|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ironopolis wrote: |
| Indeed, there's not much point paying a higher salary to get better quality if you don't match that higher salary with specific higher requirements. If they wanted better quality, I reckon they'd need to have a salary structure similar to other vaguely equivalent schemes in other countries, where they reward teaching qualifications or experience. But, as I said at the beginning, that's a big 'if', and is perhaps frequently not the case at all. Us foreigners tend to be largely the same, so let's just get them cheaper, eh!? |
This is one of the most important points in the discussion, and I've felt for a long time that it's not so much the JET Programme or JETs that's the problem, but the lax entry requirements. I think they could attract better, more qualified teachers, if they paid according to those international standards you refer to. They don't necessarily even have to make it tougher to get it; rather, simply have a sliding scale of salary packages that matches qualifications. If you have a teaching degree or ESL degree or 5 years experience in the field, you should be entering JET at a higher salary than Joe BA. If you have MA or higher, you should get even more. And so on. Over time, this would attract better teachers and improve address the quality issue, and private dispatch firms would be left in the dust. The cream would rise to the JET top, the sludge would trickle down to INTERAC and those other companies, who will never ever pay according to qualifications, much less more than 250,000/month.
But essentially, you're right. At the moment, from the perspective of BOEs, there ain't much difference between JET ALTs and their private counterparts. I think privatization is still relaively young in the ALT market and needs a few more years to impress upon BOEs just how big the differences potentially are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kdynamic
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| luckbox wrote: |
| I've felt for a long time that it's not so much the JET Programme or JETs that's the problem, but the lax entry requirements. I think they could attract better, more qualified teachers, if they paid according to those international standards you refer to. |
How many times are we going to have the same discussion on this board about JET? For the eleventy billionth time: JET is not about teaching. It's about grassroots internationalization, i.e. community involvment, etc, i.e. it's only natural that the qualifications they are looking for would be totally different than if it were a teaching program. It's not a teaching program! If it were there are countless things they would be doing differently.
As it is, JET is quite competative to get into. Something like 1 in 5 applicants get the job. The entry requirements are hardly lax. But they are NOT based on teaching credentials. They are looking for people who they feel will be good at what JETs are supposed to do, which is NOT measured by how good they are at teaching English in the strict sense. Just because you don't understand the intentions and underlying goals of the program doesn't mean it's fair to apply your arbitrary criteria in criticism.
If JET wanted to hire qualified teachers, they would. But that would not be in line with the goals of the program. Whether someone is a qualified teacher or not is really beside the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kdynamic wrote: |
| luckbox wrote: |
| I've felt for a long time that it's not so much the JET Programme or JETs that's the problem, but the lax entry requirements. I think they could attract better, more qualified teachers, if they paid according to those international standards you refer to. |
How many times are we going to have the same discussion on this board about JET? For the eleventy billionth time: JET is not about teaching. It's about grassroots internationalization, i.e. community involvment, etc, i.e. it's only natural that the qualifications they are looking for would be totally different than if it were a teaching program. It's not a teaching program! If it were there are countless things they would be doing differently. |
Wrong, Kydynamic, or at least not fully correct. Yes, JET is about grassroots internationalization, but that's not all. It's also about English education. Remember - for the 11th billionth time - that JET has 5 different ministries and agencies overseeing it. At least one or more of those bodies do consider the English education part of it quite important. I even recall it being said by the various ministry reps at Keio Plaza way back when. It is a teaching program insofar as its an ALT program. Otherwise they'd just have ALT's stationed at local government boards, not schools, doing community work and activities (more akin to the CIR role), not school or class work. Now, it's true, ALT's are assistant teachers, not teachers per se, but theoretically, ALTs are very much considered part of the English program, even if they go unused to a great extent. In theory, the ALT is supposed to be a significant contributor to the team-teaching method, hence all those workshops and orientations and re-training seminars we were sent to. One of the top frustrations expressed by JTE's I spoke with over the years was the lack of teaching experience in their ALT counterpart. They thought they'd be getting someone a bit more qualified, someone who can learn quickly, and take initiative; someone who doesn't need to be told repeatedly how to plan a 10 minute warm-up activity. Yes, JET is very much a teaching program in these respects, but the fact JET bureacrats are unwilling to adapt its hiring criteria accordingly makes it no less a teaching program.
