I understand Briz's point that there is some objective winner in terms of which school got the 'best' average and most 45s. Of course there is. Any time we put numbers on things, we can determine a winner.

I also take heart from Walter's comments, as I see it the same way. I like schools that do the most with a wide range of students. We push, cajole, coax and support the weaker student farther than they ever dreamed, and we do the same with those in the middle and those at the top.

The truth is, though, that the ones in the bottom and the middle tend to need us far more than the ones at the top. The students who earn 45, they would do well in pretty much any reasonable environment. They'll be fine. They don't need me. Maybe it takes a certain teacher or school to ensure they get a 45 instead of a 43, but how much difference is there really?

The students who struggle, who know that success isn't guaranteed, those are the ones who need me. And I place great stock in schools who help those students 'be all they can be', instead of spending all their time on the 5% of students who would be fine no matter what.

We may need NASA scientists (though we might debate that another time), but if my work helps a student prepare for a better future than he would otherwise have had, I can be proud of what I do. Isn't that what we're here for?

To me, the best school gets amazing results from a wide range of students. And that can't be easily captured by looking at who has the highest DP average.

It's commonly done, more's the pity.
First thing I check in a reference is who wrote it, and whether they were in a supervisory role. If it's a full admin person who was responsible for supervising the candidate, great. Next best is an admin type who worked with but didn't supervise. If it's an HOD or similar, from the same department/team as the candidate, well, ok, I'll give it a look. If it's a straight on colleague, fellow teacher, I really am not interested. And if someone has too many colleague references, and not enough admin type references, that in itself is a red flag. If a candidate can't get references from the powers that be, it makes the recruiter wonder why.

Try this link to something I posted last year which got picked up for an ISR blog. I particularly like the bit where they call me a director (I'm not).
http://internationalschoolsreviewdiscus ... directors/
There are other recruitment related blogs on ISR which merit exploration.

I respectfully disagree with Briz a little bit, though on many points we see things the same way.
Superstar couples probably have LESS need of good cover letters than do the more 'regular' folk, for lack of better terms. If you believe you're in the main stack of typical candidates, you need to do whatever it takes to rise to the top. A good cover letter can help. Honestly, as a recruiter, I get so few truly excellent letters, that this alone could get me interested in you. Most letters are pretty white bread much of a muchness.
And we do like cover letters at fairs as well. We don't get many, and there's good reasons for that, but again, if you want to stand out, go for it. A short handwritten note can do the trick, or a longer formal cover letter.
Good luck.

Two points.
1. Let the school know what you're thinking before you sign. They should in turn share their opinion about your planning for a lateral move. Sometimes this would be very welcomed, and other times it's not at all going to work. For example, sometimes a school has had too much change in an area, and really needs someone to come in, stay a while, build the program. Other times, it's not going to be an issue at all.
2. Make sure you really can do a good job at the initial position. If you aren't stellar at it, the school won't be impressed enough to move you around.

Many times teachers have gone into interviews just for the experience, and ended up realizing that the school was the right fit for them. It's happened to me personally once, and to others I know more times than I can count (perhaps showing my age here).
Do the interview with an open mind. Best case, you get a job you want. Worst case, you gain experience.

Newchapter, you make some good points, and some things definitely have to happen in a classroom, inquiry-based or not, but as I see it, reading, writing and sums are not the basis for critical thought. Critical thought is the basis for critical thought. Students can be taught to read, write and add without ever applying any critical thought at all (I'm sure that's not what you do in your classroom, just trying to explain part of PYP here). Critical thought is taught by giving students something to think critically about, which can and should start before they are ready to grasp a thick pencil and carve out a 'p'. Even the littlest ones can tackle tough questions like 'What is a family' or 'Why won't this tower stand up'. Their answers, like their thinking abilities, will grow as they grow, but only if they practice, and this is separate from reading, writing, sums. Definitely those things can aid in the development of thinking skills, but strictly speaking they are not necessary.
So PYP is inquiry based, which means in part that we allow students' natural curiosity to drive some of the things that happen in the classroom. If students are interested in that family question, or the tower one, we support those inquiries, provide provocations to spur further thinking, introduce related questions to expand the scope of the inquiry/thinking, throw in some related readings to hit two birds with one stone, etc etc.
PYP does not mean we allow the students free range to decide whether or not to learn, or make all the decisions about what to learn. It means we leverage a natural and good part of childhood to spur deeper and high quality learning.

