Which "high desire IS" might be there? European ones only?

I'm just try a get a handle on it as an idea.

To say schools are tier 1 is arbitrary, but what makes the difference between a Tier 1 school and an Elite school in those countries I mentioned? There's one elite school, but how many Tier 1 schools?

Also, who is doing the judging? Americans might think the American School is always the best option, whereas Brits might go for the Brit option. They often aren't even much aware of the other schools. Who judges that ISB or Bangkok Patana or NIST is the elite school in Bangkok and how? What about a non-IB school like Shrewsbury, or a school offering AP but not IB? Just wondering how we rank one great school above another.

sid wrote:
> I disagree slightly with the disagreeing. Some schools do have such a
> clause, but even if you use one, you're still not completing the contract.
> You're walking away from the original intent. Schools may differ in what
> they call it, and how they treat it.

In reality, the teacher isn't really doing wrong here in a technical, legal sense. They are exercising their rights under the labour laws of that country. The school doesn't have a leg to stand on, and they know it. The "original intent" part means nothing, and in reality should not have a bearing. A school based in such a country has no right to expect such an intent to be able to override the laws of the country they operate in. The very contract the teacher signs allows for that provision.

However, I think we all know that this would count for nothing in IE. The candidate would most likely be dropped by their Agency, the school would consider it breach of contract even if their hands were tied to make it stick under the laws of that country, and we could all most likely understand that unless the school was not fulfilling their side of the bargain then quite frankly you should not expect potential schools to consider hiring you.

So, they wouldn't be breaking contract. Personal opinion is irrelevant here as that can be determined through the legal system, but I think we would all agree that they would be acting in bad faith.

Ok, so the elite tier/tier 1 etc is relative only to the country?

In that case, which would each tier be relative to, say, Thailand, The Philippines, Hong Kong, Malaysia etc.

So...this rockstar IT.

Does a trailing spouse affect them? Do kids lessen their value?

The argument is that Master Class ITs end up at tier ones (usually) but have to fight for it?

I had a 3 month clause in one contract which enabled either the school or employee to leave. It was never made use of, however. The school said they had to include due to labour laws in that country.

I'm sure if an employee did make use of it, the school would have called it breaking contract!

There's a reason why still have a Bangkok and London fair, with the Dubai one just having finished. There are still jobs to be filled, and still schools looking. There are over 600 international jobs on TES.

They might not be the dream school, although some might be, but I bet there's a few "right" schools in there for anyone.

As in, would TOK experience help with the points for cross-certified, or special population set?

How about IB examiner or Workshop Leader experience?

Ah well, I tried.

Or TOK Coordinator, or EE Coordinator, those kind of roles.

Are they valued at all?

Where, say, would TOK experience come into it?

References to rockstar ITs keep cropping up, recently related to a teacher getting offered a job on the night before a fair started.

What is a rockstar IT? Is this different to any good IT with experience? How do you spot one?

Psyguy - Not sure where I inferred it was a "wide spread phenomenon" nor do I think the local hire thing is relevant. However, I'm happy to hold my hands up and say I misunderstood the reasoning behind it.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @MartElla
>
> No, its based on:
>
> 1) The difference of policy based 'wont' and regulatory prohibition 'cant'
>
> 2) Your claim that embassies (the DOS) prohibit certain ASs from hiring
> anyone. (the same ASW website you cited, specifically states that the cause
> is due to special tax provisions, that you neglected in your citation, and
> has nothing to do with DOS restrictions).
>
> 3) That this is a wide spread phenomenon and is actually just a very small
> group of ASs.
>
> 4) That your original response neglected to identify that in this one AS,
> the AS could still hire an EU passport holder as a local hire (again the
> same citation you referenced specifically states that the AS can hire
> common wealth nation members, this includes British subjects and citizens,
> though as a LH).
>
> That is what makes your statement grossly inaccurate.

1. You say no to what I said in the very post you responded to, and then repeated it? Poor logic. O our of 1, not a great start.

2. Didn't say they "prohibited" them. It wasn't there in my original post. You seem to be mistaking correlation with causation. I didn't say why or why not the restrictions might be in place. 0 out of 2, n ot looking good so far.

3. Now we go from the illogical to the fantastical. Who said anything about a "wide spread phenomenon"? Where did I say it wasn't just a small group? 0 out of 3, your worst effort yet.

4. The clutching at straws argument. Oh great, a local hire! Awesome. That's what EVERYBODY talks about on here. In fact, why is this site frequented by international teachers? Surely we should all be looking for local hire packages. We all know it wasn't about local hires. In fact, it wasn't mentioned until I acknowledged that possibility. 0 out of 4.

Fine, I might have been wrong about why a few American schools prefer to hire Americans on expat packages, and I don't mind admitting to being wrong about the reasoning behind it on this very thread - I hold my hands - but I think you'll find somewhat faulty reasoning emanating from your good self.

No? If not, never mind then.

Psyguy - so, the "grossly inaccurate" all boils to my use of one word - cannot - which if it was "will not" would have been fine?

Same end result. No EU citizens as OSHs.