| kdynamic wrote: |
| As it is, JET is quite competative to get into. Something like 1 in 5 applicants get the job. The entry requirements are hardly lax. |
You're joking, right? Please tell me you're joking... it's easier to get into JET than it is to INTERAC. The 1 and 5 making it in figure is not a statement on how tough the requirements are for JET, but how popular the JET gravy train has become. It's easy if you have a BA. Period. As easy as filling out an appplication and attending an interview wearing a nice suit and pretending to be enthusiastic about Japan.
| kdynamic wrote: |
| Just because you don't understand the intentions and underlying goals of the program doesn't mean it's fair to apply your arbitrary criteria in criticism. |
Come on, already, I've been down the same JET road as you, Kdynamic, and had the JET philosophy drilled into me just as many times as you did, so spare me the one-upmanship, ok?
| kdynamic wrote: |
| If JET wanted to hire qualified teachers, they would. But that would not be in line with the goals of the program. Whether someone is a qualified teacher or not is really beside the point. |
Again, the goals of the program are not as clear as you make out, because there are 5 different government bodies claiming to represent its goals, or parts of the broader goal. What I do agree with is that JET is not interested in hiring qualified teachers. That's quite obvious. Why? Not because to do so falls outside the general goal of the program, but because to do so they'd have to pay a alot more to attract qualified teachers in larger numbers.
I think with the recent inclusion of elementary ALTs (where teaching skills are truly more needed on the part of the ALT) in the Programme, you may see some change in hiring criteria in the future with JET. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kdynamic
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK OK my post was obviously too strongly worded. Sorry. I didn't mean to sound so confrontational.
But I still think JET really is about grassroots internationalization. That's the stated goal of the program, and English teaching is the excuse to give ALTs something to do while they are here for cultural exchange. If JET is trying to be an effective English teaching program it's doing a lot of things that don't make much sense. But if you look at it as an internationalization program, they do make more sense.
| luckbox wrote: |
| Remember - for the 11th billionth time - that JET has 5 different ministries and agencies overseeing it. At least one or more of those bodies do consider the English education part of it quite important. I even recall it being said by the various ministry reps at Keio Plaza way back when. |
Looks like your memory of way back then is fading. JET is administered by three government ministries, not 5, and Education, much less the English Education subset, is only one aspect of one of them (MEXT, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology). If JET were an education endevour, it would be administered totally differently.
| Quote: |
| The 1 and 5 making it in figure is not a statement on how tough the requirements are for JET, but how popular the JET gravy train has become. It's easy if you have a BA. Period. As easy as filling out an appplication and attending an interview wearing a nice suit and pretending to be enthusiastic about Japan. |
Tell that to the 4 out of 5 people who don't get in.
| Quote: |
| kdynamic wrote: |
| Just because you don't understand the intentions and underlying goals of the program doesn't mean it's fair to apply your arbitrary criteria in criticism. |
Come on, already, I've been down the same JET road as you, Kdynamic, and had the JET philosophy drilled into me just as many times as you did, so spare me the one-upmanship, ok? |
I never meant to engage in one-upmanship, but I don't think we have been down the same JET path at all. I am probably faaaaar more indoctrinated into the JET philosophy than you are, so ok, maybe I am biased. But in my position I also have more contact with CLAIR than many JETs and yes, they really do focus on internationalization. Sure they want ALTs to be good English teachers. But I firmly believe that's not priority #1.
| Quote: |
| What I do agree with is that JET is not interested in hiring qualified teachers. That's quite obvious. Why? Not because to do so falls outside the general goal of the program, but because to do so they'd have to pay a alot more to attract qualified teachers in larger numbers. |
JET already pays more than the eikaiwas and dispatch companies. I ahve met some amazing people on JET and most of them were not qualified teachers. But they were doing exactly what JET asked them to do: bring their diverse backgrounds and communication skills to their communities. The criteria used to hire JETs has so much to do with their international experience and community involvment that you can't understand it any other way than thinking about JET as what it is, and internationalization culture exchange program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kdynamic wrote: |
| OK OK my post was obviously too strongly worded. Sorry. I didn't mean to sound so confrontational. |
No need to apologize for your opinions, kdynamic, I enjoy the ocassional horn-lock with you. You make good points, and I actually think our disagreement may be indicative of the mixed signals sent out by JET bureaucrats. Anytime you have more than one bureaucratic body overseeing a program like this, you're gonna have mixed visions on what the program is intended to do. I even recall this being the subject of a joke during one of the Kei Plaza speeches.
