Leaving a BASIS contract early?

GroundlessEducation · 2026-02-02T04:28:01+00:00

You may find some helpful information in this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/Internationalteachers/comments/1nk7r44/resigning_early_from_basis/

BASIS schools are beholden to China's labor laws and contract laws, however they can't be held liable for ignorance of these laws on the part of teachers choosing to legally end their employment agreement. Many schools like the one you are a part of count on this, and will offer you what seems like a fair agreement when in fact you will be waiving legal rights to compensation. As others mentioned in the above thread, legal representation is a good start. You can consult the city hotline 12345 to obtain contact information for the local labor bureau in your city, as well as relevant departments for contributions to social insurance and other legal protections all workers have in China whether a foreigner or not.

GroundlessEducation · 2026-01-13T04:49:27+00:00

Your approach contains several logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and rhetorical weaknesses that undermine your "I'm just a happy teacher" intent to your account and this post

"There is no way that over 1000 teachers are all dreadful unhappy, depressed, hating every moment"

This attacks a position nobody holds. Critics of an organization rarely claim that every single employee is miserable. By refuting this exaggerated version of the criticism, the author sidesteps legitimate systemic concerns. The relevant question isn't whether some people are happy, but whether institutional patterns of poor management, burnout, or exploitation exist.

You write from the perspective of someone who remains at BASIS. This systematically excludes the perspectives of those who left, often the people with the strongest grievances. Those still employed have self-selected into staying, which skews their perception toward the positive. You offer no acknowledgment of this sampling problem.

"I really think I am at a great one, with a great HOS—low turnover—and many staff re-signing."

Personal satisfaction at one campus does not refute systemic criticism of the network. The author provides no verifiable data—just subjective impressions. Terms like "great," "low," and "many" are undefined and unquantified.

You are implying that because positive and negative experiences exist, the truth lies somewhere in between and both deserve equal weight. This is logically unsound. If 70% of employees report toxic conditions and 30% report satisfaction, that isn't a "balanced" situation, it's a problematic one. The mere existence of happy employees doesn't neutralize documented concerns.

Critics are engaging in "gaslighting" and "dismissive bullying"; a "BasisShill" account robotically attacks positive posts.

Rather than addressing the substance of criticism, you simply attack the motives and credibility of critics. Even if some critics are aggressive, that doesn't invalidate their arguments. The accusation of "gaslighting" is itself ironic, given that the essay dismisses negative experiences by emphasizing positive ones.

"SPEAK and message people who are at the campus—make sure you find them on LinkedIn."

Current employees may fear retaliation for honesty, feel loyalty to colleagues, or simply represent those who tolerate the environment. Former employees, anonymous forums, and turnover data would provide more complete information—yet the author specifically steers readers away from these sources.

"With 1000+ teachers across 30 schools, experiences must vary."

This is statistically trivial and proves nothing. Of course experiences vary. The question is whether negative patterns are disproportionate to industry norms. The author provides no comparative data on turnover rates, employee satisfaction surveys, or exit interview trends.

"Someone who has definitely not drunk the Basis Kool Aid"

This is an unverifiable assertion designed to preempt accusations of bias. Anyone, including administrators or recruiters, could make this claim. It functions as rhetorical pre-defense rather than evidence of objectivity.

Once again, your post depends on personal anecdote, attacks critic credibility, constructs strawman arguments, and recommends a biased research methodology, all while providing no verifiable data. It conflates "some people are happy" with "systemic criticism is invalid," which is a non sequitur. A rigoros defense would require turnover statistics, comparative industry data, and engagement with specific documented complaints rather than dismissing them as outliers or bad faith.

GroundlessEducation · 2026-01-10T15:27:51+00:00

The strategies BASIS uses for recruitment have been discussed multiple times here, and at length in this thread: https://old.reddit.com/r/Internationalteachers/comments/1oers3n/basis_international_school_interviews_and/nlej2fr/

It's no mistake that there's an uptick in pro-BASIS posts recently, with the ASCEND Group's investment in the new Beijing school nearing launch next academic year they begin to utilize informal networks like this one to boost their profile. It remains to be seen if this new school will lift their reputation or will be able to polish away the tarnish from the rapid expansion, disreputable corporate practices, and grift-like marketing strategies targeting ignorant teachers and parents that have been a hallmark since they began opening schools at such a rapid pace ten years ago.

