Job Discussion Forums

[Chancellor]

[Justin Trullinger]

Which might be why you're not TEFLing in Ecuador!

But seriously. (At least a bit seriously)

I DO understand it. Most EFLers in Ecuador come to the country for the country itself, not for the work. As long as they take the work seriously and do a good job, I don't mind.

But...salaries are low. Schedules are hard. Opportunities for advancement DO exist, but are sort of rare.

The center I work for has worked hard to be a good breaking in ground for good newbies, because we just really won't attract teachers with much experience. We do a pretty good job, if I say so myself, but...it can be bloody hard.


Best,
Justin

[spanglish]

Justin - you still have that position open? Sounds pretty good.

I do have one comment (to Justin): Don't you work for a non-profit? It sounds like you're doing your best to keep the ship running well in a challenging context, but do you face pressure to cut costs to maximize profit?

[Justin Trullinger]

It opens again periodically, but we're staffed at the moment.

Yep, it's a non profit. But pressure to cut costs, especially in the current economic context, is real in any case.

It's not as brutal a situation, perhaps, as if someone was trying to get rich on it. But...we also don't have access to a lot of the highest margin realities that the business sector does. ( Sometimes for philosophical reasons, sometimes for legal ones.)

best,
Justin

[iain]

The original post has touched that bare nerve that runs so close to the surface throughout the world of TEFL. Thanks, Lubria for excluding us from your general conclusion that most schools 'don't care about teachers'. We have a very high teacher-retention rate here and I like to think that is because there is a strong sense of trust between school and teachers.
The fact that most people don't stay long in TEFL is the consequence of a messy tangle of causes - the abundance of cowboy employers certainly being a major one. But another reason could be - and this is what I was curious about - is that TEFL sets itself up not to be taken too seriously. Everyone knows that you can only learn so much in a 4-week course but I get the impression that very often this basic grounding is seen as being enough to form a 'complete' teacher, ready to take on the responsibilities of teaching, running and planning courses. I've met a lot of teachers who were surprised and concerned about being thrown in at the deep end as novices: they expected supervision, support or on-going training that the school thought unneccesary to provide. I've interviewed teachers who had become assistant DoS in their first working year. If you can get so far so quickly it doesn't take long before you've got nowhere further to go.
At the same time, the people in positions of seniority are too often there simply because of their longevity rather than their talents and this sends negative messages to anyone with any initiative.
The students are the ones who lose out most but it is in their hands that the chance of any improvement can lie. At present the general public are pretty much in the dark - they buy what's on offer and have to put up with it. If they were spending so much of their money on anything else they would probably know what they were looking for and would know the right questions to ask and make the right decisions not just on the basis of cost. Once the market becomes more 'mature', standards will rise, the cowboys will be seen as such and maybe teaching will begin to be a more attractive long-term option.

[jdl]

Professional teachers often take offense to the general use of the term teacher being applied to anyone who has limited or inadequate training as determined by the professional body and national/state/provincial governing agency. I suppose a comparison could be made with the situation in which a law office secretary assumes the title of 'lawyer' (apologies to Erin) or a nurse receptionist calling her/himself 'doctor'.

This offense is understandable in that trained teachers have made a career decision at the undergraduate level and have selected a course of studies ranging in duration from 5 to 8 years (equivalent to most law and medical studies) specifically focused upon the art and science of teaching.

Having completed a multi year and expensive education process, teachers, their professional organizations and sanctioning bodies are very reluctant to give the name 'teacher' over to anyone with less qualification; read esl 'industry standard' here and prefer the term instructor or lecturer or better still 'teacher assistant'

So if you were to ask the question to a certified teacher, "Why the turnover in ESL" the argument would generally go as follows:
1. Lack of training/education appropriate to the profession results in
2. A lack of committment to the profession and a failure to recognize the skill/knowledge set to become sucessful which leads to
3. a lack of investment to the profession resulting in
4. a critical mass of practioners who do not see themslves as professional individuals and set the standard for the generalization which is transiency in the job market, poor continuing education, lack of professional codes of conduct, poorer pay and security, and a lack of career potential.

This rather crude analology may sum up the argument: ESL is to teaching what Macdonald's is to working.

How does one change this image and reality since perceptionn is reality? The first step always comes with the consumer and the demand for a standard. That is another story.

[Chancellor]

[naturegirl321]

Actually, teaching itself, not just ESL teaching has a high turnover due to low pay, less support, lots of stress and hours.

[Justin Trullinger]

Some realities- there is an extremely large, not as well-trained as I would like, low end to this profession.

There is also a well trained high end.

But here's the thing. It might be IDEAL for students (clients, customers, whatever) to demand higher levels than the current (low) industry standard.

BUT...many places they can't. Others, they won't. Education is a process. A lot of students believe what too many "teachers" believe- that you only need to speak a language to teach it.

Here in Ecuador, it would be really rough for a foreign teacher to live on less than $500 to $1000 per month. Only the most exclusive schools can pay this.

And even the MOST exclusive rarely have the resources to offer salaries that would pay off US student loans.

So...turnover is high here.

This is where the "industry standard" short courses come in.

Everybody with any sense at all knows that 130 hours with 6-8 hours of practice teaching couldn't possibly be full, deep, complete, ideal teacher training.

What it is is the best that can be done under the circumstances. 10 years ago, any "gringo" could work here on the strength of being a native speaker. Now most places insist on this minimal training. It ain't perfect, but it's an improvement.

It's fine to say that students, or customers should demand more. BUt...they don't have the $$$ for that demand to get taken seriously. If they said they wanted MA TESOL Teachers to come here and teach for $750 a month...would they get'em?

Best,
Justin