| kdynamic wrote: |
| But I still think JET really is about grassroots internationalization. That's the stated goal of the program, and English teaching is the excuse to give ALTs something to do while they are here for cultural exchange. |
And you are absolutely right in saying that JET is about grassroots internationalization. I certainly don't take issue with this. I simply contend its more than this. If the program were not also an English program, they's see no need for Assistant Language Teachers. They'd simply hire a bunch of CIRs to serve as internationalizers, who could serve community, school and varius other terrains. But that's not how it's set up. ALTs are hired for schools and schools alone, and they are there to enhance the English program and, yes, act as internationalizers, too.
| kdynamic wrote: |
| If JET is trying to be an effective English teaching program it's doing a lot of things that don't make much sense. But if you look at it as an internationalization program, they do make more sense. |
This wouldn't be the first time, in Japan or any other country, where public policy didn't make much sense, or where the bureacratic theory didn't produce the desired practical results. JET always struck me as a hugely ambitious, overly-optimistic program, biting off more than it was willing to chew. JET always struck me as one of those public initiatives that wasn't quite sure what it wanted, but was gonna go full force just the same. I think in Japan especially, appearance (tatemae) is often more important than reality (honne). The appearance of JET as this great internationalization/English education package deal appears great, but the reality is a alot different.
| Quote: |
| kdynamic wrote: |
| Just because you don't understand the intentions and underlying goals of the program doesn't mean it's fair to apply your arbitrary criteria in criticism. |
Come on, already, I've been down the same JET road as you, Kdynamic, and had the JET philosophy drilled into me just as many times as you did, so spare me the one-upmanship, ok? |
| kdynamic wrote: |
| I am probably faaaaar more indoctrinated into the JET philosophy than you are, so ok, maybe I am biased. But in my position I also have more contact with CLAIR than many JETs and yes, they really do focus on internationalization. Sure they want ALTs to be good English teachers. But I firmly believe that's not priority #1. |
Again, I don't doubt your perception and experience of JET to be authentic. I'm even willing to concede that English education is not the official number 1 priority of the program, but that does not discount the importance of JETs insistence that English education is a part of the package. And if that's the case, they could be doing a much better job in that department. I had one aged JTE (who been around since the beginning of JET) my first year on the job who used to openly complain to me about how JET rarely failed to deliver a qualified teacher to her year after year. The rare times she got one, she said her job was so much easier and enjoyable. I don't think she's the only JTE who holds this opinion. They too are fed the same line about JETs mandate, and Japanese English Teachers are led to believe English is a significant part of it all. Especially after all those joint ALT-JTE mid-year training seminars. If English teaching was as insignificant as you suggest, JET wouldn't pay the huge amounts of cash needed to stage those training sessions across the nation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kdynamic
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah you make some good points. From my vantage, the internationalization aspect to having JET ALTs really seems like a worthwhile endevour, and I have often lamented that ALTs are stuck in their schools too much even when they have not much to do when they could be out in the community "internationalizing." I guess it is trying to be two things at once (a cultural exchange program and an English teaching program) and failing at both in some respects. I don't really see the point of English education in Japan, since most Japanese never leave Japan or need to use English, and more foriegners in Japan don't speak English. But I DO see the point of diversity education, multicultural exposure, and grassroots internationalization in Japan.
