|
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 |
MyTurnNow
Joined: 19 Mar 2003
Posts: 860
Location: Outer Shanghai
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi, Chad, I'm MT. It's very nice to meet you.
To be fair (ironic in this case) the article also points up many of the other multi-city chain English mills here....EF, Modern English, Saxoncourt, etc. Same excrement, different flies on it.
It would be interesting if someone took a good look at visa policies in some of these places, especially regarding teachers hired for short-term "intensives" and "camps" during the summer and winter breaks. "Tourist visa? Don't worry 'bout it!".....
MT |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skyline5k
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 57
Location: Tangshan, Hebei
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to that article, AES is personally guilty of being the first on the list. I'm quite glad we're that popular.
| Quote: |
| During a spot check of http://www.tefl.com done on 1/20/04, it was discovered that there were thirty-one (31) current China recruiting ads. Thirty (30) of these ads required little or no teaching experience, including ads by American Educational Services (AES),... |
the list goes on to include over a dozen other schools. Most schools in China require little to no teaching experience. The difference is, we train ours in-house before the term and at least monthly in person during the rest of the term. Sure it helps to have experience, and many of who we hire are experienced, but realistically, the ESL turnover rate throughout China is rather high.
| Quote: |
| Ninety-nine percent (99%) of the China teaching ads at http://www.tefl.com state that little or no teaching experience is required. This web site is by far the biggest offender when it comes to misstating the qualifications to teach EFL/ESL in China. It also appears to cater to language mills that are more interested in profit than providing a quality education through qualified teachers. |
So why is it the biggest offender? Is it a rival website or something? Look at the source.
| NumberOneSon wrote: |
| But I do think that Dalian gets the most complaints and seems to have the most problems. I know that teachers complained a lot in Dalian (often for what I considered silly reasons, but still they complained a lot). |
You can't please all the people all the time, and anyone in mgmt knows that. Beyond that, I've never been there other than traveling through for a week 6 months before I even started at AES in Jinan.
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
Since AES is a major violator of the law in China, according to the article, I think I would skip the Big Mac indigestion and take the Uni job. At the very least, it appears that AES has no regard for EFL teaching as a bona fide profession. |
As for AES being a major violator of the law "according to the article," Chad, where did you read that? Did you even bother to read the entire article? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChadwickKent
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So why is it the biggest offender? Is it a rival website or something? Look at the source. Skyline5 Mr. Jones of AES |
Are you attacking the authors, Dr. Niu Qiang and Dr. Martin Wolff, suggesting that they are somehow involved with a competetive web site? What is your basis for such an inflamatory suggestion?
| Quote: |
| The difference is, we train ours in-house before the term and at least monthly in person during the rest of the term. Skyline5 Mr. Jones of AES |
This is a straight forward admission that AES is violating the law.
| Quote: |
| Sure it helps to have experience, and many of who we hire are experienced, but realistically, the ESL turnover rate throughout China is rather high. Skyline5 Mr. Jones of AES |
The excuse or justification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skyline5k
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 57
Location: Tangshan, Hebei
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The article is vague at best. No direct accusations toward AES is mentioned.
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
| skyline5k wrote: |
| The difference is, we train ours in-house before the term and at least monthly in person during the rest of the term. |
This is a straight forward admission that AES is violating the law. |
How on Earth do you figure that training for a job is illegal?
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
| skyline5k wrote: |
| Sure it helps to have experience, and many of who we hire are experienced, but realistically, the ESL turnover rate throughout China is rather high. |
The excuse or justification. |
Can you explain this, too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChadwickKent
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Mr. Jones:
I have no intention of engaging in a running dialogue with you on this or any other topic.
Clearly you have failed to comprehend the article or my comments.
Teachers recruited to work in China are required by law to have prior experience. Your quicky on the job training program does not comply with the law.
Since AES claims to have so many schools in China and 6 out of the 31 ads at www.tefl.com belonged to AES, who is a bigger violator of the Chinese law?
