Eligibility does not mean suitability

[Smokegreynblues]

Just wondering from a recruiter's point of view, the more highly experienced or slightly experienced a person is, how much percentage weightage would you apply to "suitability". I can see at times, for IS, an IT's eligibility, I would guess is just 40%, 60%(Hypothetical number) is more about the suitability, (which is a combination of personality, traits, and ethics I guess). What are the golden suitability criteria recruiters look for?

[sid]

To me, they're separate, not a matter of percentages.
Eligibility is a tick box. Yes/No. Binary - either I can consider you as a candidate, or I cannot.
If you get past that hurdle, suitability is the name of the game. Once I've eliminated all the non-eligible applicants, all I'm looking for is the most suitable candidate.

[sciteach]

From what I have experienced, the checking of resumes is eligibility and gets you an interview. The interview is your suitability. I've often seen schools employ less skilled staff (experience) because they were more suitable for the position.

[PsyGuy]

You can look at the PASS below and get an understanding of utility for various recruitment factors. Really though fit is the most critical and all important factor. They already know you can do the job or you wouldnt have gotten passed the door. The interview will tell them how much you want to do the job, so the only factor thats left and its the lions share of the variance is how well youre going to fit into the ISs culture and environment.

PASS (PsyGuy Applicant Scoring System):
1) 1 pt / 2 years Experience (Max 10 Years)
2) 1 pt - Advance Degree (Masters)
3) 1 pt - Cross Certified (Must be schedule-able)
4) 1 pt - Curriculum Experience (IB, AP, IGCSE)
5) 1pt - Logistical Hire (Single +.5 pt, Couple +1 pt)
6) .5 pt - Previous International School Experience (standard 2 year contract)
7) .5 pt - Leadership Experience/Role (+.25 HOD, +.5 Coordinator)
8) .5 pt - Extra Curricular (Must be schedule-able)
9) .25 pt - Special Populations (Must be qualified)
10) .25 pt - Special Skill Set (Must be documentable AND marketable)

IT CLASSES:
1) INTERN ITs have a score around 0
2) ENTRY ITs have a score around 2
3) CAREER ITs have a score around 4
4) PROFESSIONAL ITs have a score around 6
5) MASTER ITs have a score around 8

[Heliotrope]

Although the scoring system is interesting (you could debate the scores, but that would be an endless debate), it's different from how my current and last couple of schools select applicants (and some schools that friends work at):
To be considered there are a couple of prerequisites:
- At least 6-8 year of international experience
- Experience with the school's curriculum
- Demonstrated ability to stay at a school beyond the initial contract (at least one 4 year stint at your most recent schools, longer is better, more than one 4+ stay is also better)

If you don't meet all of these, none of the other qualities will help you - your CV will be in the 'no'-pile.
Having good school on your CV helps, and great references and perceived 'fit' are extremely important. After that, interesting extra curriculars will help you stand out.

At my current school (and my previous two) they also don't really care about being cross-certified - we have almost no teachers teaching more than one subject, although when applying at smaller schools it's definitely a plus to be cross-certified.
Being a 'logistical hire' is also of no importance at my last couple of schools. Lots of teachers with kids would get hired, and being a teacher couple won't help you - it's usually one of the two they're really interested in, and they're not interested in hiring a weaker candidate just because they really want to hire their partner. It's happened a couple of times where they would only offer one of the two teachers in a couple a job, and if they accept their spouse would then try and get a job at another school in the city.

The above is true for at least my last two/three schools.
At my first couple of schools being cross-certified was definitely a plus, as they were smaller schools where it helped making a working timetable, and they couldn't afford to hire too many teachers with lots of dependants. Also they didn't have any of the aforementioned prerequisites, apart from some years of international experience (but less than the 6-8 years), as they couldn't afford to be extremely picky. So they would have their own version of a applicant scoring system, and of course different recruiters will value different things.
Also, at some schools an applicant's age would influence their score, and sadly there are some recruiters where the attached photo will greatly affect your chances.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

The PASS produces a range of scores from low to high, various ISs will draw a higher proportion of candidates at different points along the scale.

Ive written this before, but the PASS works best when compared against an actual set of vacancy specifications. If a particular vacancy doesnt require an IT who is cross certified than a candidate doesnt score any points from the PASS for being cross certified. If however a particular vacancy does or could benefit from an IT who is cross certified than being cross certified earns the IT the designated points for that vacancy. Likewise if an IS doesnt have actual vacancies (not a vacancy the IS could create to get a teaching couple, where one member is in a high needs area) but actually has two vacancies that would fit a teaching couple than again, in that specific vacancy specification the candidate (candidate couple) doesnt get any points. If however for example, an IS has a vacant primary position and a vacant SLL maths position and a teaching couple that fulfills the requirements or preferences for those positions than thats worth the designated points. There are advantages to an IS in such a an appointment.

Ive written this before the single most important factor for an IT is fit. You can train curriculum for example, you cant train empathy (if thats important).

Length of tenure beyond the stipulated contract is a myth, its fearmongering. As long as an IT completes their contract successfully and with a strong positive reference their utility is no different than an IT with longer periods of tenure.
Youre not going to convince me of your fearmongering bunk, and youre going to die with the lie, because thats how fearmongering works. Were just going to disagree.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> If however for example, an IS has a vacant primary
> position and a vacant SLL maths position and a teaching couple that
> fulfills the requirements or preferences for those positions than thats
> worth the designated points. There are advantages to an IS in such a an
> appointment.