I think there is a good reason why they don't just hire a bunch of CIRs instead of ALTs to do the internationalizing (I mean, the majority), namely because CIRs are too easy to communicate with and too acclimated (since they speak Japanese and have lived in Japan before) and will just conform to the Japanese way sometimes. Having people who don't speak Japanese and don't know Japan come in and forcing the locals to figure out how to work with them is, I think, a main crux of the whole JET ALT scheme. It's a more ambitious internationalization program for throwing 6000 newbie ALTs into the Japanese countryside instead of 6000 CIRs or 6000 trained teachers. I think it's quite an interesting experiment, and, from what I have seen, actually gets some amazing results (when you look at the program as a whole). I just can't imagine this isn't intentional on CLAIR's part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckbox wrote: |
This is one of the most important points in the discussion, and I've felt for a long time that it's not so much the JET Programme or JETs that's the problem, but the lax entry requirements. |
They're hardly lax given the official aims of the program.
With the focus on being _more_ than just teaching they are right to accept a wider range of applicants than a pure teaching program would desire. More to the point, from the point of view of most State teaching programs, they are no more lax in any meaningful way: an undergraduate degree will get you looked at in most countries with a large teaching market. With teaching programs they want it to be in teaching, and sometimes even TSL, but IMO that's a minor point when their focus _is_ teaching.
| Quote: |
I think they could attract better, more qualified teachers, if they paid according to those international standards you refer to. They don't necessarily even have to make it tougher to get it; rather, simply have a sliding scale of salary packages that matches qualifications. |
I hate to break the news to you, but 90% of TSL "qualifications" out there simply aren't worth the paper they're written on - or at least that's my opinion of them. Higher level TSL qualifications are often the refuge of people that couldn't cut it in an academic linguistics department. YMMV. And speaking as a professional recruiter (& part time JET interviewer) paying more does not attract better qualified applicants. It simply increases the number of candidates overall. JET does not lack for candidates qualified in the way you want them to be. It's just that in the past they were given no extra preference when applying. That has changed recently, btw - they now score themselves extra points on their application and interview rankings.
| Quote: |
If you have a teaching degree or ESL degree or 5 years experience in the field, you should be entering JET at a higher salary than Joe BA. If you have MA or higher, you should get even more. And so on. |
You're assuming that the prime role of JET is teaching. It isn't. More to the point, even though education has been gaining importance in applications over the last few years, it is not the case that more money will help in any way: JET already has enough applicants and those with teaching and TSL qualifications are already forming a higher percentage of those offered positions.
Why offer more money? JET is not a career, nor even intended as a career stage. If you think of JET as a career move then you're applying for the wrong job - it won't harm your career, but it's the wrong mindset to treat it as just another career option.
Another point would be that (again, IME) 'career minded' and 'qualified' teachers are often the worst people for JET: they don't fit into the schools and they don't want to learn how to teach successfully within the Japanese school system. In part I think this is because of cultural and academic arrogance, but I'm not about to get into that subject here.
And even further to the point, why offer someone with a mere education degree and no experience even more money than a freshly minted JTL earns? JETs are already paid more than new JTLs and yet they have the same qualifications and, usually, the same levels of practical experience of the Japanese school system and classes. Why pay them even more on top of that? Because they have an education degree from some third rate near-diploma-mill out of the US? Sorry, but that's a terribly weak argument IMO. Experience _might_ warrant a reward, although I don't think you've made any actual argument for it, and it's the same for an MA grad IMO; How about suggesting a _real_ performance enhancer and suggest they get an annual (and incremental) bonus based on actual results? That way, you can still hire the people that you think will fit in best _and_ leave it up to them to perform in the job, something that an education degree or MA does not in any way gaurantee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
| luckbox wrote: |
This is one of the most important points in the discussion, and I've felt for a long time that it's not so much the JET Programme or JETs that's the problem, but the lax entry requirements. |
They're hardly lax given the official aims of the program.
With the focus on being _more_ than just teaching they are right to accept a wider range of applicants than a pure teaching program would desire. More to the point, from the point of view of most State teaching programs, they are no more lax in any meaningful way: an undergraduate degree will get you looked at in most countries with a large teaching market. With teaching programs they want it to be in teaching, and sometimes even TSL, but IMO that's a minor point when their focus _is_ teaching.
