Job Discussion Forums

[User N. Ame]

[User N. Ame]

[Nagoyaguy]

We have to remember that the JET Programme, and the use of ALTs in general, are quite different.

JET was not intended as a language teaching programme. It was designed for PR. The idea was for young college educated foreigners to come to Japan, enjoy the country for up to 3 years, and then GO HOME. Once home, and in the future, their JET experience would cause them to favor Japan, giver preference to Japanese points of view, etc. Basically, a long term PR device. This is why JETs who already lived in Japan for any length of time are excluded. This is also why, in the majority of cases, JETs are NOT permitted to work for more than 3 years.

Each JET that stays in Japan after finishing the programme is a failure.

ALTs are more purpose driven. THey are seen as language tools more than PR. Unfortunately, very few people (either JTEs or ALTs) have any idea how to effectively team teach. The curriculum and textbooks are not designed to facilitate communicative teaching either. So in most schools, everything is done offthe cuff. For JTEs, it can be frustrating, so they often just have the ALT act as a tape recorder rather than as a partner in the class.

[User N. Ame]

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

[flyingkiwi]

[GambateBingBangBOOM]

The purpose is to get people who all really love Japan to go back to their home coutnry and instill that love of Japan into big businesses (like a computer worm!). If you stay in Japan you just milked the Japanese people out of their benefit from the programme. People who leave after their first year, or even worse before their first year contract is up are also failures because it costs so much to get a new person in (money that could be used for better things- like going into some Board of Education guy's pocket).

I'm a failure of the JET programme!

[kdynamic]

I am very happy to see a lot of people have made very valid points. I would like to just add my voice of support to say the JET program is not all about English teaching. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the program, and you are going to judge it on misguided criteria. It seems like many people on this board understand this fact, but unfortunately the author of that article doesn't.

There is a reason JET does not hire only qualified EFL teachers. There is a reason JET has age limits. There is a reason JET has a time limit for participation. There is a reason for the 3-years previous time in Japan limit. There is a reason not all JETs are English speakers and not all JETs are teachers. If the main point of the program was simply to raise the English ability of Japanese students, do you really think they would have designed it this way? NO.

I have heard form many ALTs that they are underused. This is sad. I think the answer is more training for JTE's about how to work with an ALT. I think it's ridiculous to blame the presence in the classroom of a native speaker for the failures of JTE's and Japanese EFL pedegogy.

[Glenski]

[Nagoyaguy]

JET participants who stay in Japan after their stint on JET are failures in terms of the goals of the JET programme. They took the 9 million plus yen (if they stayed for 3 years) and said "thanks". They are not failures personally- if anything they are probably pretty clever for riding the gravy train and getting max personal benefit from it. They are, however, failures in the eyes of CLAIR because they aren'T going home and spreading the Good Word about Japan.

"Internationalization"? What the heck is that?

The fact that some JETs can now stay for up to 5 years (in very limited numbers and circumstances) shows that the programme organizers are starting to realize that they arent getting the results they hoped in terms of PR, so they may as well try to turn a few select JETs into useful classroom assistants.

If not PR, what other possible reason could there be to limit the majority of JETs to 3 years of service? After 3 years, a teacher/educator is probably just starting to learn some technique and style. Trading that person in for a new and probably unqualified employee makes no sense from an educational point of view.

Or even, come to think of it, from an "internationalization" point of view. A seasoned classroom veteran, probably with at least some facility in the Japanese language, would generally be far more effective in any kind of cultural exchange.

[User N. Ame]

[door3344]

Just to add my 2 cents worth- a selection committee member for the NET scheme in Hong Kong told me that they don't consider JET experience worth much when choosing candidates and the EMB in Hong Kong has been quite disappointed with the inability of a lot of ex JET teachers to effectively implement the more rigorous demands of the NET scheme.

The difference is that the NET scheme actively recruits trained and licensed teachers with the mandate of introducing certain western pedagogical practices (specifically ones relating to reading and IT) into the local curriculum. Foreigners, at least ideally, are hired to be agents of change; contributing to the modernization of how education is practiced there. Seems to me a more pragmatic use of ministry and tax payers resources than in promoting some half arsed concept of "internationalization". If that's their goal why not just take those funds and use them in promoting and facilitating student exchanges which would be more cost effective and probably foster more genuine connections between cultures than can be achieved by an overpriced, unqualified, human tape recorder.

[ndorfn]

didnt read it, but lets face it, alts are a waste of money. cost the country loads, don't don't what they're doing, and are totally underutilised.

[Nismo]

[Nismo]