|
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 |
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
okay, I'm in a hurry and my spelling sucks. I'm sure you'll all cope. :)
| 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. 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.
|
I doubt many people would argue with you on the "it's a part of the package" front, but you seem resistent to the idea that it may not be the/a primary goal. I would also disagree with you outright on your questions - internationalization and language education - and say the answer to both is _yes_. Now, I would have to say up front that my perspective is perhaps a bit longer than most. I was working in Japan in the early to mid 90's and then came back in the early 00's on JET. While on JET I also got to meet with and talk at length with some of the muckity mucks from CLAIR and the Education Ministry, as well as a lot of JETs from around Japan. From my perspective, having seen JET and lots of school aged students yadda yadda at both points and having experienced where Japan was viz internationalization _and_ language education over both periods, _I_ would say that JET has been very successful _on both fronts_. YMMV.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Are you suggesting your experience is universal or the norm? How much of it is because of you, as in, is it a failure of the program or is/was it your failure as a teacher or the education system or some combination of everything? My expectation would be that most people would suggest the last one.
In terms of budget expenditure, JET is becoming more affordable all the time and will continue to do so so long as they refuse to increase the pay rates. Is it value for money outright? Can't answer that, sorry - I would say that it is essentially impossible to measure ROI when it comes to education. Anything you can actually _measure_ is almost certainly going to be meaningless in terms of desireable outcomes viz public education IMO. If you want examples of that then just take a look at the effects in the US and the UK of 'accountability' laws and drives in the education sector: schools now teach towards the tests and standards and ignore anything and everything else. IMO test performance /= education.
| Quote: |
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."
|
I've already mentioned that pay scales make no difference in hiring except to raise the pool totals. Moreover, you've still not provided an actual argument about _why_ increasing pay scales would be worthwhile. I fail to see any difference bwteen the average freashly minted teacher out of the US and their Japanese counterpart. If you want to increase pay based on qualifications then why not do so across nationality? Clearly, the evidence of success in the classroom, according to MEXT figures I once saw, says that UK and NZ trained terachers perform better than US trained teacher grads on JET. Should we pay the UK and NZ trained teachers more than US trained teachers? On your argument we should. Would you agree with that idea if it were put forward?
IMO it is _very_ important whether people view JET as a career move: the program is not intended to be a career option and yet your suggestions have, at base, the idea that you want to attract career teachers to it. Sure, trained teachers are _probably_ going to be more effective, but the training doesn't guarantee it. Far from it. JET has been around long enough to have extensive data on which university's graduates perform best on JET, and can even go down to degree and placement environment, for valid measures of likely success: should JET start hiring and paying on that basis?
Putting all that aisde for one moment we're still left with one important fact: JET doesn't need to pay more to attract teaching qualified applicants.
It already gets lots of them. And over the last four (5?) years it's been hiring them more often. If you're genuinely concerned about the amount of money JET costs Japan then you should be happy that it _can_ and _does_ alreay attract such applicants _without_ having to expend more money than it already does. Does it need _more_ trained applicants? No, not IMO. Why? Because as you point out yourself in another post, the position is _Assistant_ Language teacher. The difference bwteen us is that you choose to emphasis the teacher part and I look at the assistant part. But just as most other countries don't require their classroom assistants to be trained teachers (heck, in the US they often don't even need a degree!) I see no strong reason from you as to why JETs should more often be trained teachers.
| Quote: |
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.
|
First off, the eikaiwa industry has nothing to do with government directed education programs. It is about profit. It is certainly not anything to do with getting the population to actually attain some level of functional fluency - if it was then there would be regulation in that direction. Comparing JET, an actual government program and part of government policy, to similar programs in other countries is valid however, but I still don't see you presenting a strong point; AFAIK, the only _comparable_ government program that achieves any success is the NET program out of Hong Kong. The government programs in South Korea and Taiwan (the only other ones I know of at all) both fail to perform even as well as JET IMO. Certainly it's true that other countries in the region attain better scores on tests and/or turn out better/more functional language users, but they don't do so within a JET-like framework, which to me means you can't really compare them. Add in the fact that they _are_ teaching languages as a primary goal and JET isn't and I think your position starts to look decidely shaky.
| Quote: |
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?"
|
You're assuming the primacy of the language goal again. You're also assuming that functional fluency is and should be the goal. I don't see any of those as being true or even, realistically, desireable.