| Quote: |
I think they could attract better, more qualified teachers, if they paid according to those international standards you refer to. They don't necessarily even have to make it tougher to get it; rather, simply have a sliding scale of salary packages that matches qualifications. |
I hate to break the news to you, but 90% of TSL "qualifications" out there simply aren't worth the paper they're written on - or at least that's my opinion of them. Higher level TSL qualifications are often the refuge of people that couldn't cut it in an academic linguistics department. YMMV. And speaking as a professional recruiter (& part time JET interviewer) paying more does not attract better qualified applicants. It simply increases the number of candidates overall. JET does not lack for candidates qualified in the way you want them to be. It's just that in the past they were given no extra preference when applying. That has changed recently, btw - they now score themselves extra points on their application and interview rankings.
| Quote: |
If you have a teaching degree or ESL degree or 5 years experience in the field, you should be entering JET at a higher salary than Joe BA. If you have MA or higher, you should get even more. And so on. |
You're assuming that the prime role of JET is teaching. It isn't. More to the point, even though education has been gaining importance in applications over the last few years, it is not the case that more money will help in any way: JET already has enough applicants and those with teaching and TSL qualifications are already forming a higher percentage of those offered positions.
Why offer more money? JET is not a career, nor even intended as a career stage. If you think of JET as a career move then you're applying for the wrong job - it won't harm your career, but it's the wrong mindset to treat it as just another career option.
Another point would be that (again, IME) 'career minded' and 'qualified' teachers are often the worst people for JET: they don't fit into the schools and they don't want to learn how to teach successfully within the Japanese school system. In part I think this is because of cultural and academic arrogance, but I'm not about to get into that subject here.
And even further to the point, why offer someone with a mere education degree and no experience even more money than a freshly minted JTL earns? JETs are already paid more than new JTLs and yet they have the same qualifications and, usually, the same levels of practical experience of the Japanese school system and classes. Why pay them even more on top of that? Because they have an education degree from some third rate near-diploma-mill out of the US? Sorry, but that's a terribly weak argument IMO. Experience _might_ warrant a reward, although I don't think you've made any actual argument for it, and it's the same for an MA grad IMO; How about suggesting a _real_ performance enhancer and suggest they get an annual (and incremental) bonus based on actual results? That way, you can still hire the people that you think will fit in best _and_ leave it up to them to perform in the job, something that an education degree or MA does not in any way gaurantee. |
All of your points are sound, to which I have no (time to) reply.
Let me put the question to you: Is JET effective in fullfilling its goals of internationalization and teaching school kids how to speak English better? My answer is yes to the former, no to the later. I'm not interested in splitting hairs and arguing over which of the two is the more primary goal in JET. I never said teaching the primary goal; I simply said it was one of the goals. The fact is, English education is a apart of the JET package.
Is the Japanese govt getting a good bang for its buck with the billions spent on JET? I say no. My experience as a JET ALT says no. If your answer is no, what's your suggestion? My suggestion is that if they want to improve the English education side of the equation in JET, they need to do some serious revamping, and yes, that requires changing hiring criteria and pay scales. Whether applicants view JET as a non-career or career is totally beside the point. "Build it, and he will come."
It's worth pointing out that other Asian countries have enjoyed more success with their English programs, Japan lags behind, despite the massive eikaiwa industry, and despite the costly JET Programme. Maybe its time to look at what those countries are doing right. I'm not sure. But Japan has had JET in place in public schols for more than 20 years now, and kids (and adults) still can't seem to advance beyond: "Hi, nice to meet you... I'm fine, thank you, and you?"
Now, if it turns out that it's not JETs aim to address this problem, then I think JET has missed the boat about 20 years ago. I actually think that on paper, JET is aimed at addressing language proficiency in Japan, but it's not working very well.
In all of this, the issue of qualifications, teaching ability, credentials and salary incentives is important. If you think not, then we can end the discussion now and agree to disagree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris21
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 366
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The size of the program is indeed smaller. CLAIR's website lists 5508 total JETs, with only 2576 new JETs. This is about 1000 fewer JETs than 2001-2002.
