How we handle reviews and salary data
Teachers use this site to decide whether an international school offer will work financially, professionally, and personally. That only works if every number and review comes with enough context to judge it.
What counts as evidence
Teacher reviews and salary reports are first-party submissions from people who say they worked at the school. Official school facts (curriculum, facilities, published policies) come from school websites and are labeled separately, with source links and a verification date when available.
School marketing and teacher experience are different evidence types. We keep them apart so a brochure claim never looks like an independent workplace report.
Sample size travels with every summary
An average based on one review should not look as authoritative as an average based on fifty. Wherever we show a rating, median, or range, we also show how many reports sit behind it, using language like:
- "Based on 3 teacher reviews"
- "Median of the latest 5 salary reports"
- "No salary reports yet"
- "Be the first to share your experience"
Thin data is treated as an invitation to contribute, not hidden behind a dash or presented with false confidence. When a school has only a few reports, we surface a low-sample notice so readers do not over-weight a small set of experiences.
How salary figures are summarized
Salary ranges and medians come from approved teacher reports for that school. We prefer teacher-reported monthly salary in the original currency, and we encourage readers to compare the complete package: housing, flights, tax context, insurance, dependents' benefits, and estimated savings, not base pay alone.
Savings figures are teacher-reported or estimated. They are not a guarantee of what you will save. On country and city pages, extreme outliers may be trimmed so one unusual report does not dominate the median.
Missing fields are shown as missing. We do not treat blank data as zero, and we do not invent a single school-quality score from sparse reports.
Recency and context
Schools change leadership, compensation, and working conditions. Reviews show the submission month and year. Where available, salary reports show the year associated with the compensation, plus role, tenure, and experience context. Two honest reviews can disagree because a first-year primary teacher and a ten-year department head can experience the same school differently. Contradiction is information when the context is visible.
Anonymity and moderation
Contributors remain publicly anonymous (typically shown by role, such as "Math Teacher"). Account or email access is used to reduce spam and abuse. Email is never displayed, shared, or sold.
- Every review and salary report is moderated before publication.
- Personal attacks and identifying details about named individuals are prohibited.
- Schools cannot pay to remove negative reviews.
- Reviews are removed only for documented guideline violations (for example defamation, fabricated claims, or identifying named staff).
Anonymity enables candid workplace feedback. Moderation and context are what make that feedback usable.
What we ask reviewers to cover
The most useful reviews describe concrete policies and outcomes: workload, planning time, leadership support, class sizes, resources, whether promised benefits matched reality, and who tends to thrive at the school. Emotional summaries without specifics help less.
Full guidance lives on the review guidelines page.
Reporting problems
Use the Report control on a review or salary report if something should not be public. Substantive issues (identifying named staff, false information, policy violations) can lead to removal. A school disagreeing with honest-but-negative content does not.