I know it's hard to believe, but I can assure you from my own perspective, Japan _has_ changed a _lot_ over the last twenty years. Kdynamic has pointed out some fo the obvious aspects and I agree with her/him about JET having contributed positively to that. Whether it has been worth the cost is a matter of _policy_ and nothing else.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Of course not. But the finger can be pointed in many places. Why not point it at the universities and their entrance exam requirements and the schools teaching to those? Sure, switch over to a fluency-based teaching program, but watch everyone suddenly stop passing the entrance exams. Will those then change? Yes, and they slowly have been, but like all things there are many conflicting pressures and they often go in multiple directions at once.
It's easy to point the finger at JET, but I honestly don't see it as productive to simply say that JET is failing because it isn't doing something that was secondary to it's original goal. Should JET evolve away from what it is? Yes, I would say that at this point it should. But that's a whole new question.
| Quote: |
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. |
Important yes, but not of prime importance. IMO you're trying to define the argument in terms that suit your argument. That's not helpful for having an honest look at what JET is, does, and could be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
luckbox
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 180
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
okay, I'm in a hurry and my spelling sucks. I'm sure you'll all cope. 
| 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. 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.
|
I doubt many people would argue with you on the "it's a part of the package" front, but you seem resistent to the idea that it may not be the/a primary goal. I would also disagree with you outright on your questions - internationalization and language education - and say the answer to both is _yes_. Now, I would have to say up front that my perspective is perhaps a bit longer than most. I was working in Japan in the early to mid 90's and then came back in the early 00's on JET. While on JET I also got to meet with and talk at length with some of the muckity mucks from CLAIR and the Education Ministry, as well as a lot of JETs from around Japan. From my perspective, having seen JET and lots of school aged students yadda yadda at both points and having experienced where Japan was viz internationalization _and_ language education over both periods, _I_ would say that JET has been very successful _on both fronts_. YMMV.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Are you suggesting your experience is universal or the norm? How much of it is because of you, as in, is it a failure of the program or is/was it your failure as a teacher or the education system or some combination of everything? My expectation would be that most people would suggest the last one.
In terms of budget expenditure, JET is becoming more affordable all the time and will continue to do so so long as they refuse to increase the pay rates. Is it value for money outright? Can't answer that, sorry - I would say that it is essentially impossible to measure ROI when it comes to education. Anything you can actually _measure_ is almost certainly going to be meaningless in terms of desireable outcomes viz public education IMO. If you want examples of that then just take a look at the effects in the US and the UK of 'accountability' laws and drives in the education sector: schools now teach towards the tests and standards and ignore anything and everything else. IMO test performance /= education.
| Quote: |
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."
|
I've already mentioned that pay scales make no difference in hiring except to raise the pool totals. Moreover, you've still not provided an actual argument about _why_ increasing pay scales would be worthwhile. I fail to see any difference bwteen the average freashly minted teacher out of the US and their Japanese counterpart. If you want to increase pay based on qualifications then why not do so across nationality? Clearly, the evidence of success in the classroom, according to MEXT figures I once saw, says that UK and NZ trained terachers perform better than US trained teacher grads on JET. Should we pay the UK and NZ trained teachers more than US trained teachers? On your argument we should. Would you agree with that idea if it were put forward?
IMO it is _very_ important whether people view JET as a career move: the program is not intended to be a career option and yet your suggestions have, at base, the idea that you want to attract career teachers to it. Sure, trained teachers are _probably_ going to be more effective, but the training doesn't guarantee it. Far from it. JET has been around long enough to have extensive data on which university's graduates perform best on JET, and can even go down to degree and placement environment, for valid measures of likely success: should JET start hiring and paying on that basis?
Putting all that aisde for one moment we're still left with one important fact: JET doesn't need to pay more to attract teaching qualified applicants.