I am finished with this matter. You may post any unchallenged self-serving statements you like but the evidence is clear for anyone with eyes to read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skyline5k
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 57
Location: Tangshan, Hebei
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
| Since AES claims to have so many schools in China and 6 out of the 31 ads at www.tefl.com belonged to AES, who is a bigger violator of the Chinese law? |
Please explain the law that is being violated. You've explained nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NumberOneSon
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
Since AES is a major violator of the law in China, according to the article |
I'm not so sure of that since the first "law" applies to language
teaching positions in "universities and institutions of higher learning",
which clearly does not include AES or most of the other private
schools mentioned.
The second law applies to foreign experts and mentions a bachelors
degree and two years of experience, but doesn't specify what the
degree should be or what the experience should be.
Now, that doesn't mean they aren't violating other laws, but
it just might be legal to hire teachers who just have a bachelors
degree in any subject and two years experience working in a
McDonalds.
One thing I really dislike about people trying to prove "illegal"
activity is their use of vague excerpts of the Chinese laws.
Here's the whole SAFEA Guide:
http://www.china-tesol.com/SAFEA_Guide/safea_guide.html
Now, if you read through the whole thing, you will find that
there are many definitions of "foreign expert", including
"Those who possess special techniques and particular skills
especially needed by our country"
Well, that could just include anyone who speaks English,
couldn't it? It sure seems to blow the "illegal foreign expert"
argument out of the water.
So what's left?
Anyone with a particular ax to grind could selectively
pick through the laws to prove their point...
I remember an AES Dalian teacher trying to stir up some
crap over his interpretation of Chinese labor laws on working
on holidays.
I checked with someone who was a retired Chinese labor
unior officer who said his interpretation of the law was
wrong, but you could never convince him of that because
he was the "expert" since he could read some Chinese and
had been in China for a year.
You really need to base such claims on much broader
understanding of Chinese laws.
Something that most EFL teachers do not possess.
Last edited by NumberOneSon on Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:25 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChadwickKent
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
#1 Son
You may be a victim of your own commentary.
When a school applies for authority to hire a foreigner to teach, the school agrees to comply with the law you now try to use foreign logic to explain away.
Good luck.
Anyway, there will be more on this in the near future, after the March conference hosted by the State Bureau of Foreign Experts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NumberOneSon
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
#1 Son
You may be a victim of your own commentary.
When a school applies for authority to hire a foreigner to teach, the school agrees to comply with the law you now try to use foreign logic to explain away.
Good luck.
Anyway, there will be more on this in the near future, after the March conference hosted by the State Bureau of Foreign Experts. |
You probably caught an early version of my post.
I think the final version is more carefully argued and includes
more information about the definition of "foreign expert" which
the original article omitted.
I think I have addressed the two "illegal" claims.
Good luck to anyone trying to prove that the FE's are illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChadwickKent
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guess you recruiters will stop at nothing to make your rmb, even trying to stretch legal definitions past their elasticity. This is going to come crashing down around your ears and very soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NumberOneSon
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
| Guess you recruiters will stop at nothing to make your rmb, even trying to stretch legal definitions past their elasticity. This is going to come crashing down around your ears and very soon. |
If you think I'm a recruiter, you are mistaken.
I am simply a skeptic who just read their original source more
carefully than they did and think there are some major problems
with their argument.
Like I said, I've seen this type of stuff before from teachers who
have an ax to grind. I tend to view claims that people are engaged
in "illegal" behavior a bit skeptically because I know that most EFL
teachers are not experts in Chinese law.
I've gotten a lot of bad advice from self-styled Chinese "legal" experts
who seem to think that getting a big enough crowd of foreigners (who
also know little about Chinese law) to agree with them makes them
right.
Their attitude is mostly "If don't like it, it must be illegal" or "If
I want it to be true, it must be".
The only people I see stretching legal defintions are the ones who wrote
that paper implying that schools are hiring "illegal" FEs by only looking
at two of the half-dozen definitions of FE.
Anyone can read the full SAFEA document to see that their paper
conveniently ignored several other definitions of FEs which would
make "unqualified" EFL teachers "qualified" FEs.