Last edited by Chris21 on Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kdynamic
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckbox wrote: |
Let me put the question to you: Is JET effective in fullfilling its goals of internationalization and teaching school kids how to speak English better? My answer is yes to the former, no to the later. |
Then I would argue JET is fulfilling its main goal, and the one I see as msot important.
| Quote: |
| I'm not interested in splitting hairs and arguing over which of the two is the more primary goal in JET. |
I really don't see why hairs need to be split. It's pretty straightforward. The stated goal of the JET program as a whole is grassroots internationalization.
| Quote: |
| I never said teaching the primary goal; I simply said it was one of the goals. The fact is, English education is a part of the JET package. |
Maybe so, but if you look at the way the program is structured and administered, and yes, the hiring policies, then to me it's clear that English education goals take a backseat. Otherwise so many things make no sense.
| Quote: |
| My suggestion is that if they want to improve the English education side of the equation in JET, they need to do some serious revamping, and yes, that requires changing hiring criteria and pay scales. Whether applicants view JET as a non-career or career is totally beside the point. "Build it, and he will come." |
I think you are missing the point. If they wanted to improve the English education side to JET they would do a lot of things. They are not. It's not a coincidence. ALTs viewing the job as a career move is NOT beside the point. I get the sense if causes a lot of miscommunication and frustration. If the Japanese government wanted to really improve English education, the would send JTEs abroad and hire qualified teachers, etc etc. And who knows, in the current times of growing support for English education (though it's not unanimous), maybe they will. But that would be a seperate undertaking from JET.
| Quote: |
| Japan has had JET in place in public schols for more than 20 years now, and kids (and adults) still can't seem to advance beyond: "Hi, nice to meet you... I'm fine, thank you, and you?" |
But the program HAS made inroads in the areas it was always meant to address. Due to the 20 years of the program, most school kids have met and talked to a real live forienger. Countless local internationalization events, countless conversations in the staff room with other teachers, countless holidays celebrated and food shared. Maybe each ALT is just a drop in the bucket, but as a whole, the program has had an effect, even if English education in Japan is still the worst in Asia.
| Quote: |
| I actually think that on paper, JET is aimed at addressing language proficiency in Japan, but it's not working very well. |
This is what I meant when I said you were judging JET on the wrong criteria. It's not about language proficiency! If you don't accept that, lots of things about the program will continue to not make sense to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craven
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: Alternative Programs |
|
|
Luckbox, you've mentioned that Japan has had far less success with the JET program than other Asian countries...which programs were you thinking of specifically? I'm interested in comparing JET with initatives in other countries myself. Sorry...I know you've already spent tons of time on this thread!
And I can't resist adding my two cents to the recruitment debate...I'm on JET now, and worked two years for Aeon. I was also offered positions at Nova and ECC after passing their interviews. By comparison, the JET application and interview process was WAY more rigorous than those done by the big 4 eikaiwa companies...Nova never even asked for a copy of my degree, just my word than I had one. Certainly none of them ever asked for transcripts or letters of reference. I had my Aeon job 2 weeks after applying...it took 6 months of vetting before I was hired on JET.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:55 am Post subject: Re: Alternative Programs |
|
|
| craven wrote: |
| Nova never even asked for a copy of my degree, just my word than I had one. |
Didn't you have to present your degree at some point to Immigration, to get your COE and then initial work visa (with AEON)? I imagine so, which would explain why the subsequent eikaiwa that you applied to didn't bother to ask for proof of degree in addition to just the work visa itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kdynamic wrote: |
| luckbox wrote: |
Let me put the question to you: Is JET effective in fullfilling its goals of internationalization and teaching school kids how to speak English better? My answer is yes to the former, no to the later. |
Then I would argue JET is fulfilling its main goal, and the one I see as msot important.
| Quote: |
| I'm not interested in splitting hairs and arguing over which of the two is the more primary goal in JET. |
I really don't see why hairs need to be split. It's pretty straightforward. The stated goal of the JET program as a whole is grassroots internationalization. |
Once again, you misunderstand. I agree with you, and I even concede the main purpose of the program may well be grassroots internationalization. But the bulk of the positions in the program are ALTs (remember, the T stands for TEACHER), and ALTs are therefore engaged, to greater or lesser extents, in the process of language education in schools. This is a fact. Your opinion as to the weight of that fact or the merit of that fact is doesn't change the fact itself. I don't know how much more obvious this needs to be for you to see. Whether language education takes an official or unofficial backseat to the other goal of internationalization is quite beside the point. The reason ALTs are based at schools, and only schools, is because they are obliged to fullfil their role as teachers; in short, they are obligated to live up to that part of the JET Programme mandate.