As said, at my current school being a teaching couple doesn't give you any edge (or 'points') - for each position they just hire the best candidate, regardless of who your partner is. For some (lots probably) schools it might be different - certain schools would definitely hire their #2 or #3 preference for the PE position if that means they also get that Science teacher they so desperately need, especially if it's not the kind of school that gets 100+ applications for each vacancy. It makes financial sense, and for some schools certain vacancies will be hard to fill, so if I were them I would probably also hire a couple if it means filling that vacancy, even if half of that couple isn't your first choice.
However in this scenario, my school would only offer a contract to that Science teacher, and not to their partner.


> Length of tenure beyond the stipulated contract is a myth, its
> fearmongering.

You can continue to deny it, and I'm actually not trying to convince you. But I do want other teachers to know that most recruiters –especially at tier 1 and 2 schools– do indeed value longer periods of tenure, as illustrated by accounts from other teachers and recruiters on this forum, as well as recruiters from my last few schools. As said, even with short tenures you will get jobs, but for most it will limit your options.
We disagree.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Well its not the ISs @Heliotrope has bee to or is at metric.

And I want ITs to know that its a fearmongering myth perpetuated by leaders and leader cheerleaders who would like longer tenure as a recruiting factor to be a thing, but its not. As long as an IT completes their contract successfully and with a strong positive reference their utility is no different than an IT with longer periods of tenure.

We disagree.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Well its not the ISs @Heliotrope has bee to or is at metric.

That's why I kept mentioning 'at my school(s)'.
It might be the same at other tier 1 schools though, so I thought it would be worth mentioning.
And your scoring system is also just your opinion. I think it doesn't fully reflect how recruiters will look at a CV, but it's interesting and helpful nonetheless.


> And I want ITs to know that its a fearmongering myth perpetuated by leaders
> and leader cheerleaders who would like longer tenure as a recruiting factor
> to be a thing, but its not. As long as an IT completes their contract
> successfully and with a strong positive reference their utility is no
> different than an IT with longer periods of tenure.

You mean the same leaders that will hire (or not) a teacher?
So the same people who will decide whether or not it's a myth or reality?
If they want ITs to stay longer at their school they will simply hire ITs with a longer tenure on their CVs.
Call it a myth if you like, I call it a reality.


> We disagree.

Yes

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Theres data behind the PASS, but most everything in IE is one form of opinion or another.

Yes, the same small pool of leaders fearmongering their particular agenda. That agenda doesnt make it true because some pool of leaders are trying to make it that way.
Leaders dont decide myth or reality, they try to push that idea and the proportion of ITs that accept and reject that concept determine if it stays a myth or becomes reality.
And I want ITs to know that its a fearmongering myth perpetuated by leaders and leader cheerleaders who would like longer tenure as a recruiting factor to be a thing, but its not. As long as an IT completes their contract successfully and with a strong positive reference their utility is no different than an IT with longer periods of tenure.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Theres data behind the PASS, but most everything in IE is one form of
> opinion or another.

Let me guess, you're unwilling to share that data?


> Yes, the same small pool of leaders fearmongering their particular agenda.
> That agenda doesnt make it true because some pool of leaders are trying to
> make it that way.
> its a fearmongering myth perpetuated by leaders
> and leader cheerleaders who would like longer tenure as a recruiting factor
> to be a thing, but its not.

If a school leader wants teachers who will stay longer, all they really have to do is hire candidates that have already done so at their previous school(s), and that's exactly what they're doing. No need to instead sign up for ISR and 'fearmonger'.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Do your own research.
And I want ITs to know that its a fearmongering myth perpetuated by leaders and leader cheerleaders who would like longer tenure as a recruiting factor to be a thing, but its not. As long as an IT completes their contract successfully and with a strong positive reference their utility is no different than an IT with longer periods of tenure.
We disagree.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Do your own research.

Haha, as usual, saying there's data to support your point but unwilling to provide (a link to) that data.
Predictable.

Yes, we disagree.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

As usual you believe others need to prove or demonstrate a claim to you as opposed to you doing your own research.
As long as an IT completes their contract successfully and with a strong positive reference their utility is no different than an IT with longer periods of tenure.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> As usual you believe others need to prove or demonstrate a claim to you as
> opposed to you doing your own research.
> As long as an IT completes their contract successfully and with a strong
> positive reference their utility is no different than an IT with longer
> periods of tenure.

"The burden of proof (“onus probandi” in Latin) is the obligation to provide sufficient supporting evidence for claims that you make.
For example, if someone claims that ghosts exist, then the burden of proof means that they need to provide evidence that supports this."
So yes, if you claim there's actual data behind your system, I shouldn't have to research it. Your past advice about how lying to get what you want is perfectly fine makes it even harder put any faith in your claims if they are not properly backed up by provided sources.
You can choose not to disclose these (probably non-existing) sources (as always), but don't expect anyone to believe anything you claim.

I hope that attitude/view of yours doesn't translate into what you expect of your students or they will not be well-prepared for university.