Race and Ethnicity: A Comparison of Hiring Practices in For-profit and Non-profit International Schools in China

Abstract

Over the years, there have been accusations of widespread discrimination in the hiring practices of various educational establishments in China, and it seems that these accusations are continuing to intensify. This research study aimed to explore race and ethnicity in the hiring process in K-12 international schools in China and provide data that can be used to discuss and further study race and ethnicity in international schools. Using the context of for-profit and non-profit international schools, the researcher used an observational quantitative research design to explore international school staff perceptions of racial demographics, hiring practices, and the projection of equal opportunity in the hiring process of foreign staff in China. This study revealed few statistically significant differences between for-profit and non-profit international schools in China in the areas mentioned above. Additionally, the data revealed similar percentages of blacks and whites between the survey participants and the demographic data for those groups in the United States. Further, the data showed that foreign administrators are the primary decision-making agents in the hiring process at most international schools. Furthermore, only one-fourth of the participants were aware that their school maintained an equal opportunity clause in the hiring document or on the school's website. The findings from this study may be used to counter accusations of widespread discrimination in the hiring practices of international schools in China and elsewhere. Further, findings from this study should motivate administrators of international schools to examine staff perceptions of the hiring process in their schools.

The Impact of Academic Optimism, Institutional Policy and Support, and Self-Efficacy on University Instructors’ Continuous Professional Development in Mainland China

“…Previous studies examining the relationship with leadership and instructor self-efficacy (S. Liu & Hallinger, 2018Zheng et al, 2019) and instructor self-efficacy effect on CPD (S. Liu & Hallinger, 2018 have asserted that a significant relationship exists, contradicting the findings from this study. However, research is not conclusive, as other studies have shown a weak relationship (Kulophas et al, 2018) to no significant relationship (Hoque et al, 2020;Lehman, 2021;Zheng et al, 2019) between leadership and instructor self-efficacy and self-efficacy toward CPD.…”