The difference between your position, kdynamic, and mine is that you view JET as one dimensional, and you seem to base your entire argument on a one-paragraph statement of puprose on the JET web site. I, on the other hand, view the program as multi-dimensional, and see English education - via the vast neteork of ALTs - as an important part of the package. That's fine, I can't change your perception, nor do I want to.
I think the more interesting question is whether you think JET can do a better job at delivering a better English teaching system, and if so, how so?
I think internationalization is all fine and well, but its one of those fluffy buzz words that makes people feel all warm and global inside their hearts. I'm still not exactly sure what it is and why JET and governments place so much value on it. JET also claims, rightly, that language education is an important part of the equation. But they are failing on this score, maybe because the teaching of English requires more foresight and planning than some vague term about getting to know our international neighbours better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kdynamic
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Internationalization is definitely a buzzword, I'll give you that. But Japan is trying to work toward it for very good reason. Japan is a country with serious problem with homogeneity, isolationism, and race relations and culture clash in an increasingly multicultural, interconnected, international world - in which it very much wants to be a major player. The JET program and the whole homeland internationalization push is one part of Japan's bigger efforts to step out onto the world stage. Many people are pressing for Japan to get on the UN security council, have an independant military not held back by article 9, etc etc. Whether you're on the hawkish side of the issue or the bleeding heart "one-world" side, 'internationalization' has been a government initiative at least since the JET program started 20 years ago. English education in schools is just one part of a much larger trend.
The reason I don't agree with the way you're looking at the program, and judging it as a success or failure, is because, much as you concede it may not be the main priority, you still use English education as the measuring stick. As an ALT teaching in a school every day, naturally from your perspective English education seems like a major part of the program. But I think the job of ALT is just to give the JETs who don't speak Japanese something useful to do while they spend their time in Japan, and a way to get involved with the locals. So yes, that makes them part of English education. But my point is that even if ALTs, as they are now, are far from the most effective English teachers, it doesn't matter because that's not the main thing they are here to do. Assisting in English classes is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
| Quote: |
| The difference between your position, kdynamic, and mine is that you view JET as one dimensional, and you seem to base your entire argument on a one-paragraph statement of puprose on the JET web site. I, on the other hand, view the program as multi-dimensional, and see English education - via the vast neteork of ALTs - as an important part of the package. |
Yes, I do base my argument on the statement of purpose of the JET program, because I think that whether the program is succeeding in what it was meant to do should be the measuring stick, not whether it's succeeding as an English education initiative. I think JET could do a better job of delivering English education, but that's not the mandate of the program, and hiring people who are experienced at teaching over people who are likely to be good internationalizers would be counterproductive to the goals of the program.
| Quote: |
| I think internationalization is all fine and well, but its one of those fluffy buzz words that makes people feel all warm and global inside their hearts. I'm still not exactly sure what it is and why JET and governments place so much value on it. JET also claims, rightly, that language education is an important part of the equation. But they are failing on this score |
You may think internationalization is a bunch of fluff, and that the government shouldn't have such a program - and many people have many vaid arguments for that position. But criticizing the JET program for being less that maximally effective at improving English education is missing the forest for the trees. If you want to talk about whether the program is doing a good job or whether it should exist at all, you have to realistically address what it is first, not lambast it for not achieving a goal it was never aiming for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kdynamic wrote: |
Internationalization is definitely a buzzword, I'll give you that. But Japan is trying to work toward it for very good reason. Japan is a country with serious problem with homogeneity, isolationism, and race relations and culture clash in an increasingly multicultural, interconnected, international world - in which it very much wants to be a major player. The JET program and the whole homeland internationalization push is one part of Japan's bigger efforts to step out onto the world stage. Many people are pressing for Japan to get on the UN security council, have an independant military not held back by article 9, etc etc. Whether you're on the hawkish side of the issue or the bleeding heart "one-world" side, 'internationalization' has been a government initiative at least since the JET program started 20 years ago. English education in schools is just one part of a much larger trend.
