Job Discussion Forums

[Sheep-Goats]

[Mark]

Well, quality issues aside, it's probably quite a bit easier for prefectures or municipalities to simply hire a dispatch company than it is for them to interview and hire candidates themselves.

And there's no rule that says these companies must always be bad. Perhaps we'll see the rise of a dispatch company that pays quality wages and supplies quality ALTs.

After all, you can't usually get something fast/easily, cheap and good. At most, you can hope for 2 of those things. Dispatch companies are easy and cheap. Therefore, they're unlikely to be good. If schools want quality ALTs and the ease of dealing with a dispatch company, then they're simply going to have to pay more in order to get the quality. The dispatch companies are also going to have to pay more.

On the other hand, the companies and BOEs can wait around and possibly the situation will get so bad that quality ALTs will have no choice but to go through existing dispatch companies and work for low wages. If you're getting fast, cheap and good, then chances are someone's getting the shaft in providing it to you. In this case, it would be the ALTs.

[Nagoyaguy]

I dont see how using a dispatch company can be a financial saving. After all, it just adds one more level of hands in the cookie jar, as it were. If, instead, Boards would offer a similar salary to ALTs directly, they would attract a very good level of applicant.

IMHO, it is all about fear. Dispatch organizations play on the fear that Japanese bureaucrats have that their gaijin will somehow go crazy. It provides a good excuse. If the ALT doesnt work out, it is the fault of the dispatch company, NOT the BofE. Taxpayer funds are being used to buy peace of mind for testicularly challenged City Hall drones.

Somewhere way down the list is education. Is this the best situation for the kids? Obviously not. But the collective desire to cover one's ass is stronger than the desire to help kids learn.

Would school boards hire any other staff in this manner? Computer teachers? PE Teachers? Hell, the old lady who makes tea and talks to herself? Of course not. It just shows to go you what priority english has.

[bearcat]

[Glenski]

[Celeste]

It is sheer laziness for the most part. Really! To accept the dispatch teachers sight unseen adn then to be surprised that some of them are not a good fit at the schools is just stupid! I am always telling the schools that ask about getting an ALT that they should get the ALT to teach a model lesson (paid of course) BEFORE they sign any contracts with them. THe ones who do are generally happy with the ALTs they end up hiring. The ones who hire the first foreigner shoved in the door by the dispatch company are often disappointed. I can't believe that the dispatch companies don't offer this up front. (THey could send 2 of their employees to the school and let the principal observe both and choose one. It would make for more satisfied customers, wouldn't it?)

[Glenski]

It's the same with proofreading. Professors at universities tell me that they get flooded with email ads from proofreader wannabe outfits (and individuals). All they do is respond to the cheapest ones, even though the money doesn't come out of their pockets, but the university's. LAZY.

[guest of Japan]

Celeste, dispatch companies don't keep employees waiting around on salary. They hire the best person they can get for a contract already in hand. What you advocating is the double job interview. First the employee must get hired by the dispatch company, though they are not really hired until after - they are approved (hired) by the school board. If the dispatch company has any backbone at all it will negotiate the right to place whoever it chooses in a position. What you are advocating may be better for the schools, but it is a pretty unreasonable situation for prospective teachers. If the school wants the rights to determine exactly who they want in their schools, then they should hire directly and pay a fair wage.

Dispatch companies are a parasite that survives because of the fear of foreigners that schools and school boards have. They think they need foreigners, but they want nothing to do with the dirty work of hiring and dealing with them. Dispatch companies offer an easy out if they get a "bad" one. Schools basically think that any native English speaker will do. They are not out to hire good teachers, but rather to be able to dispose of the bad ones. When they try to do it with the lowest bidder they get what they pay for.

[moot point]

Here's my thoughts on the posts I quickly reviewed. I didn't have time to read every post in general but I could get a sense of the general discussion.

First off, the dispatch companies are ripping teachers and school boards off. In my case, and I'm at the upper scale on the salary scale offered by dispatch companies, I know that the dispatch company takes/skims roughly a million yen per annum. For the amount of work I do, I'm happy with my salary but on the other hand I feel for the local school board who is paying too much. I mentioned it to the local board, as they are also complaining of having too little funds, that we could make a deal directly to save a bit of money for the local town (and our local taxes).

The head of the board is gung-ho on the idea but people within the office have reservations. The biggest is what to do once I leave. Nobody in the board speaks English and they don't know how to advertise for a position. My reply was that I would do it for them, but of course there are reservations in the event I suddenly fell sick (or died) and couldn't do it.

Moreover, and this is something I found very surprising, is that they fear cutting a contract with their dispatcher! The reason given is that they don't want to look like a headhunter!

Anyway, perhaps we should start collaborating as teachers (especially experienced ones with Japanese language abilities) and start our own dispatching companies. Any grabbers on the idea?

