Job Discussion Forums

tjpnz2000 · Joined: 22 May 2003 Posts: 118 Location: Japan

Hi,

Anybody else see this thread headed for `lock-down`? You know things are not going well when you see so many quotes.

...and back to the interesting, relevant topic Sherri raised.

Seems to me the public servants are trying to be seen to `doing something`. Happens all the time when there is a `problem`.

This is the classic public service tactic of finding someone who can not hit back and saying, `It's all thier fault! They are to blame!`. It will all blow over and things will get back to normal.

The Japanese school English teaching progamme is designed to put out students that pass exams, not speak English. It works, why would they ever want to change it? It is achieving it's purpose, it is not failing at all!

I was a public servant... this is just steam blowing. Probably to take the heat off something else, like a nuclear power scandle. Don't worry.

T

Sherri · Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:26 pm Post subject:

Thanks tjpnz2000 for bringing us back to topic. I still haven't written my letter to the editor, though there is one in the paper today. I was disappointed that it didn't cover what I thought was the most important point--that teaching is just not important when JETs are hired.

I think Celeste hit the nail on the head when she wrote:
"I think that the ministry is not communicating its directives very well. Districts are trying to use ALTs to TEACH. The embassies and consulates are hiring ALTs to be CULTURAL AMBASSADORS. Different skills set required. I don't think that htere are fewer qualified applicants too choose from, just that "real teachers" are put off by the hiring adverts that state NO TEACHING EXPERIENCE REQUIRED."

I noticed on the JALT website that out of the 14 points the interviewers are looking for in a candidate, having qualifications to teach school-age children is #13 and having TEFL qualifications is #14. Nothing is mentioned about experience teaching relevant age groups or subjects. This seems to be the major problem.

Maybe I'll get that letter written, but an active 2-year-old, an MA paper that doesn't seem to write itself and being 3 weeks from having another baby doesn't leave me too much time to write the kind of letter I would like to. Never mind, I am sure the Yomiuri got plenty of post on that article!

Glenski · Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 12844 Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN

I seem to be on the defense for slamming the JET program. How many times do I have to say this? I am not slamming it.

Reesy wrote:

tjpnz2000 · Joined: 22 May 2003 Posts: 118 Location: Japan

To be quite honest Sherri, I wouldn't bother writing. I didn't say it in my original post but that article was writen without the writer quoting or making direct reference to speaking to a JET ALT, does this strike anybody else as strange?

My advice is buy a different news paper next time.

ALTs, I am one but not a JET, are a complete mixed bag. The BOE has to have one whether they like it or not but how they use the ALT is completely up to the school. Nothing short of a complete review of the English teaching process will make any difference. This is schedualed to take place shortly after hell freezes over.

I love the Japanese, I really do (here it comes...) but `to think and
procrastinate is as one`.

T

Reesy · Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 31 Location: Japan

Good morning everyone,

Thanks for your responses to everyone Glenski. There was a lot to get through there.

Before I give my opinions on the original article and respond to Glenski, let me tell you the reason I find it important to set the record straight about the JET Programme. Glenski, you are a prolific poster on a variety of forums and you dispatch a lot of advice. In many issues, you are very knowledgeable and informed, but I (and others) have noticed that when it comes to JET, your advice is often negative and sometimes wrong. I am not trying to offend you, but I just think that you need to be better informed about this issue before you offer advice to others. Hopefully, I can help to provide some insight.

Concerning my opinions on the original article. The crux is that some people close to the Programme believe the quality of ALTs is declining. Reasons cited include an increasing number of participants breaking contracts, poor classroom teaching skills, and a lack of discussion concerning teaching methodology with JTEs. I am not concerned about 150 people out of 5700 breaking contracts. In my experience in international contract work, roughly 97% is a very good retention level.

The other two criticisms relate to two of the problems which impede the ultimate success of JET as a foreign language teaching programme, which, as has been pointed out, was not the original intent of JET anyway. These problems are not new and it is good that they are being discussed by JET Programme administrators.

The article stated that some teachers do not discuss teaching methodologies with their JTEs. No surprise considering the majority of ALTs and JTEs have never set foot inside a Teaching Methodology or Curriculum Design classroom. JET materials which all particpants receive (i.e. General Info Handbook) are filled with references to "Communicative Language Teaching" and "improving the communicative competence of students". These are very complex and multi-layered terms which have arisen over the past 35 years of Applied Linguistics research. The proper understanding and application of these concepts requires a significant amount of classroom instruction, observation and experience. JET materials don't even bother defining them.

