Just an English teacher. If you truly intended to use incorrect language, then that is your choice. However, do not be surprised when your choices leave the rest of us thinking you are illogical or out of touch with reality.

They don't. Great is a positive adjective. Best is a superlative.

You are flat wrong in your choice of words. But sure, go ahead and use the wrong words if it makes you happy. Delusion seems to be your thing.

Logically how can two things independent of one another have their greatness determined by each other? Either the schools are compared (not independent of one another) or they are independently evaluated. If the former, you should use a comparative (good/better/best), and if the latter there is no limit to the number of schools that are great--it could be all or none or anywhere in between.

Since you insist that it is comparative, you obviously labor under the mistaken belief that "great" and "best" mean the same thing. They are different, and you cannot expect the rest of us to understand your faulty diction. I suppose if you get to substitute random words for others of a different meaning, you can make any argument logical. Just adapt the definition as it suits you to do so, and hey, presto--your argument has actually changed, and you can avoid the charge of being illogical.

I sincerely hope you don't teach logic.

Can you have more than one great school in a city?

You must if you wish to be logical. Schools are independent of one another, so more than one can be great. Again, unless you are using a comparative instead of the traditional descriptor, in which case you can't expect those of us using traditional definitions of those words to fit your made up one. Offering advice using made up definitions is disingenuous.

When we started in IE, hubby worked at a small rural district where there was one admin who was principal who was also VP and superintendent. Since he was the entire dept., he was his own HOD. He had another teacher with more seniority write as "head teacher." His associate recommended that route and was very helpful in the whole thing process. I don't remember what he did for the third reference--maybe another teacher as a peer reference?, but he did get a few extra parents to help fill the gaps. The references are private--you can only see if they have been filled out.

Taking that long off can be a weakness in your application, but because a) you do have experience, b) you are already back in the classroom, and c) you are likely applying on the strength of your partner while you are an employable spouse, it's not as bad as it would be for many others. I think you have a reasonable chance of getting a nice job either next year (though peak season has passed) or the year after.

Big thread on ISS vs. SA on the other board. Entertaining read. PsyGuy still hasn't said what the higher bar for entry for ISS (for schools or teachers) is or what makes him say they rep "better" schools or teachers (since their requirements are basically identical). He hasn't said what the "extra services" are that ISS provides for its special snowflakes.

I would recommend SA over ISS for most people, but it depends on what you are looking for. See my responses on the other thread.

If you are assigning tiers based on characteristics, you must allow for multiple great schools in one city. After all, just because school A is great doesn't mean school B can't be as they are independent of one another.

That's all I am saying. Either you assign based on the quality of the school, in which case each school is judged on its own merits rather than comparatively, or you assign based on tier, in which case the descriptor is functionally meaningless.

Simple logic.

Well, if you randomly assign descriptors based on tier rather than quality of school, your definition of those words is not what most people would use. Great is not a comparative (the superlative form of good isn't great, but best), but your definition surely is. Therefore you cannot expect the rest of us to use your made up definitions. The OP was using the more commonly understood definition of "wonderful; very good."

The OP could absolutely be competitive for a great school. I also think most of us would consider any school that pays $900,000 great, regardless of how much other schools pay!

So a salary of only 900,000 vs. 1,000,000 USD is the reason IS Acme is only good while Acme IS is great? Or both are merely good because the difference between them is so minimal that neither has distinguished itself? You really are illogical.

So there is no list, schools ignore teachers who applied in favor of things like searching databases for those with the same qualifications whose names they don't know because there is no list, and those they select apparently at random are the unicorns? They then call those people up to meet and determine the vibe (formerly known as fit).

Nepotism doesn't make a great teacher. So if unicorns are just on the favorites, then why not just say that? They aren't just people with the right creds who get jobs easily, they are people who have gotten on the favorites list--for all we know by doing the right favors for smarmy directors, for example. Far cry from rockstar. Just on the list because . . . .

So unicorns are people who have gotten on the favorites list, which gets around, because they have done something favorite-worthy. Now that we have a more realistic definition, I can say it's possible such people exist, but I doubt they are at truly elite schools. Schools that hire those teachers rather than the actual best teachers are, well, not the best schools.

You have regularly said that the final F2F is about determining fit, even when referencing unicorns. Suddenly when I repeated your words, you change to vibe. That is just about arguing with me to argue. Use whatever word you want; arguing semantics is a waste of time.

So can you have more than one elite school in a city? Can you have five or six elite schools in a country?

Oh, so rankings aren't everything? Again you contradict yourself. Again you miss my point. Acme IS and IS Acme are both pretty comparable. The difference is that Acme IS pays just a touch more, but both have very generous packages. Are both elite?

You cannot logically have a tier defined by great and by percentage. If you have an elite school in a city and a tier 1 school that is perhaps not as old/established or pays really well but slightly less, they can both be "great," but by virtue of the percentage rule, the latter cannot be elite. Or you can say any "great" school is elite, in which case the list of elite schools could be more than a subset of the top 5%. You can define it as one or the other, but logically you cannot use both simultaneously.

Rankings really aren't everything in education. Student growth and learning is everything in education. There are a lot of good teachers helping a lot of great kids at all kinds of schools--domestic, international, for-profit, non-profit, city, country, whatever. A school might not rank well because they are resource poor or don't pay their teachers a lot. They might not rank well simply because they are newer or in a tough location. They might not rank well because management is inefficient or parents are unreasonable. Heck, sometimes the difference between the elite and the other schools is simply something like a 1:1 device program. These "lower tier" places can still offer students an outstanding education and can be amazing places to work. Meanwhile there are teachers at "elite" schools who phone it in.

Elitism is just that--neither more nor less.

You sure don't understand logic, do you? I mean, sure, you can be illogical without the universe exploding, but that doesn't change the fact that your system is prejudiced.

The more I read from you, the more I think your world revolves around rankings and elitism. You justify this by any means possible.

Ad hominem is designed to throw the other person off balance, not to make an actual claim. It's what you do when your position is weak.

I would never consider a staff member who regularly skips staff meetings as a good staff member. The arrogance of such a decision alone indicates an unwillingness to collaborate to create a more integrated educational experience. It means the teacher doesn't care about the opportunity to move a school forward, to be involved in new initiatives, or to hear how other parts of the school are functioning. Sorry, if you are skipping staff meetings, you are not a unicorn, and schools that allow such behavior regularly are schools where the convenience of a few teachers is paramount--which indicates misplaced priorities and makes the school a place where the teachers who truly care about educating kids would not want to be.

Really, all you have really described is a system of favoritism. I don't see schools passing over 1000 applicants, many of whom have all the qualifications you described--10 years, much of it in IE, curriculum, leadership, extracurriculars, special populations, proven track record of success, top notch references--in favor of hunting down another teacher with a similar CV who hasn't necessarily expressed interest in their school. That is not finding the best teachers. That is nepotism. After all, how does school X in country X know to contact teacher Y in country Y if there is no list of unicorns?

And check your post history. You used fit dozens of times, while you used vibe five, three of them in this thread, once together with the word fit, and once in a completely different context. You are the one changing the language. That's fine, but when you change the language you have always used, you can't fault me for not preempting you and for using the words you have always used and claim that I am saying something different because you changed the definitions.

You are right that I don't know every teacher that has passed through the lives of my friends. However, when I have described your unicorn, they have all scoffed at the concept.