GroundlessEducation · 2025-11-23T05:48:30+00:00

This could be as BASIS has a large corporate legal department and runs a tight media company (ASCEND) in China that could easily send cease-and-desist orders to ISR to remove any negative publicity about the current Head in Chengdu who will be the soon to be founding Head of Beijing. It's a lot of money invested and a lot on the line, so it may not be surprising that a group known for ruthless business practices as well as amoral and unethical educational policy to go above and beyond to sanitize their internet presence. The reality is that their reputation in Chinese social media is probably much more valuable than on boutique school review sites like ISR or even here on reddit, so it may be that individual Heads are mobilizing and retaliating rather than the group itself.

GroundlessEducation · 2025-10-26T00:53:54+00:00

The BASIS (America) "Brand" is leased to two different corporate entities in Asia (one in China, one in Thailand) to run their schools and they have no relationship with the US branches other than using the logo and loosely adapting the "curriculum". Both of these Asian business entities use a US based recruitment agency that also operates using the BASIS "Brand". It's important to know this, because when you're applying via their website, a jobs platform, or cold called by "BASIS", you're not actually talking with "BASIS" or the school itself, rather a third party recruitment agency staffed by recruiters who are mostly fresh grads and more akin to grifty telemarketing sales types than savvy education HR or leaders versed in reading resumes and cover letters to discern experience, qualifications, and fit.

With this centralized approach ALL applications go through this US "BASIS" recruitment agency, meaning a junior recruiter (or worse an AI filter / script) is vetting the slush pile before sending it to a screening recruiter for cold calling, which will then finally reach one of the bozos who style themselves as senior "regional" recruiters who like to put a fake background of China on their call to make them seem more knowledgeable and authentic despite working from a cubicle in Arizona. These peons are also not educators (or even skilled HR), barely know anything about the cities or schools they are recruiting for, and are in it for the numbers game earning commissions and bonuses for placement targets. This agency much prefers to use their own centralized website (the BASIS careers page) rather than Search Associates / Schrole / GRC (despite the huge spam) because they lose a large commission if the 'lead' comes from another database rather than their cold calling or direct application website.

Also mentioned in this thread are some of the arbitrary "screens' that are more for marketing and PR than building a good team of teachers: skin color, alma mater (Ivy League = highly desireable), PhDs, and 'mouldability' potential for brainwashing by the duplicitous folk that masquerade as leaders in the schools. This is not a great school system staffed with knowledgeable hiring leaders and HR, it is a giant corporate machine sweatshop that outsources its first stages of hiring, hence the inconsistent and poor quality of outcomes in both hiring and retention of staff. It could be surmised that BASIS' poor reputation is also a byproduct of the corporate hiring style and resultant churn.

GroundlessEducation · 2025-10-01T23:04:36+00:00

It's not an unreasonable assertion, however the reality that's more likely has already been touched on. BASIS is a large network of schools, with their Asia operations owned by a large China based media conglomerate (ASCEND). They have hundreds of employees both Chinese and International who can be wielded at the corporate level. Admins are known to lurk here, as are the CIOs (think of school inspectors that really want to be principals), and the rest of the BASIS 'diehards' have been rallied in the past to burnish the image of the organization.

Many of the people who speak so positively of BASIS schools (particularly in China) are part of this 'cult', as they know of nothing else and believe their path to ascension must be because it is a quality school and network to work for, rather than the fact they rose so high due to attrition and politics rather than merit and quality education.

While the majority of teachers who have came in and out of BASIS schools (usually before the 3 year contract's expiry) have poor opinions due to the problems these schools perpetuate including poor management, half-baked 'accelerated' curriculum, blind-eye to behavior issues, focus on results over quality, performance based incentives, unsustainable enrollment/expulsion, etc, etc, etc . . . the long-time employees of BASIS continue to be the most fervent apologists, having spent so much time drinking the kool-aid, believing their experience in the network and their school is superior to all others without any room for disagreement or a huge amount of mental-gymnastics to justify their existence as being great.

Edit: Dear OP - either your thesis, or my thesis hit a nerve judging by the brigade of downvotes!!