Most JTEs study are not trained English teachers (beyond two weeks after they have been hired) and they are not familiar with these terms either. Therefore, it is no surprise that JTEs and ALTs do not discuss them. Both JTEs and ALTs need proper training if the programme is to improve as a means of improving the English language ability of Japanese students.

On the issue of poor classroom teaching skills, this would be expected as long as JET does not exclusively hire trained and/or expereinced teachers. At the very least, pre-departure and in-service training should include more intensive and professional seminars run by recognised ELT experts rather than other JETs.

So, the article is not a surprise or a shock and in fact, I am buoyed by the fact that some officials may now be willing to address some of the real barriers to JET becoming a successful teaching programme, and not just a successful internationalization project. I also hope that they begin to address some of the other barriers. These include the university entrance examination system, textbook selection process, curriculum renewal procedures, and the lack of prestige planning to overcome some of the real problems with the way Japanese people in general view the English language and foreign language study.

Now, I'll respond to Glenski if anyone is still reading.

Mosley · Joined: 17 Jan 2003 Posts: 158

Wow, Reesy. I was a JET for three years and I was blissfully unaware that I was one of the anointed few who were "trusted with the lives of hundreds of thousands of young Japanese minds(sic) for 8 hours a day". I don't mind you defending JETs, but let's tone it down a tad. The fact is, Glenski's impression of JETs is BASICALLY correct. For every hard working dedicated JET there is AT LEAST one other who is pretty much a waste of space and the Japanese taxpayers' money. This is essentially why JETs are resented by many non-JET gaijin teachers. It's a natural human reaction. Consider the irony:while a JET, I was afforded many perks and was called "sensei", etc. After JET, I had to join a notorious eikaiwa chain in order to support myself(had a Japanese GF at the time and wanted to stay a little longer). Lost status and the cushy lifestyle just like that. But guess what? Even though the company treats it teachers like *beep* I learned more about teaching and English grammar in one month than I did in 3 JET years. You think I knew(or cared) what an infinitive, phrasal verb or gerund was when I was a JET? Of course not. Did I meet JETs who were worthy of respect? Sure did. Did I meet JETs who were worthy of contempt? Sure did. Too many. So it's hardly surprising that JETs are going to get flack now and again.

homersimpson · Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 569 Location: Kagoshima

At the risk of personal peril allow me to weigh in on this topic. I am not bashing all JETs, however, in my experience they are often inflexible, inexperienced (in terms of life, not necessarily employment), cliquish and whiny. I don't know what goes on at a JET interview, but it seems the idea that these future JETs will be expected to "work" for their paychecks never comes up. And any training JETs do receive, seems to be centered around "can't" "won't" and "no." I am a non-JET ALT and no, I'm not jealous. I have better vacation periods, a sizable contract completion bonus, and a heck of a lot more freedom. My post here is not at all tainted by sour grapes and is not intended to be a blanket indictment of all JETs, just my experience with some JETs.

G Cthulhu · Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:43 am Post subject:

Glenski, I'm sorry, but the way you replied, with the shifting of position without acknowledgment, the (what I can only describe as) selective answering and the whole seemingly passive-aggressive way you've conducted yourself in this discussion has left me very disappointed.

I'm sorry that you can't see other people's viewpoints, but I hope you'll take the time to lose the attitude about the JET programme by at least learning something about it. I'm not about to try though because you've made it plain that you're not interested in discussing it with me.

As for the article, I've already expressed a view about it.

tjpnz2000 · Joined: 22 May 2003 Posts: 118 Location: Japan

Guys, this JETs-are-this-and-JETs-are that debate is missing the point COMPLETELY! Not to mention getting nasty.

Lets just all hold hands, eh?

The point is this, the JET programe is a part of the Japanese English education system. This is not a system that is set up to teach anyone to speak English, it is set up to teach students how to pass exams. END OF STORY!

In that context whether the JET/ALT is a `good teacher` or not is beside the point.

