Job Discussion Forums

[Master Shake]

It seems the more I find out about this program, the more I wonder whether it's really effective.

Considering:

-Many (most?) JET ALTs do not have significant training on how to teach English to children.
-The way ALTs are used in classrooms varies widely across Japan: Some run the English lessons; others are relegated to being little more than human tape recorders.
-Japanese teachers often do not have adequate training how to make use of ALTs in their classrooms, let alone teach English.
-The JET program is expensive compared to employing native English teachers, who are arguably better trained.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the money spent on the JET program would be better spent giving the Japanese English teachers better training on how to teach English.

What do you think?

[rxk22]

I agree it is a waste. They should try having actually trained JTEs.
But JET was never about teaching. It was PR for Japan an that worked very well

[kpjf]

When doing a comparison, for the HK NET programme you need decent qualifications: master's and even to be a licensed teacher to have a really good chance of getting in; yet, on the other hand a lot of JETs appear to be mere college graduates who get in because they're a bit genki or have an interest in Japanese culture. Why don't they up the qualifications (and salary to entice those teachers), and as the two previous posters have mentioned getting trained JTEs. Don't many say their English isn't good enough and/or they aren't confident enough about their level. However, maybe there's a flaw here: not so easy to implement and would mean spending more money.

One thing I'm surprised about in general is that they pay for your flights when no other Japanese ESL companies would (AFAIK). From reading about people doing this programme I'm sure the majority of them would still apply for the programme without their flights paid for, right?! I was contemplating applying for it and the flight is a bonus - I'd still apply regardless.

So, why offer it? I mean if we look at JET statistics about 4,500 are sent each year. Multiply that by the price of flights and it's a pretty penny! So, why don't they invest that flight money into training the JTEs or something like that. Didn't people who did JET years ago say they were flown business class. What a waste of money!

Although, interestingly when we compare Japan to HK, HK's (at least according to EF Proficiency Index) English proficiency is lower than that of Japan's, in spite of the generous salary offered to qualified HK NETs. I mean I assumed with HK's reputation as a business hub and more open than Japan and the qualified teachers in this programme that their level would be much higher. Furthermore, in spite of all the criticism on the other thread that teaching in Japan isn't real teaching, on the EF list Japan's English proficiency level ranks higher than that of Italy, Indonesia, France, Taiwan, HK, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Ukraine etc. Of course this is all dependent on you giving credibility to the EF study which does seem flawed in some ways.

[fluffyhamster]

It may be bad value for money, but at least its money made available for FL education. (Compare that to the UK for example, where FLs became non-compulsory and there are thus fewer FT teachers as a result).

Some suggestions I'd make for saving money and improving English teaching in J schools:

-Make future JTEs teach a bit of Japanese and look at TJ(F)L for a month or two during their degree studies. This might help them with English confidence issues, and to transfer thinking and research skills, and so on. Stuff like this wouldn't cost much at all, given that there are plenty of foreigners coming to Japan and interested in studying at least a bit of the language. Hopefully TJ(F)L can unfailingly move beyond the unimaginative 'Kore wa pen desu ka?' rubbish "examples" I got on my JET prefectural initiation though!

-Cut out the mid-year JET conferences and similar. These really are a waste of money, as little professional development takes place IME.

I agree that more qualified AETs should be sought, but I wonder if there is quite the willingness to recognize equivalent qualifications and waive the teacher-qualifying exams (which smack of feudal mandarins memorizing any number of arcane facts). The language (Japanese), especially the writing, will unfortunately always be an issue either way!

[rtm]

[RustyShackleford]

As a former JET, I think that the program is worthwhile but the onus lies on the JTEs to level up their English than relying on a magical untrained foreigners to bring it up or at least compensate them as appropriate.

Right now Spain has a very similar program in bringing in foreign graduate students and paying them about a third of what JET does. While I would never advise anyone to live in Japan on 140,000JPY, people happily take that salary to live in Spain.

Another problem with JET is that it is a revolving door as is the program that Spain does. The difference is that JET does it for five years tops while Spain maxes out at two years. I'm not sure which is "better" but if we agree that the problem is JTEs than taking the money spent on flights and conferences and putting it into JTEs might be more useful. However, I think it is thanks to a few JET Mid-Year Conferences that I learned to appreciate the whole teaching gig and level up my abilities.

Spain has many practically-fluent-at-least-conversational native teachers whereas Japan has few of those.

[steki47]