role here.

And of course there are the pockets of lots of movement that can create opportunities for some teachers to move into schools where they might not have formerly been considered, which might have a trickle down effect years down the line ("Oh, you taught at X?"--even if the teacher was awful at X and they were just grateful to have a warm body, they are now competitive on paper).

Anyway, not really a clear answer. Just some musings.

IB grader is not a substitute for IB teacher; nobody is saying it is. But given that the OP is not an IB teacher and wants to maximise their opportunities and appeal, this is a great option and certainly better than taking the stupid online course.

IB grader vs. not an IB grader--to a recruiter, it is a world of difference. The former knows what the IB wants and, when coupled with solid AP experience, is someone who can prepare students for the exam. At least to a recruiter. The other option is to simply say "I taught AP, I know nothing about the IB, and you can just trust that I can make the transfer." Most of us know that making the switch isn't hard, that good teaching is good teaching, and that there are really great teachers with no IB experience just as there are really awful IB teachers. Most reasonable recruiters know this, too--but they also need to hire the person who is the most likely to be a successful teacher and a good fit for their school. The fit is not always something in our control, but the more ways we can show a recruiter that we are able to do what will be asked of us, the better.

So yes, IB grader is yet another way you can demonstrate that you will be just fine with the switch from AP to IB. It's another way you can demonstrate that you are a low risk if you are asked to teach IB.

And some recruiters actually really love having IB graders.

I taught at a domestic school that was internationally focused. It had one of the best-designed curriculums, both within the IBDP and for the pre-DP, that I have ever seen. While the students were mostly domestic, the program was designed around international-mindedness, and as such it attracted most of the students with international backgrounds (lived abroad, immigrant families, etc.) and those non-international students who wanted a better idea of their place in a global society and to better understand the world around them. The program was cohesive and created a tight-knit cohort. Teachers developed good relationships with students. It was amazing.

On paper, it looked no different from any other public school, and kids could take the full DP, select DP courses, or do none of the exams and just get a regular US high school diploma. But while they may not have had 50 nationalities and 32 mother tongues, they received a more cohesive, globally-focused, and intellectually challenging education than many or even most ISs provide. This in spite of the large class sizes of 30 or more, the overcrowded and under-resourced classrooms, and the highly overworked but committed and enthusiastic staff having to make concessions to what was reasonable.

That said, education is also what you put into it. I think you CAN attend a bottom school, public or private, and get a fantastic education. You can also coast or squeak through the best of schools.

There is no simple or single answer to the question.

One thing to consider instead of IB courses is becoming an IB grader. That would fill some of the IB knowledge gap in a recruiter's mind.

I find the online courses not worth much, but the in-person courses are great. So if you want to spend that kind of money and if you are confident you want to work in an IB school, feel free to do that--but it won't be worth much for recruiting purposes. You would need IB experience, not a course, for it to be worth anything. Better to get the job and let the school pay for the official training.

Not a fan. I have an account that isn't very up to date, and I honestly never felt like I needed it. I tend to agree with Smokegreynblues about the nature of LinkedIn. Lots of jargon heavy self-promotion and people into the latest trends using beefy verbs to make normal jobs sound like they held some major leadership roles or special responsibilities. Recruiting ground for sycophant-seeking leadership with no budgets to find teachers willing to jump on board with their latest and ever-changing initiatives. If you are really lucky and a bit slick, you can lure someone from a job at a decent school to your fun-fest of a low-budget startup school by making them feel flattered for being headhunted.

I mean, sure, I connected with people on there just to keep my ear to the ground and my networking options open, but the users I know who post frequently are those types, and I have never heard of good schools using it.

Great comparison!

Yep, that was a classic. When I put some questions to him that were not immediately answerable on Google, he somehow stalled out. I still laugh at that.

Always fun when PsyGuy is back in full force. I had forgotten that I had my own abbreviation from him. Good times.

The "save 100K on 107K" is right up there with the Japanese school that needed a three way Olympic equestrian who was a BE instructor and a teacher.