The reason I don't agree with the way you're looking at the program, and judging it as a success or failure, is because, much as you concede it may not be the main priority, you still use English education as the measuring stick. As an ALT teaching in a school every day, naturally from your perspective English education seems like a major part of the program. But I think the job of ALT is just to give the JETs who don't speak Japanese something useful to do while they spend their time in Japan, and a way to get involved with the locals. So yes, that makes them part of English education. But my point is that even if ALTs, as they are now, are far from the most effective English teachers, it doesn't matter because that's not the main thing they are here to do. Assisting in English classes is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
| Quote: |
| The difference between your position, kdynamic, and mine is that you view JET as one dimensional, and you seem to base your entire argument on a one-paragraph statement of puprose on the JET web site. I, on the other hand, view the program as multi-dimensional, and see English education - via the vast neteork of ALTs - as an important part of the package. |
Yes, I do base my argument on the statement of purpose of the JET program, because I think that whether the program is succeeding in what it was meant to do should be the measuring stick, not whether it's succeeding as an English education initiative. I think JET could do a better job of delivering English education, but that's not the mandate of the program, and hiring people who are experienced at teaching over people who are likely to be good internationalizers would be counterproductive to the goals of the program.
| Quote: |
| I think internationalization is all fine and well, but its one of those fluffy buzz words that makes people feel all warm and global inside their hearts. I'm still not exactly sure what it is and why JET and governments place so much value on it. JET also claims, rightly, that language education is an important part of the equation. But they are failing on this score |
You may think internationalization is a bunch of fluff, and that the government shouldn't have such a program - and many people have many vaid arguments for that position. But criticizing the JET program for being less that maximally effective at improving English education is missing the forest for the trees. If you want to talk about whether the program is doing a good job or whether it should exist at all, you have to realistically address what it is first, not lambast it for not achieving a goal it was never aiming for. |
Kdynamic, wow, in your reactionary rush to defend what you perceive as the noble pursuit of internationalization and its noblest of representatives - JET, you seem to have missed most of what I've said? Think about that forests and trees remark again, would ya? My conclusions about JET have completely escaped you. Let's review:
-- I never lambasted JET, as you so conclude.
--I never said JET was bad. I said the English education part of the mandate was lacking in success. This doesn't mean I'm tossing the baby out with the bathwater, as you seem to believe. I'm not. Quote me: JET is good. Its aims are good. But it can do much better in certain realms of its mandate.
--I did agree JET does a good job on the internationalization front, although I do suggest its a vague concept, meaning different things to different people, and the Japanese and JET overplay the idea.
--I did say JET doesn't do a good job on the English education part of its mandate (which you've finally come to almost admit actually exists as part of the mandate: "As an ALT teaching in a school every day, naturally from your perspective English education seems like a major part of the program", yet you then quickly retreat to your one-dimensional position: "I think JET could do a better job of delivering English education, but that's not the mandate of the program", but then just after that you say "So yes, that makes them (JET ALTs) part of English education"). Kdynamic, I think you really have to take heed of your last comment: "If you want to talk about whether the program is doing a good job or whether it should exist at all, you have to realistically address what it is first". I think deep down you know what it is, but you loved JET so much that for you to take a serious critical look at the program's mandate requires some soul searching. I mean, you youself did admit to buying into the JET doctrine in a big way.
Your following comment is most curious: "But I think the job of ALT is just to give the JETs who don't speak Japanese something useful to do while they spend their time in Japan, and a way to get involved with the locals..." You really believe this? You really believe that the stated, intended goal of JET is to simply use schools as a convenient space where which to house internationalization facilitators (who happen to also wear the tag "teacher" so as to make it all official and such)?
You can't have it both ways. Either, JET ALTs are teachers, part of public school English programs, or they aren't. If they are, then this is a significant aspect of JETs mandate. As much as you'd love it be all about grassroots internationalization, it ain't, I'm sorry to say.
Thus, faced with this reality, don't you think a critique of JETs overall, broader mandate, which includes English teaching, to be not only fair, but necessary in order for it to advance and improve? JET does not exist in some dreamland internationalization vacuum. It is a public policy and what may have been effective 20 years ago, may not be effective now. JET must adapt to the times, just like everything and everyone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