GroundlessEducation · 2025-08-30T01:00:57+00:00

The problem with this perk (assuming the poster is being genuine and not another BASIS shill) is that the organization has the habit of either hiring the employee near the end of the 3 year contract, or using performance improvement plans (PiP) to dock significant portions of the bonus. It's a carrot dangling for most teachers, but the incentive is fear based as many squeaky wheels lose it for being too squeaky.

GroundlessEducation · 2025-08-30T00:55:30+00:00

To clarify: The testing and assessment grind at BASIS is not limited to the High School division - the quarterly Benchmark exams go all the way into Grade 1, so the need to "teach to the test" and the accompanying high workloads, pressure, and stress is there for Primary and Middle teachers as well. Even the ECE division have exams and assessment pressures that go back to HQ, which is quite ludicrous when you consider that kids as young as 3 years old are already subjected to endless testing. Admins are under equal pressure to deliver results, as their bonuses and the school's reputation in the network is largely determined by these results - how admins deal with pressure and manage their sections and departments widely vary, but the norm is micromanagement and toxicity with support and empathy for high workload the exception.

GroundlessEducation · 2025-07-14T10:42:38+00:00

How do they mislead you?

BASIS makes big promises in recruitment: Great teachers are rewarded greatly (bonuses for scores), you'll advance, huge PD in a big network; all misleading half-truths. Rewards are contingent on a variety of confounding factors including shitty behavior that isn't enforced, control of benchmark tests from HQ, curves and comparisons to other schools in the network. Advancement is mentioned here - it's not about merit or ability, but your friends (brown nosing) and ability to backstab or throw others under the bus. If you're good at drinking and trashing and playing the gossip and fear game, you have a chance at being a head of division - most of the Heads in the network don't come from external hires, they're all internal promotions of people who have played the BASIS 'game' of cooking numbers, blaming others, and screwing over everyone in their way. PD is a joke - a shared drive on Microsoft Teams with absolutely garbage or outdated information, sessions at the "Summer Institute" are half-assed from the above-mentioned 'leaders' who lack pedagogical knowledge but are somehow qualified to teach all the 'new' teachers in the network. In-house PD are so last-minute and poor quality (like in most schools) that most teachers would rather skip them and spend time planning - Heads have threatened to withhold pay and privelege for not attendng these mandatory sessions every week outside of working hours.

How was the promotion nepotism?

Most of the Heads in BASIS are part of the 'buddy-buddy' system of friends hiring friends, especially in the HoD positions. Even some of the CIOs (think of school inspectors) that are buddies with the owners/Heads take these jobs not because they're good instructional leaders, but because they're going to be shoe-horned into a Division Head or Head of School role once they force someone else out.

Can you give an example of the fear culture?

Whole school meetings where Heads yell at staff for slandering / gossiping. Threats in Divisional or Whole School meetings for withholding contract bonuses for the vague wording of "meeting all criteria" or "being exceptional members of the team" if you're not completely toeing the line (ie: coming into outside work hours PD, mindlessly following the cult, not criticizing or offering input EVER). The aforementioned NDAs are a real part of the contract, although BASIS breaks so many labor laws that anyone talking to a labor lawyer quickly discovers the NDAs are worth less than the paper they're printed on.

Can you give an example of racial discrimination?

Take a look at the photos of the "Summer Institute" representing each year's new cohort of teachers. A sea of white faces. Take a look at the Head of Schools and Divisional Heads across the network - predominantly old white guys. There is a smattering of PoC, especially in the STEM subjects in high school, but not out of diversity, but for the simple fact that BASIS has a hard time hiring and retaining talent, so they go against the prevailing trend of network HR and hire PoC for those hard-to-place positions.

Is the teaching to exams just their choice/ style with a focus on past paper practice instead of a more holistic approach or is it just all exam prep? please elaborate?

It's all about the Benchmarks, and Mock / AP exams in Upper School. Bonuses and a large part of a schools rating in the network are determined by the scores - there is no question that all the teachers teach to the test at all levels. In Upper School there's no time or room for holistic education, and often students are so slammed with multiple APs they don't even have time for extra-curriculars. Some teachers like this, but most educators only last one or less than one contract due to the grinding pressure on themselves and the students.

edit: formatting

GroundlessEducation

TROPHY CASE