Anyway, I think we all know that some people are arguing just to argue (the card catalogue statement wasn't actually about card catalogues per se, and we all know it), and the rest of us understand that while theoretically possible, it's not realistic to expect to save 100K in WE. Most of us understand what is meant by an ossified staff. Most of us feel the question has been answered, and if that answer is TPF, well, just celebrate with me that I get my own abbreviation.

I believe it was for three months--exactly the amount of time of a probationary period on most contracts.

Yes, this is a teaching couple's side hustle. And yes, they prey on teachers who are not aware of the many ways to get an international teaching job. I have no problem with running interview and CV help sessions and even charging a fee for them or offering individual support, but 30% of a salary, even for one month, is steep. I mean, a three year membership to Search is $225, many agencies are less than $50 a year or even free, and schools often post jobs on their sites. Active recruitment for not-yet-posted jobs or tentative positions is also common, so it often doesn't hurt to send an unsolicited application. Yet they want hundreds and even thousands of dollars for their service? That's crazy, and it is absolutely exploiting teachers who are perhaps a bit naive.

I saw that one. It's amazing how many desperate people there are out there that fall for that stuff. But hey, if you are unethical and have no problem parting a fool from his money, it's a great way to make big bucks for little work.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Thames Pirate
> No dont have to default to some expired or retired contracts. Just using
> the Vienna example.


I said Germany, and you talk about Vienna, but whatever. You are going to argue forever that you are right while the rest of us will roll our eyes and recognise that it is very hard to put aside 50K and nearly impossible to save 100K in most of WE. Argue all you want; realistically for what the OP wants, the answer is no, you should not reasonably consider WE.


> I wouldnt argue that Asia is better than the WE or EUR. What you call
> "ossified" i call a focus on classical education and learning.
> Whats wrong with doing things how weve always done them. Why meddle with
> something that works and isnt broken? Maybe these new ITs arent coming from
> such wonderful ISs with their new ideas. Change isnt always better, and
> change for the sake of change is rarely better. ITs should be hostile to
> newcomers that are trying to sabotage the current way of doing things.


I sure wouldn't want to be in your classroom! We are not preparing kids for life in the 20th century anymore. In the 1980s, when some of these ancient teachers started, the very concept of the internet was limited to scientists and computer geeks. Teaching how to use a card catalog is not "classical" education; it's a waste of precious time. Research has taught us a lot about how kids learn. Philosophies on the purpose of education are also different; we are no longer preparing kids for a single career. Change for its own sake isn't better, but change based on what is best for kids' needs absolutely is.

But hey, I recognise that you are arguing for the sake of arguing and that you want to troll the discussion into whether or not the field has or should change at all. You know full well that I am not saying there is something wrong with studying Oedipus; you are deliberately being obtuse and misunderstanding the point so that you can argue. Well, if you want to put words in my mouth and then argue with them, you don't need me for that.

The reality is that Vienna is not inherently better or worse than Singapore or Manila or Tokyo; there are elements that are better in each place and for each person. And schools in one part of the world or another aren't inherently better or worse; you might have ossified staff in one place and overworked in another. No school is perfect, and there are good and bad schools in every region. But you knew that this was my point, too.

I think the OP has enough to make an informed decision on WE as a place to save a lot of money, and bickering with you over your trolling comments won't alter that.

Oooh, I like the drop down idea for savings. Because at the very least it will give you some parameters. Of course, with anonymity being an issue, I would be hesitant to use that part myself, but if I could submit with those categories blank it would be okay--some people would use them.

The salary information in general could be a bit clearer because ultimately it's a person's own responsibility to look up cost of living. I find that a salary range or estimate of some kind and information on rough tax percentage is enough for me to reasonably see what I would save in a place. In fact, it always amazes me how few people do this type of research--literally go on rent websites and get ideas of what a local apartment that meets my needs costs, look at maps of the city and public transport, price out monthly tickets, food price comparisons, etc. Sure, it's easier in some places than others, but at the end of the day you can probably get a pretty good overview of what your monthly expenses might be. But that's a topic for another thread.