Should ISR Delete Old Reviews
\nWhen\u00a0a New Director Steps In?<\/p><\/h1><\/div>
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: My answer is yes and no.<\/p>\n
It is useful to know the history of the schoo,l particularly if it has changed management frequently. \u00a0Applicants can also know more about their role in the school. But it is not useful to have old reviews dating back too far. \u00a0Remove after 4 years? AND WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE GENUINELY HAPPY WITH THEIR SCHOOLS TO CONTRIBUTE? \u00a0SO WE GET A MORE BALANCED VIEW and not just the schools to avoid?I don’t like the red “no” that biases the survey in my view. (Thanks, we removed the red — Ben)<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: In some cases, it’s the board behind the director that is the common denominator to a badly run school.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: A new director is not, by default, consistent with a new atmosphere or climate at a school. \u00a0The existing “school culture” is the result of many factors, of which a director is only one. \u00a0The director alone does not constitute “the administration”. Furthermore, many directors are little more than figureheads at some schools where the actual policies of the school are dictated by a board or foundation, often consisting of parents if private- for-profit \u00a0schools are involved. Finally, since the evaluations written specify time-period and the director at the time, I can see no legitimate reason, other than director ego, for a request like this to be made.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: We also need to know the history of the school under different administrators, because they, too, move around a lot. And if the school keeps having the same problems or issues in spite of different administrators, then we’ll know that the problem lies with ownership, school board, parents, government, etc.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: It is not the director alone that creates a school. \u00a0Often, the new director has little true input in the school’s culture. \u00a0Thus to remove a past review takes a snapshot of history away. \u00a0If under two or three directors, the same comments are being made; then, one may do well to assume that there is more to the management structure than is obvious.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: I believe that a new director should get a fair shake and not be straddled with the poor performance of a previous director. The ISR site however just needs to make sure that the years of service of the director are clearly visible on the site so that readers know that fact. In addition to the schools review many contributors also provide valuable insights into the local economy and safety of a country, standard of living, local etiquette etc. This information can be just as valuable as the director’s report card to many novice travelers. Leave it all in.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Many times it is not the director that sets the tone, but the board of directors. \u00a0I think the old reviews should be left to show what has happened historically at the school. \u00a0It is quite possible that a new director will fix most of the problems, only to have the problems resurface after that director leaves.<\/p>\n
I have been at 2 schools where the problems were caused by the board and not by the director.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Quite often it is not only the director that can be the problem, often they have all their cronies, so even when they leave the conies just continue.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: If that is what some of these directors think, then how would they feel about hiring a teacher with no available references?<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
text area: I don’t think any reviews should remain on a web site indefinitely. \u00a0There are many biased views by people who are malcontents and they do a lot of damage for a long time. \u00a0I feel strongly that any organization worth its weight should be responsible about how it conducts business. \u00a0I recommend reviews be removed when a new director takes over.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: ISR reviews are opinions. Like all opinions they are have value when placed in perspective and considered in light of the many factors which contribute to the inquirer’s own situation, needs and experience. \u00a0No one I know with international teaching experience is likely to read something posted anonymously online and take it as gospel, black-or-white truth. \u00a0I myself have taken positions at schools about which I had read negative reviews, but which had changed leadership and found them to be good choices for me. \u00a0Actually what would weigh more heavily against my choosing a school would be to discover that its director feared or felt threatened by anything anyone could or did say in this type of forum. \u00a0If it’s not true, a good quality interview and\/or visitation process should dispel any anxieties the teaching candidate might have, and starting one’s professional association by being able to openly discuss potential worries is a good indication of how you will get on in the future.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: No, but they could indicate a change of administration has taken place. Many of the review factors will carry over. Benefits, Board, living conditions, and the scars on culture from previous administrators will still be relevant. History matters for context.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: The reviews are dated and always mention the new director and his affect. \u00a0A loss of information is risky. \u00a0When no new reviews have been posted, a blank review should be inserted to remind the customer of ISR that no reviews have been posted since the arrival of a new director. \u00a0Also, some reviews are about the school board and not the director.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: I think a time limit would be better, 2 years maybe.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: ISR should not be about bashing a person, but giving OBJECTIVE \u00a0reviews of life in a country, school package realities, school climate, etc…. if reviewers keep to this formula there is no need to delete posts. HOWEVER, if reviews are obvious rants of soap opera proportions then erase it, period!!!<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: It should be made clear who the director is when the the review was written and the information contained in the review should link to the director\/principal mentioned. \u00a0Being able to see comments made about a particular leader when they were at another school is very valuable.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: That being said, ISR does not even follow its own policy anyway. It says that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Right! ISR lives and makes money off of the personal attacks. If it makes money and is controversial – ISR will do it and then justify it.<\/p>\n
