MOE Approved Schools Abroad Hot List

the law does not say so, at least not clearly say so. And, you are forgetting the 3rd item in Article 5.p

  1. Other relevant documents specified by the institution of higher education.

I was wrong on school teachers work permits.

MOE’s manual says


So, your school should be in the list.

I read Articles 8 and 9 in the regulation, and it seems higher education institutes should check a foreign educational institution by contacting the school or TECO, as you posted. I’m still not certain if they cannot ask to applicants to do the process by themselves, though. And, the regulation is not applied to other teachers hiring.

Manual on school teachers work permits is here.


I got a reply from Ms. Zhang / (as North_Star suggest)
she said that she is not the person in charge for Mainland China Universities, but she is indeed in charge for other country. You can try to call her if you have sent her an email, miracle could happen. She speak English but you should speak slowly & clearly

1 Like

You may already know but

If they’re doing that for 得 and 應 respectively, it’s annoying, but it’s nothing new. The Chinese version prevails unless otherwise stated.

That’s a convention in some areas (huge in govt contracting), and often assed to be legally binding given how common it is, but shall doesn’t have any special meaning legally by itself - it has special meaning in contracts only when the contracts defines it a specific way. In the absence of such definitions, it’s open to the same reasonable interpretation that you might expect from other verbs such as must, will, etc (which aren’t generally defined to have special meaning in govt contracting, but clearly are synonyms / near synonyms in normal and reasonable interpretations).

So my understanding is if the university is not on the moe list , legalizing the degree with tecro won`t get you a work a permit.

Depends on the work permit you need, iiuc. Work permit for a buxiban teacher can be issued with a document showing the school is accredited in the country. Which of convincing an employer that it is acceptable and getting the school on the moe list is easier, I’m not sure, though.

If they’re doing that for 得 and 應 respectively, it’s annoying, but it’s nothing new. The Chinese version prevails unless otherwise stated.

In any event, I wouldn’t rely on a US tendency to be the same here, just pointing out that the language seemed fairly strong.

I’ve been back through Article 5 a few times too, and they really made that ambiguous:

An applicant applying for assessment and recognition of their foreign academic credentials shall personally submit the following documents to each institution of higher education that they are applying to for admission…
3. Other relevant documents specified by the institution of higher education.

So OK, that’s pretty clear that the applicant is submitting “other documents.” Which ones? Because the very next sentence says this:

The institution of higher education handling the application may deal with the documents referred to in Subparagraph 1 of the preceding paragraph by requesting the foreign educational institution from which the applicant graduated to verify the documents, by writing to an ROC overseas mission and requesting its assistance to undertake verification, or by asking the applicant to arrange to have the documents authenticated.

Sure looks, especially in that last bolded part, like the school is either supposed to or at least as the option to do all this themselves. I get the meaning of “may deal with,” but instead of doing what? Making the applicant do all this stuff?

And I don’t even know what to do with this:

The applicant referred to in Article 6, Paragraph 8 and Paragraph 9 may submit documentary evidence issued by the government authority responsible for such educational institutions or by the accreditation agency for education in the country where the foreign educational institution is located, in place of the record referred to in Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2.

For starters, what would pass muster for documentary evidence? There are multiple government websites that list schools and their accreditation status. Shouldn’t a link to one of them be enough? Or is this all at the discretion of the school? Again, I’ve got a couple of applications in right now with unis who took my stamped diploma and transcript right off the bat. Their vetting process apparently counts authentication as all you need.

Granted, I have an APRC and OWP, so if I needed a permit from the school it might be a different story. But the poc at the last place I applied really made it seem like it didn’t matter, the stamp was good enough.

Honestly, it would be easier and simpler by far to simply recognize accreditation authorities by country and then just publishing that list. Then it would be a simple matter of just documenting that your school has been recognized by one of these authorities, and that would be that. Exhaustively listing each school individually (because that’s the tendency the current system is basically encouraging) is ridiculously inefficient. Yeah, I know.

Checked the website Friday on a whim and whattaya know–my school’s on it now. They didn’t put it in the alphabetical listing, just tacked it on as the last entry, but whatever. I can’t believe it got there so fast.

Anyhow, any of you out there with M.Ed.s from Teach-Now/Moreland University, you’re in luck. I’m still waiting to hear back from the recruiters whether they’ll recognize it now, but they said earlier last week if my school got put on the list that they would. Now we see.


Teach Taiwan still says no. I’ve sent the Chinese version of the MoJ law with a reference to the relevant sections, but they’re pretending it’s correspondence school. I’m applying directly to FET as soon as I can get a new criminal background check, so we’ll see if they pull the same garbage. That’ll take a few days though.