Why couldn't an EFL teacher simply be a technician who possesses
particular skills especially needed by China? It sounds good enough
to me and it's apparently enough to label them a legit FE. And if
you throw in a Bachelors degree, they are even more qualified
to be an FE.
Maybe someone who thinks of themselves as a "professional"
may not care for that definition, but if that's all they need to be an
FE and get hired by an English school for their skills, then what
good is it to argue that the other FEs are illegal when they aren't?
All that talk about "demeaning the profession" may sell to some
teachers who feel they are better qualified than others, but it seems
irrelevant when talking about the legal status of FEs.
If it really bothers them, they should work at universities which
have higher standards and avoid the private language schools.
The SAFEA document seems to give FOREIGN invested companies
broad scope in deciding who they need as Foreign Experts. This
makes good business sense, since the Chinese government cannot
know what "expertise" FOREIGN companies may need.
I doubt that they will change this just to give an ego boost to a
handful of EFL teachers trying to "professionalize" their rather
insignificant industry at the expense of other foreign businesses
which may have a stronger need for foreign experts without
high academic credentials.
And, if you check, you will find that several chain schools such as
English First and AES are, in fact, FOREIGN companies.
So, despite the supposed good intentions of the authors of that
article, I don't think their claims hold much water or that schools
such as AES and English First need to worry about their "illegal" FEs.
It may be a different matter for Chinese-owned English schools since
they do not fit into the category of FOREIGN invested companies which
get a broader definition of FE, but I wouldn't bet on them having any
problems due to that paper, either.
I don't have a problem with the author's overall goal of improving
the situation for English teachers, I just don't think they will get there
by sloppy research and trumped-up claims of illegal behavior.
If anything such tactics are likely to ruin their credibility on the
valid claims they do make.
It is very "American" for people to try to claim that an employer
is breaking various laws, but it helps to actually read those laws
and consult a Chinese lawyer before jumping to conclusions about
what is "illegal" in China.
I guess they never considered passing their paper by a Chinese
lawyer, did they?
The next step for them is to probably whine about how "unfair"
the Chinese legal system is just because the Chinese read ALL
the definitions looking for a possible fit before declaring something
"illegal". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChadwickKent
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
The British and Chinese lawyers at my Uni do not agree with you and question where you obtained your legal education.
They tell me that "specific provisions control over and negate general provisions." Since teachers are dealt with in very specific terms, they must comply with those specific provisions and are not allowed to use the broader general provisions or definitions.
As I said before, you may be the victim of your own complaint.
At any rate, I am finished with this matter. I am neither apologist for the authors nor advocate for their article. i just think it is something everyone should be aware of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NumberOneSon
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
The British and Chinese lawyers at my Uni do not agree with you and question where you obtained your legal education.
They tell me that "specific provisions control over and negate general provisions." Since teachers are dealt with in very specific terms, they must comply with those specific provisions and are not allowed to use the broader general provisions or definitions.
As I said before, you may be the victim of your own complaint.
At any rate, I am finished with this matter. I am neither apologist for the authors nor advocate for their article. i just think it is something everyone should be aware of. |
Why would they question my legal education? Have I ever said
that I was a lawyer?
Does it mean that the British and Chinese lawyers at your Uni
are too good to explain their views in clear terms to educated
laymen and prefer to disparage their education instead?
That sounds like a fairly snotty attitude from people who are
supposed to be law professors. Lawyers should know that ad
hominem attacks aren't very convincing. It sounds more like
what an EFL teacher trying to play a game of one-upmanship
would say.
But you can tell them I have an MBA and studied Business Law from
professors who are probably as smart they are, if that helps open
the taps to their fountains of wisdom.
Now, can we put the personal insults and slights aside?
----
As for "specific provisions", the only ones I saw were for:
"Those in search of language teaching positions in universities
and institutions of higher learning"
That's pretty specific, but maybe it's TOO SPECIFIC to include
ALL teachers at ALL schools, including those at private schools
such as AES and English First.
Can your lawyer buddies at least acknowledge this or further
explain how a "specific" reference to such teachers would
automatically include every teacher at a private school?