It already gets lots of them. And over the last four (5?) years it's been hiring them more often. If you're genuinely concerned about the amount of money JET costs Japan then you should be happy that it _can_ and _does_ alreay attract such applicants _without_ having to expend more money than it already does. Does it need _more_ trained applicants? No, not IMO. Why? Because as you point out yourself in another post, the position is _Assistant_ Language teacher. The difference bwteen us is that you choose to emphasis the teacher part and I look at the assistant part. But just as most other countries don't require their classroom assistants to be trained teachers (heck, in the US they often don't even need a degree!) I see no strong reason from you as to why JETs should more often be trained teachers.
| Quote: |
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.
|
First off, the eikaiwa industry has nothing to do with government directed education programs. It is about profit. It is certainly not anything to do with getting the population to actually attain some level of functional fluency - if it was then there would be regulation in that direction. Comparing JET, an actual government program and part of government policy, to similar programs in other countries is valid however, but I still don't see you presenting a strong point; AFAIK, the only _comparable_ government program that achieves any success is the NET program out of Hong Kong. The government programs in South Korea and Taiwan (the only other ones I know of at all) both fail to perform even as well as JET IMO. Certainly it's true that other countries in the region attain better scores on tests and/or turn out better/more functional language users, but they don't do so within a JET-like framework, which to me means you can't really compare them. Add in the fact that they _are_ teaching languages as a primary goal and JET isn't and I think your position starts to look decidely shaky.
| Quote: |
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?"
|
You're assuming the primacy of the language goal again. You're also assuming that functional fluency is and should be the goal. I don't see any of those as being true or even, realistically, desireable.
I know it's hard to believe, but I can assure you from my own perspective, Japan _has_ changed a _lot_ over the last twenty years. Kdynamic has pointed out some fo the obvious aspects and I agree with her/him about JET having contributed positively to that. Whether it has been worth the cost is a matter of _policy_ and nothing else.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Of course not. But the finger can be pointed in many places. Why not point it at the universities and their entrance exam requirements and the schools teaching to those? Sure, switch over to a fluency-based teaching program, but watch everyone suddenly stop passing the entrance exams. Will those then change? Yes, and they slowly have been, but like all things there are many conflicting pressures and they often go in multiple directions at once.
It's easy to point the finger at JET, but I honestly don't see it as productive to simply say that JET is failing because it isn't doing something that was secondary to it's original goal. Should JET evolve away from what it is? Yes, I would say that at this point it should. But that's a whole new question.
| Quote: |
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. |
Important yes, but not of prime importance. IMO you're trying to define the argument in terms that suit your argument. That's not helpful for having an honest look at what JET is, does, and could be. |
G Cth,
You make some excellent, well-reasoned points and counter-points, obviously from a depth of experience I don't have. I think the one thing I'm taking away from this discussion is the reminder that the JET Programme is vast, means different things to different people, and can not be reduced to a simple, single-issue mandate. I do know thru various articles I've read that JET and CLAIR and ministry bureaucrats are struggling with many of these issues, trying to find ways to adapt to changing times. English tends to be taught in public schools in a test-oriented way, preparing kids how to pass English tests. The actual communication (eikaiwa) aspect is almost non-existent, despite the existence of ALTs in most schools.
In any case, I thank you and kdynamic for your insightful contributions to this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
craven
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 130
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:16 am Post subject: visas and degrees |
|
|
When I applied to Nova and ECC, I didn't mention that I'd applied to Aeon, or to each other. Nova offered me a job, and began asking me where I'd like to be placed without ever having, nor asked for proof of education. They might have further down the road, but considering that at the Nova branch in my town 3 out of the 8 Nova employees do not have vaild working visas (nor degrees), I doubt very much that making sure it's employees are legal is high on their list of priorities.
I can't remember if Aeon asked for a copy of my degree before my interview or afterwards. The letter offering a job did have a phrase saying it was conditional on the successful submission of all required documents (including my degree).
We've had very little discussion about the one thing that JET does VERY well, which is to place folks in the far flung island outposts in Japan that would otherwise have no way to get ALTs without direct hire (since they are beyond the range of outsourcing companies). I think that The fact that JET does not offer choce about your placement (although they do try to accomodate needs in circumstances like marriage or medical necessity), AND has very stringent rules about transfering out of prefecture means that they can offer more of a guarantee of ALTs not leaving mid-contract than dispatch companies can.