So I say whatever! Bring on the drama!!!!<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: A new director may be susceptible to pressure from colleagues in administration or the board to insist on removal of the past reviews, as they reflect embarrassingly on their incompetence. A good director should have nothing to hide, since (s)he is not morally or professionally responsible for the performance of previous incumbents. A favorable review after his\/her initial few months may even be a credit to the new director.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Let there be a History, thus one can see a little more clearly when improvement happens.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: It is important for teachers to have access to the history of schools they have an interest in applying to. Problems that may have existed in the past, may still exist in spite of a new director entering the picture. \u00a0Particularly \u00a0in the case of “for profit” schools, the new director may find that they are POWERLESS to effect real change.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: History is a big part of a school. \u00a0It also takes time to change what others have done! \u00a0Also when I am recruiting for an administrator or head of school, I like to see what others have said.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: As important as a director \/ principal \/ head is to the school, they are not the be-all-and-end-all. Problems can come from other areas such as the Board or other leaders \/ managers with the organization, for example. If you decide to do this, you should only do so for well-meaning teachers with black marks against their names for supposedly having broken contract when working at such unscrupulous schools with unscrupulous boards \/ heads \/ leaders \/ managers.<\/p>\n
Maybe your next project following the Bill of Rights?<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Absolutely not! \u00a0The history of the school is important! \u00a0The director is not the only factor in determining how a school is run and financed. \u00a0Often directors do not have all that much power. \u00a0The board or owners usually have the final word. \u00a0Especially in schools that are problematic. \u00a0If a new director does successfully change things around, there will begin to appear good reviews and teachers are smart enough to see this new trend.<\/p>\n
To delete the old reviews would weaken the whole importance of the existence of ISR. \u00a0Board members and owners could easily play on this and change directors quite regularly so that bad information about the school is constantly being deleted.<\/p>\n
The whole value of ISR is that it gives valuable information that never existed before. \u00a0Generally teachers could not know if a school was good or bad until it was too late. \u00a0I can understand why some schools would like to delete info, but if they really change, the word will get out through ISR.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
text area:
\nMy cursory look over brings one up in particular. This applies to the Access Academy in Ningbo, China. Some of the blogs on Flora Lee go beyond the pale. Neither she or the school, needs or deserves an archive of this sort.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: The change of directors may help in a small way, but usually their hands are tied to a certain extant. \u00a0I have worked at two schools where the problems of the school were with the board of directors and the local admin staff. A new director helped a bit, but the same problems with the board remained. \u00a0Teachers should know the history of the school before committing to a lengthy contract.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: It is important that a note is attached that indicates a new director currently presides over the school. But often times the problems of one school are not all centered around one director, so even if a new leader enters the stage some of the old problems may still remain. The reviews are still valid, and my be insightful.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area:<\/p>\n
The idea that a director’s exit or arrival is the only relevant factor in assessing a school’s merit is nonsensical. There are many good reasons to keep past reviews. The school does not exist within a vacuum. Teachers exposed to the kind of totalitarian methods of a director act like children who are abused by their parents. If I am going to work with a group of people who have been mistreated (to whatever extent), I want to know that. Besides having students motivated to learn, faculty morale is about as important a thing I can know about when deciding to move there. Let the new directors prove themselves. I want to be able to track a director from one place to the next.<\/p>\n
As far as I am concerned, the school is the same place unless and until someone tells me different. New directors inherit the school described in the posts made before their arrival. To directors who want old reviews of schools removed I say in my most sarcastic voice, “How does it feel to want?” I have no sympathy for their wishes however earnest. In fact I feel pleased that they can’t have something they want for a change. That they seek power even in this private space, speaks volumes about how important it is to keep the reviews on the board. They just can’t take it when people can freely express an opinion.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: … but there should be a tag that indicates when a new leader came in. \u00a0The information about the school itself and community is still valid.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: New directors don’t necessarily mean new ways of doing things. \u00a0I would hate to think that schools with long established “tarnished” reputations sweeping away the sins of past years by firing an old director and hiring in a new face. \u00a0Better for us, the international teaching community, to see a string of positive reviews over a series of years and find the proof in the pudding. \u00a0If a school with a bad reputation begins to turn things around, we can see the evidence of this over time. \u00a0Let us be the judge. \u00a0Not some school director (or owner) who thinks that by changing a face now and again he can dupe another series of unsuspecting teachers. \u00a0Leave things as they are.