Or maybe they know of another "specific" reference that
includes those other teachers that I missed.
As always, I am willing to learn more.
One other thing that is so puzzling to me is why do so many
fairly legitimate sources of information on teaching in China only
mention the bachelor degree requirement.
It seems so odd to me, for example, that even the GOVERNMENT
RECOMMENDED pay scale information quoted in "CHINA EFL/ESL JOBS:
A Case of False Advertising" has a nice slot for INEXPERIENCED ESL
TEACHERS WITH ONLY A BACHELOR's DEGREE.
Does the Chinese government not understand their own laws?
Here's an excerpt:
"The following chart is the Chinese government recommended pay scale for EFL/ESL teachers.
Realistic salaries [depending on province and city] for China RMB Month
1st Degree, without bona fide teaching experience: 3,500 to 4,500 "
Yep, there it is. A government recommended pay scale for an ESL
teacher who is supposedly "illegal", namely one with a 1st degree
and no teaching experience.
Why is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChadwickKent
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
#1 Son their reaction may have been the direct result of my characterization of your post.
I also think you need to try reading a little slower.
The site is not the official government site but a government sanctioned site.
Further, we are discussing a government regulatory agency and its interpretation of a "guideline." Do you understand the difference between a guideline, admin reg and a law? Do you understand that the court is the final arbiter of an admin interpretation?
Do you realize that the Bureau of Foreign Experts is usurping the function of the Ministery of Education by adopting a guideline or an interpretation which is at odds with the educational policy of the government? Such foolishness will come to naught should anyone ever bring an apropriate challenge in the courts. (By the way, I understand that one is in preparation as you read.)
I do not think the issue is as cut and dried as you would like to portray. I still believe that the article is worth reading and my reference to it will remain. Of course you are free to disagree with it, I disagree with something said in it but I do not feel compelled to state my disagreement publicly, I wrote the authors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NumberOneSon
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 314
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChadwickKent wrote: |
#1 Son their reaction may have been the direct result of my characterization of your post.
I also think you need to try reading a little slower.
The site is not the official government site but a government sanctioned site.
Further, we are discussing a government regulatory agency and its interpretation of a "guideline." Do you understand the difference between a guideline, admin reg and a law? Do you understand that the court is the final arbiter of an admin interpretation?
|
Yes, but I am trying to use the same sources they are using.
I know that the SAFEA document they used is a guideline
and I also know that the salary recommendations are from
a government "sanctioned" site (they claim a license No. 6
as I recall, pretty clearly displayed at the bottom of the page)
and not a government site, so I can (and did) read it slowly.
If they are basing their claims of illegal behavior on those
sources then I think it makes sense to look at those sources first
to see if we can follow their arguments to reach their conclusions.
I certainly couldn't reach a solid conclusion without doubts,
so I suspect they are presenting a one-sided argument and
probably have an ax to grind with someone. Due to their
loose reasoning and research, the paper comes across as
typical rabble-rousing or even a smear campaign to me.
I suspect that the people they are presenting their paper to
will have other sources and know the laws much better than
they (or we) do, so I don't understand why they didn't show
more research than what's available on the web in English.
That's why I also doubt that they passed their paper to any
Chinese lawyers for review. Surely a Chinese lawyer could
quote better sources. They used sources that are on the web
in English. When this paper goes before Chinese lawyers,
I think it will be shot down, but who's going to see that?
I've just seen too many people cry "illegal" whenever they
don't like something and then argue from half-truths and
selective quotes to back their claims without checking with
people who should really know.
Their paper appears to be no different to me, but now it's
spread all over ESL web sites where it is probably taken as
solid legal research by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning
ESL teachers.
I just don't think that's a good tactic to use when trying to
reform an industry. It makes you look just as bad as you
claim they are.
Some people out there have worked hard to build businesses
and are not likely to take this lying down.
If I were an owner of an English school mentioned in that paper
as hiring "illegal" teachers and I knew better and could prove it,
then I would be checking with some good Chinese lawyers to
see if what they published was libel.
I hope they're prepared for that possibility. |
|
| 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