[Gordon]

[Nagoyaguy]

[Gordon]

[JimDunlop2]

First of all, Nagoyaguy nailed it spot-on. There is no way in the world that the school would EVER hire any other teacher in this manner.... The math teacher, the history teacher, etc...

Dispatch companies, (aka. temp. agencies) are reserved for TEMP employees. Ones that don't make a difference. Ones that are disposable. Ever notice that you can't hire a CEO from a temp agency? How about an engineer? Maybe a dentist? I can just visualize it now... "ABCD Corp. sends YOU only the BEST dental professionals to work in YOUR office."

Until English starts to play a MUCH more important role in everyday Japanese society, we cannot expect anything to change.

This is why it's no real surprise that I can read articles from the Daily Yomiuri's English in Japan series, only to be subject to the most ASININE viewpoints ever spouted from allegedly educated minds..... Recent example: Should English be taught in elementary schools? If you even need to ASK such a stupid question, there is something seriously wrong with your educational approach. Because some studies have shown that students who have been taught English in elementary schools are no better off than their peers who haven't, the argument has been made that there is no benefit in English education at the elementary school level. Indeed. The problem lies in what they consider to be "teaching." To me, "teaching English at an elementary school level" does NOT involve playing an endless stream of genkienglish.com games and singing "Head & Shoulders" from grades 1 to 6. Because of an equally flawed eikaiwa system, I sincerely believe that most Japanese educators honestly think that this is the way English is taught (and learned). What did you expect? Of course students who have gone through this system are no better off than those who haven't. The ones who haven't didn't really miss much. As soon as they get to ichi-nensei junior high school, I have to teach ALL of them the alphabet!

To further obfuscate the issue, English teachers -- especially ALTs, as well as other supporters of English education in elementary schools are saying, 'Well the results aren't quantifiable -- we strive to give the students an exposure to international communication and foster a feeling that learning English is fun... This will carry through to when they get older.'

All in the mean time, I'm screaming, "NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!!! What the hell do you mean, 'foster a feeling....??' That's a load of B-S! If kids aren't learning English, then seriously -- why are you wasting your time? To quote Homer Simpson, "Hey Marge, look at me - I'm making people happy. I'm the magical man from happy land who lives in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane ..." Seriously, folks. That shouldn't be our job! Our job should be teaching English, NOT making kids just "feel good" about something they're not going to remember. I like genkienglish as much as the next guy, but really. What's up with that? Proponants of English education in elementary school and ALTs should be saying, "Why don't you just get serious about it if you want to see quantifiable results. Let us teach 3 hours a week. Make sure all students learn their alphabet early on and can read at a certain level before they hit junior high. The first English assignment in grade 7 English should be: What did you do during Golden Week? And not: Copy the alphabet three times in your notebooks." (Of course this cannot happen, as the publishers who have greased mombusho palms to get the kickbacks from all the textbooks sold to junior high schools would be out of a lot of money-- the school systems would need all new nextbooks to match an advanced level of English going into grade 7).

OF COURSE students are no better off than their peers who haven't learnt English. I only visit my elementary schools once every two months. What am I supposed to teach them in that time? The random tidbits of vocabulary and grammer I teach them amount to nothing more than a single textbook unit that would take no more than a month to teach.

In fact, even if they had English once a week in elementary schools, I would dispute whether or not you'd be making enough of a difference to quantify it on an examination in high school, for instance. The Japanese "one hour a week" concept seems to be both endemic and chronic. EVERYTHING in this country is a one-hour-a-week hobby. Piano lessons? An hour a week. Calligraphy class? An hour a week. Karate lessons? An hour a week. Eikaiwa? An hour a week... Sometimes once every two weeks though because you also have to fit in an hour-a-week Portuguese class and an hour-a-week wood carving class. It's a bloody hobby to most people! When I say to people that I study kung-fu, I mean I study kung-fu. I have 3 lessons a week, and on the days I have no lesson, I practice at home. Any less, and it would be a hobby. Not that there's anything wrong with hobbies (I have a once-a-week tea ceremony class I attend) but any serious improvement or growth requires a bit more than that.

The ONLY way you will make a difference in an elementary school, is MAYBE, bare-minimum, doing three hours a week (like any other subject in school) with certain goals and requirements that are standardized so that you may continue in junior high school where you left off in elementary -- just like any other subject. I should NOT have to teach ABCs in junior high school. Why can they not have regular English classes from K-6 that teach phonics? Reading? Basic skills? There is no reason in the world why this can't happen in Japan. It certainly has in many other countries, be they Asian or European. But Japan has to be willing to take all the current ideas about "teaching" English, as well as the useless studies on the impact of early-age English education, and the egg-headed degenerates that did the studies and throw them out the window. Show me a serious K-6 English curriculum. Then and ONLY then can you start doing studies about its effectiveness. But should such a miracle ever transpire, you wouldn't NEED such a study. It would be akin to studying the effects of below-freezing weather on a bucket of water standing outside. The results should be that obvious. The studies that should be done right now are: Why ISN'T early English education effective in the long term?