Whether or not this will change in the future is another question...I know that from this year, for example, Interact has placed ALTs on Sado Island in Niigata. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prlester
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckbox wrote: |
| 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. |
NO, JET still is way more competitive then any private company, thought the latter's competitiveness is increasing. I'd say the acceptance rate is more like 1 out of 7 and its a lot longer process. The interview portion is harder, but shorter, and there usually isn't any teaching demo.
However, given that the program has some extra-teaching components, as a JET I had to present a positive image in and out of school, getting to know the kids, planning programs etc., I don't think raw recruits teach any better then raw Interac recruits.
Saying that, the application is much more well-rounded. I believe it took me eight hours to write the multiple essays, make triplicates and the vast array of extra-curriculars, talents that no Interac application would care about. It was comparable to my medical school application.
You can see the personal quality of the JET compared to the NOVA guy when you go out. I met only a few JETs that weren't really cool. Can't say the same about the ekaiwas. Workers on JET can get away with a lot becuase of the job security. Coupled with the analness of the Japanese office, this can cause problems. At the same time, this gave me a lot more control in the classroom. I incorporated history, Western philosphy into my class that I know the ethnocentric teachers didn't appreciate. At interact, I would probably be forced to do the same dribble as the JLTs. Interac is having some recruitment problems, so I don't think they would quickly yank an ALT out of the school that wasn't liked. How much less job security does an Interac ALT have to a JET ALT?
So JETs are not necessarily better teachers, but have a better package. They'd be above average college students at home. Defintetly can't say that about the ekaiwa teachers.
JET gets a lot of flak in the ENglish community because it is the best deal in ESL sinking Japan. It causes jealousy from the older hands that never got to do JET. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prlester
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
okay, I'm in a hurry and my spelling sucks. I'm sure you'll all cope.
| 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. 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.
|
I doubt many people would argue with you on the "it's a part of the package" front, but you seem resistent to the idea that it may not be the/a primary goal. I would also disagree with you outright on your questions - internationalization and language education - and say the answer to both is _yes_. Now, I would have to say up front that my perspective is perhaps a bit longer than most. I was working in Japan in the early to mid 90's and then came back in the early 00's on JET. While on JET I also got to meet with and talk at length with some of the muckity mucks from CLAIR and the Education Ministry, as well as a lot of JETs from around Japan. From my perspective, having seen JET and lots of school aged students yadda yadda at both points and having experienced where Japan was viz internationalization _and_ language education over both periods, _I_ would say that JET has been very successful _on both fronts_. YMMV.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Are you suggesting your experience is universal or the norm? How much of it is because of you, as in, is it a failure of the program or is/was it your failure as a teacher or the education system or some combination of everything? My expectation would be that most people would suggest the last one.
In terms of budget expenditure, JET is becoming more affordable all the time and will continue to do so so long as they refuse to increase the pay rates. Is it value for money outright? Can't answer that, sorry - I would say that it is essentially impossible to measure ROI when it comes to education. Anything you can actually _measure_ is almost certainly going to be meaningless in terms of desireable outcomes viz public education IMO. If you want examples of that then just take a look at the effects in the US and the UK of 'accountability' laws and drives in the education sector: schools now teach towards the tests and standards and ignore anything and everything else. IMO test performance /= education.
| Quote: |
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."
|
I've already mentioned that pay scales make no difference in hiring except to raise the pool totals. Moreover, you've still not provided an actual argument about _why_ increasing pay scales would be worthwhile. I fail to see any difference bwteen the average freashly minted teacher out of the US and their Japanese counterpart. If you want to increase pay based on qualifications then why not do so across nationality? Clearly, the evidence of success in the classroom, according to MEXT figures I once saw, says that UK and NZ trained terachers perform better than US trained teacher grads on JET. Should we pay the UK and NZ trained teachers more than US trained teachers? On your argument we should. Would you agree with that idea if it were put forward?