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: If there is a board or “owner” that has influence over the running of the school, then a change in admin will not make a huge difference. \u00a0It would be helpful to know if people felt a change in admin would make a huge change to the school as a whole.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: When a new director takes over, there should be more positive reviews for candidates to study. Leaving the old reviews gives them information for WHO TO Avoid.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: In fact, the old reviews should remain and with a disclaimer that a new administration has taken over, and it would be recommended that the old review remain for a reasonable period of time (2 years) along side any new reviews to see if there has been a change in policy, philosophy, and\/or management of the staff and school at large. This would ensure that the school and administration (if they improve) get a fair representation, but also ensure that teachers interested in teaching at this institution are aware there were problems. In addition, if the new director (administration) worsens then they cannot hide behind an old positive review, it would be juxtaposed with a current review (bad or good), this would provide a fair and objective review and reduce the likelihood of a surprise when a new director or administration takes over.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
text area: Why should a school be condemned for the incompetence of a previous director? Can it never live down the bad reputation it earns? Give it a chance!<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Information about a school is more than just information about the director. When a new director comes in, it should be noted on the reviews that a new director has arrived and thus the dynamics of the school might change. I think that since a reviewer must indicate the years that the review is relevant for, readers can take it with a grain of salt. I have read reviews that were 5 years old and so I have to think “is \u00a0this still relevant”. However, I am glad to see that review, even if it is old. There is much to be gleaned from reading about the recent history of the school (even though things might have improved, the legacy of a bad history lingers in a school and a new teacher should be aware that even though things have improved, the school wasn’t always thus.) ALL reviews are meant to be read with a grain of salt. I certainly hope and believe that ISR readers are not the blind sheep that these school directors would like us to be. There seems to be this idea out there amidst ISR critics that says we are reading these reviews and making ALL our decisions based on them. I read some poor reviews of a school and STILL went to that school to teach because I had to find a job and had little choice in the matter. (For the record, the reviews were dead on and the school was horrible, I only stayed a year. However, my year there was made easier because I sort of had suspected what I was getting into, thanks to ISR.) Yes, sometimes the review is “old news” and things have gotten better. Conversely, schools with great reviews do not always stay as great schools. Bottom line, the reviews need to stay archived for us to read. AND – we need to encourage a lot MORE discourse through ISR so that teachers do get to hear a lot about a school, the various opinions – then we can read between the lines, note the dates, note if a new director has been hired and then make an informed choice about the school or at least know what we are getting into.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Of course not!<\/p>\n
Just because one new person takes over does not necessarily mean that things will immediately change. And it does not mean that some of the things written in previous reviews are no longer valid (example: poor location of school or excellent facilities.<\/p>\n
It is not fair to potential teachers to not have the chance to see the ‘before’ picture. If the new principal warrants new reviews to be written, then everyone is free to write them. We can then judge from there.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: Perhaps it should be noted on the review that this was done before the time of the current leader. But past reviews I believe should be kept on as a historical record. The leader may change, but that does not always mean every problem is solved overnight!!<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: There should at least be a 2-3 year wait to see if the new person turns the school around. \u00a0Sometimes the board or owners of a school preempt the headmaster and so no real change occurs. \u00a0Teachers continue to write in and inform us on the new administration.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: There are schools out there where the corruption is so bad and treatment of staff so appalling that new Directors don’t change anything and just keep the status quo, especially when the school is a ‘business’. \u00a0Removing the reviews just gives more teachers the chance to make the mistake of going to that school, often moving half way across the world to do so.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: What a ridiculous idea.<\/p>\n
Delete school history? no<\/p>\n
text area: The director may change, but the administration doesn’t. \u00a0In many cases, especially in proprietary schools, the director has little or no power. \u00a0The school’s owner\/superintendent makes all the major decisions and the director is just his puppet. \u00a0I say keep the reviews!!!!<\/p>\n
text area: I would leave them for one year. \u00a0I think the name of the Director should always appear with the year and the review. But I also don’t care to read things from 5 years ago…. too much water under the bridge…<\/p>\n
Delete school history? yes<\/p>\n
text area: When I came to the school that I am at now which was 3 years ago the school was very different under the superintendent.\u00a0The school at that time was much more vibrant than it is now. \u00a0The timetable has changed and the work load of core teachers has almost doubled. \u00a0So schools do change.<\/p>\n<\/div>