Here's an anecdote for you. A couple years ago, a bunch of eikaiwa teachers at a party were discussing/debating the merits and problems of the eikaiwa system. One teacher was particularly vocal and a staunch supporter of what he was doing at work. Another teacher said to him, *(name has been changed):

"*Ben, you speak pretty good Japanese, right?"
"Not bad, I guess."
"How long did it take you to get this far?"
"About 4 years or so."
"Uh-huh... You probably had to work pretty hard to get there, right."
"Well yeah..."
"Probably wasn't even much fun...."
"...." (starting to sense something was up)....
"So, Ben. Tell me. How many Japanese songs do you know?"
"......"
"How many Japanese games have you learned while you were studying Japanese?"
"......."
"So, do you really think you'd be as far as you are today if you had spent your time singing songs and playing games?"

Fact is, it can't all be FUN. Learning a language is hard work. While we're teaching kids English songs and games, we're NOT teaching them phonics and functional spoken grammar. I've met many a Japanese adult in my time in Japan, who can sing the "Head & Shoulders" song, the "ABC song" or the "hokey-pokey" off by heart, but none of them can compose a gramatically correct sentence in English to save their lives or spell an English word. Why is that?

Another thing, I can't believe that Japanese teachers were shocked or even surprised that when they went on a tour to China, English class was being taught IN ENGLISH. I don't even want to get into that aspect of it...

To me, it always comes down to a lack of priority. As long as there is no need to learn English, there is no motivation in the world that will inspire the people. It is neither required nor encouraged in the public sector, nor in the private.

I have a revolutionary idea: do what the Canadian government has done in many areas of the public sector -- start demanding a certain bilingual proficiency in order to work as a civil servant. Next, provide tax breaks and financial benefits for companies that have a certain number of bilingual employees -- in other words, give the companies incentive to demand bilingual employees. Only then might there be sufficient motivation for people to do more than just "dabble" in the language.

It IS possible... A few years ago, we saw a similar revolution in the computer field. Companies started demanding computer-literate employees. There was rush for people to learn how to type, use a word processor, spreadsheet, etc. Nowadays, it's hardly worth even mentioning on a resume because many companies just assume that turning on a computer, typing out a letter and printing it out is as natural to you as multiplying 6x5 in your head.


Coming back to the dispatch company theme, it's been said by others on this thread.... The law of work: You can have something - cheap, - fast, - good. Pick 2 out of 3. That's all I can say.

/rant

[Gordon]

Good rant, Jim. One comment I have is that you can't exactly compare Canada and Japan. You know the situations are completely different. Japan basically does not want to learn English. If they did, they would do more. They want to learn Japanese, look how long it takes them to learn the language and study it in school and they are IMMERSED in the language 24 hrs/day. Until Japan starts to make an effort to learn English, all this ranting and speculation is for nothing. I think the Japanese are one of the worst speakers of English in the world adn they spend more money than any other country "trying to learn". You are right it is a hobby. It would take me 50 years to learn Japanese with an hour/week of studying and that is also while being immersed in the language.

[Tonester]

I guess I'll jump on the bandwagon and say how disappointed I am with the general attitude that is held when it comes to learning english. As an 2nd year JET ALT myself I get elementary HRTs telling me "We want you to teach them Eikaiwa", "We want them to be able to speak english" and such. What really annoys me about that is they want kids to be able to speak english but not actually want to take on a serious commitment to that end. They expect me, the municipal ALT that visits most schools twice/three times per academic year to come into a classroom, use my magic tongue and produce english-speaking kids in only an hour and teaching only "Eikaiwa".

They just do not want to put the work in but want the results and when I tell them "I'm sorry but what you are asking from me is a tall order. The use of a JHS style repeat-after-me approach and expecting kids to be able to hold a proper conversation in english is impossible."

Their answer:

"But other teachers of english teach that way. We want them to speak."

Just because they saw a JHS teacher doing it that way doesn't make it the only valid and right way to teach and you cannot learn a second language without putting in the groundwork.

And then they wonder why they can't speak english when they get older. The attitude to me is "I want to be able to speak english but not have to wait years and put in many hours of hard work to do it" I tell them "It took me the best part of most of my life to learn your language to a competent level so I know what I'm talking about when I say that what you want to do is impossible in just one hour."

I know that this is yet another unbalanced rant and that I'm on the bandwagon too but I just feel that the "I've studied for many years and yet I can't speak english" song has had its day and that the people that can actually change things get off their backsides and do something about it rather than just palm things off or blow smoke with good-sounding policies that end up not taking effect.