IMO it is _very_ important whether people view JET as a career move: the program is not intended to be a career option and yet your suggestions have, at base, the idea that you want to attract career teachers to it. Sure, trained teachers are _probably_ going to be more effective, but the training doesn't guarantee it. Far from it. JET has been around long enough to have extensive data on which university's graduates perform best on JET, and can even go down to degree and placement environment, for valid measures of likely success: should JET start hiring and paying on that basis?
Putting all that aisde for one moment we're still left with one important fact: JET doesn't need to pay more to attract teaching qualified applicants.
It already gets lots of them. And over the last four (5?) years it's been hiring them more often. If you're genuinely concerned about the amount of money JET costs Japan then you should be happy that it _can_ and _does_ alreay attract such applicants _without_ having to expend more money than it already does. Does it need _more_ trained applicants? No, not IMO. Why? Because as you point out yourself in another post, the position is _Assistant_ Language teacher. The difference bwteen us is that you choose to emphasis the teacher part and I look at the assistant part. But just as most other countries don't require their classroom assistants to be trained teachers (heck, in the US they often don't even need a degree!) I see no strong reason from you as to why JETs should more often be trained teachers.
| Quote: |
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.
|
First off, the eikaiwa industry has nothing to do with government directed education programs. It is about profit. It is certainly not anything to do with getting the population to actually attain some level of functional fluency - if it was then there would be regulation in that direction. Comparing JET, an actual government program and part of government policy, to similar programs in other countries is valid however, but I still don't see you presenting a strong point; AFAIK, the only _comparable_ government program that achieves any success is the NET program out of Hong Kong. The government programs in South Korea and Taiwan (the only other ones I know of at all) both fail to perform even as well as JET IMO. Certainly it's true that other countries in the region attain better scores on tests and/or turn out better/more functional language users, but they don't do so within a JET-like framework, which to me means you can't really compare them. Add in the fact that they _are_ teaching languages as a primary goal and JET isn't and I think your position starts to look decidely shaky.
| Quote: |
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?"
|
You're assuming the primacy of the language goal again. You're also assuming that functional fluency is and should be the goal. I don't see any of those as being true or even, realistically, desireable.
I know it's hard to believe, but I can assure you from my own perspective, Japan _has_ changed a _lot_ over the last twenty years. Kdynamic has pointed out some fo the obvious aspects and I agree with her/him about JET having contributed positively to that. Whether it has been worth the cost is a matter of _policy_ and nothing else.
| Quote: |
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.
|
Of course not. But the finger can be pointed in many places. Why not point it at the universities and their entrance exam requirements and the schools teaching to those? Sure, switch over to a fluency-based teaching program, but watch everyone suddenly stop passing the entrance exams. Will those then change? Yes, and they slowly have been, but like all things there are many conflicting pressures and they often go in multiple directions at once.
It's easy to point the finger at JET, but I honestly don't see it as productive to simply say that JET is failing because it isn't doing something that was secondary to it's original goal. Should JET evolve away from what it is? Yes, I would say that at this point it should. But that's a whole new question.
| Quote: |
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. |
Important yes, but not of prime importance. IMO you're trying to define the argument in terms that suit your argument. That's not helpful for having an honest look at what JET is, does, and could be. |
I totally agree with this assesment. English ability is weak in Japan because of how they view education, and how Japanese often run on intertia even if things clearly aren't working.
As a JET I planned and taught all of my lessons. THe other teachers would complain if I was being too Western with my teaching or manner, but I would ask for their assitance, which they weren't willing to offer, to shut them up.
The only real difference between JET and Interac is the pay, quality of applicant and working conditions, all better on JET.
I find it odd that English teachers would knock the last bastion of a decent ESL job in Japan. Again, it goes back to jealousy of missing the program and being in dead-end ENglish careers, which, unfortunetly, has becom the norm in Japan's ESL industry.