It shouldn't be that bad, you'd still be ahead of people without any PYP experience.
But it does raise the question, if you really believe in PYP, why would you leave it? You should be prepared to answer that if and when you decide to return to a PYP school. There are acceptable answers, so don't think I'm judging you, but it's a question I'd expect, having seen enough teachers who 'taught in PYP schools' rather than 'were PYP teachers'.
Good luck, whatever you decide.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant US-style international schools, not schools in the US.

If you really want to convince the board, you'll need better data than what you can get here. From a research point of view, this just isn't a reliable or valid source. Posters are anonymous, anyone can claim anything, and there is no way of checking accuracy of claims. And since people self-select to be here, and then again self-select whether to answer, you're open for all sorts of bias in the answers. And without a clear definition of the question, posters will interpret it as they wish (as in, some may think you mean to include a lunch period in your calculations, and others may think the opposite, and that makes a huge difference; same issue with what 'counts' as teaching time - lessons, duties, covers, study halls, pastoral care - what's in and what's out?).

Try using data from the annual ECIS Statistical Survey. All member schools are required to complete it each year, so you get a baseline from accredited schools. Not a member? Try posting a careful question on PTCnet or AISHnet, with a good definition of exactly what you're looking for.

And keep tying your argument back to what's good for kids. If teachers get this time for prep and collaboration, what will they do with it that they won't do if it's taken away? If you can't prove that it's being used effectively to help students, you're not likely to convince the board that you should keep it. You may have to agree to some new official structures (collaborative meetings, team planning, assessment standardization, etc) to ensure the time is worth what it costs, but turn those lemons into lemonade by realizing that those things actually make teachers more effective, take less collective time than individuals doing everything alone, and produce better student learning through higher-quality planning on every level.

It would be a remarkably light schedule in a typical British school. On the heavy side for a US one, but not unheard of.
Personally, the key thing for me would be what is expected in the remaining time. Is all of your time your own, or will you be expected to fill in with duties, meetings, cover? Some schools operate a system which the British would call 'directed time', in which your time at school consists of a certain amount of 'directed time' like teaching, cover, meetings, etc. In that system, anything that requires you to be in a certain spot at a certain time, is part of your 'directed time', and that cannot on pain of death (or British union action) go beyond a certain very explicit number of hours. Other tasks, like marking and planning, are expected to be taken care of in the remaining hours of your contract, ie the difference between a full-time work-week and your official allotment of directed time. If your school is looking at a system like this, you could actually see a reduction in directed time.
But why do I suspect they're not? That they're just trying to get more teaching out of the same number of teachers?
And is lunch still a separate time? If so, that's still on the heavy side, but not so bad as if your prep period is also your lunch time. If it's separate, that's 6 out of 8, really, not 6 out of 7, and that's within normal ranges, a little heavy.

Look at this carefully. Once you know what it'll do to your personal work load, you might need to think about your personal decision. Frankly, I value time in the schedule for collaboration with colleagues, and if there isn't time for that, I think students end up paying the price.

The 4 IB programs are completely separate and schools have total choice over which ones, how many and which combination.

Dress up. Formal social. Guys can wear button-downs and ties, the brave can go without ties. Ladies have to navigate far trickier waters.
No jeans.

It happens every year. There are more open posts in IB schools than there are applicants with IB experience. And no one was born with IB experience. Anyone who acts like it's an insurmountable obstacle, needs to remember their own past.

Ok, then.
Make sure your CV and all application materials are in top-notch English. Get someone to help proofread and edit. This will show that when it really matters, you have the resources and will make the effort to produce a polished product.
Represent yourself accurately. Put it out there that you are not quite fluent. Explain the strategies you use to make sure you are successful as a teacher, with students, parents, colleagues.
And consider getting someone from the UK or the US to look over your application packet in terms of what you are including. If you are not from one of these countries, which are fairly dominant in the international school market, you might not be familiar with what the norms are, as they vary from culture to culture. When I get a CV which leads with the applicant's family status, father's name and driver's license number, I know I am looking at someone who has not internalized the cultural norms of international schools. And while it may seem silly, that can have huge implications in the classroom, if the applicant cannot adjust their behaviors to match the cultural norms of the students and colleagues. Not cookie-cutter match, just the sort of match where we're on the same page about behavioral expectations, what good teaching looks like, what contributions we're all expected to make towards duties and school fetes and such.

Consider going to a fair. You will be able to reach a much larger audience of recruiters, and be able to sell yourself in person. If the recruiter can see you being successful at communicating professionally and socially, you will be in with a shot.

If your English is not up to that level yet, maybe this isn't the year for you to move. Keep studying, so you're ready for next time. And keep an eye on cultural norms too, so you are ready for the sort of professional interaction the recruiters need to see.