I've seen this jealousy from foreign job interviewers. It's sad the interviewers have poor career prospects, but of course there are other reasons dudes stay in Japan, a topic for another day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luckbox wrote: |
| If the program were not also an English program, they's see no need for Assistant Language Teachers. |
Just to be pedantic, the Japanese version of the ALT title didn't mention teaching until they changed the title in (IIRC) 2002. Until then it was more accurately translated as something along the lines of "International Youth Assistant". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GambateBingBangBOOM
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 2021
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:24 am 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. ... The fact is, English education is a apart of the JET package.
|
The main success of the English education aspect of JET has been to drastically increase the speaking and listening comprehension levels of JTEs, which in turn filters down to the students (and it filters down A LOT!!!!- kids try to repeat as the JTE says it, not the ALT, despite the JTE using the ALT as a human tape recorder), because as we all know ALTs are not normally thought of as teachers by either the students or the JTEs and are not treated as such in class.
And so both goals are being fulfilled equally, just not in the most obvious manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 500
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's put it like this:
The basic principle of the eikaiwa industry is this: If you pay us, we will provide you with a friendly foreigner who will chat with you and tell you jokes and act like you're very interesting and everyone is having a great time.
The basic principle of JET: We will provide local communities with friendly young foreigners and pay these foreigners to be nice to people and to participate in the community and whatnot.
I think that it all boils down to the idea of buying a friend. Or an international presence. If the government really wants to internationalize Japan, they'd be a lot better off creating actual jobs for people to actually do in the community. Bringing in foreigners to sing "The Hokey Pokey" with children is one thing, actually encouraging the integration of foreign workers in Japan is quite another.
Last edited by Mark on Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anyone's who's ever worked for dispatch companies will tell you that the direct employment that JET provides IS 'full integration of foreign workers' in comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 500
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fluffyhamster wrote: |
| Anyone's who's ever worked for dispatch companies will tell you that the direct employment that JET provides IS 'full integration of foreign workers' in comparison. |
That may be true, but it's still not a real job. The JET is not really responsible for anything and nobody depends on the JET for anything. The kids are not even really seriously expected to learn any English.
I'm thinking of things like companies accepting foreign interns and that sort of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Often the JTE isn't doing much of a job either LOL. That's not to say, however, that a lot of the teachers, JTE and AET, involved with JET aren't doing (or at least capable of doing) a good job, and who here thinks that education isn't a 'real' job despite whatever local failings - I mean, name me a profession where absolutely every last person is working flat out. (It would sometimes be nice though if we could strap students down like patients, and we the doctors perform some heavy duty brain reshaping  ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 500
Location: Tokyo, Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not saying that teaching isn't a profession, but I'm saying that a job with no responsbilities and no expectation of outcome isn't a real job.
As for the JTEs, they do have real responsibilities in terms of counseling students, developing their character, preparing them for the exam system and whatnot.
But, as mentioned before, the main JET job is just to be a friendly foreigner who is interested in Japan and willing to get involved in the local community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fluffyhamster
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 3292
Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark wrote: |
| I'm not saying that teaching isn't a profession, but I'm saying that a job with no responsbilities and no expectation of outcome isn't a real job. |
See what I just posted on your 'Who benefits?' thread.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womblingfree
Joined: 04 Mar 2006
Posts: 826
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark wrote: |
| I'm not saying that teaching isn't a profession, but I'm saying that a job with no responsbilities and no expectation of outcome isn't a real job. |
Youu get paid? Then it's a real job!
You might not be a professional, but of course it's job.
By the way I presume you're only referring to unqualified teachers here? Professional teaching in itself is most definitely a respected and professional profession. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kdynamic
Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 562
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark wrote: |
| If the government really wants to internationalize Japan, they'd be a lot better off creating actual jobs for people to actually do in the community. |
Ah and therein lies the rub. In fact there are TONS of necessary jobs being done in communities all over japan by foreigners, and the Japanese government is doing a very crappy job of supporting the people doing them. Most of the jobs aren't glamorous (factory work, etc) and the foreigners are from Brazil and China, etc. They have LOTS of very real problems with things like finding places to live, health insurance, educating their children, etc. There is a ton of resistance to actually putting in systems or laws to help the people who really need it though. You're right that real internationalization doesnt come from the hokey pokey. It comes from larger economic and social tides slowly changing Japan.
That's why JET is also now focusing on using JETs to support economic programs (like bringing interns from overseas and enticing foreign firms to invest in Japan). I think that CLAIR at least has a very clear understanding of what real internationalization entails. Real change comes slowly however. |
|
| 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