Some individual schools make good use of JET/ALTs but this is on thier own initiative. We are therefore unable to generalise. Many schools see using the JET/ALT to teach things like pronounciation and encouraging the students to communicate as taking away valuable exam preperation time and worthless. This is not the JET/ALTs fault!

Some things to consider:

1) Japan now starts teaching English in elementry school, this year the first students taught English in elementry school entered juniour high school. However, the juniour high school text book has not changed!

2) The romantic alphabet it the foundation for learning English. However, students learn katakana before they learn romanji. Why would you learn the English alphabet if you have a Japanese alphabet for writing English words?

3) Many Japanese English teachers are not confident or don't like expressing themselves in English. Do I need to say more?

In my opinion most JET/ALTs are far more serious than the beaurocrats making the rules. As with all of us they are just doing a job as best they can.

In a final thought, I think if the Japanese Ministry of Education hired experienced, trained teachers they would probably have a huge turn over rate as these people would be exteremly frustrated by the above and teaching ideas such as `if you repeat it 100 times you will remember`.

T

bshabu · Joined: 03 Apr 2003 Posts: 200 Location: Kumagaya

I read this article and, I too, found it a lttle "New York Times"ish.

I just want to say that I am not a JET, but I did have the same contract as them. I worked in the same Board of Education as them as many are my friends.

Now back to the actricle:
There are a lot of reasons that JET return. Lets take "Culture Shock". I don't know of any JET that left for this reason. But it can be too much for some people. I knew a Japanese teacher that went to the States and left after only a few months because it was TOO MUCH. So it's not just JET

I do know JETS that have left early. All but one was to leave for another job DURING THEIR 3RD YEAR. In April, when all schools hire.

The JET Programme hires new graduates with NO expirience as teachers. I think that they get exactly that. They are there only for a short time, so what more can they expect. They get little training and then thown in the mix.

I would like to see the newspapers sourses on this. I am sure that it is a little shacky.

Back to the JET job. I had all the same responiblities as a JET. I can tell you that it is the easiest job for that amount of money. People at Mc Donalds work harder. But to be fair, each Jet Assignment is different. One school can be harder than the next.

Where I worked, the JETS seemed all to be good. They didn't complain about they jobs. But I have meet JETs that all they did was complain.

I think Glenski's comments were a fair assumtion. Plus Glenski has always added to these posts. Giving good advice. I am sorry that he might have struck a bone with some of you. But, I didn't find fault with any thing he has said. And I have worked on both sides of this equation
As Glenski added, JET is a good place for new Grads to start.

But the can't only pay the JETs what they they think they are worth, as the acrticle said. That is too subjective. Some would advantage of this. Some assignment are better then others. Some have more classes per week, some have a free apartment or house. etc.... I think that this will be true for the pay as well. Some Boards will be more generous than others. And they pay sould not be set by the Boards of Eductation.

The JET Programme is a good programme, but it will never be perfect. I hope no one a part of JET or not, expects it to be. But keep in mind that is is an easy job. GREAT pay, Lots of vacation time, Good expirience in a foriegn country(I guess this is up to each person).

bshabu[/quote]

Reesy · Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 31 Location: Japan

I find it interesting that my comments have been construed as defending JETs. Much of what I have written on the JET Programme has been critical of the way it is run and the principles on which it was formed. As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, there are many barriers that prevent it from being an effective language teaching programme.

I am certainly not hear to pass judgment on the character or work ethic of JET teachers, nor am I hear to defend them. We can all shoot messages back and forth ad nauseum about the peckerhead ALT we knew in Shizuoka or the superstar JET that another person met in Kobe in 1998. When you get a group of 6000 people, you're going to get all sorts.

What I have taken exception to is Glenski's broad generalizations like "JETs don't plan their own lessons," "JETs have no other responsibilities besides teaching a few classes every week," and "most JET ALTs have 2-3 classes a day, and the rest of the time they spend in the school doing very little." The work situation of some ALTs definitely fits these descriptions, but using words like "most" or, no qualifiers at all makes such statements categorically wrong.

Normally, I wouldn't give a toss what people thought about JET. However, I was growing a little sick and tired of hearing these falsehoods from someone who commits so much of his time peddling advice in chat rooms. If Glenski cares to give advice on this issue, I think he should spend at least some time doing some research on the JET Programme and not glean all of his wisdom from personal conversations and chat room banter.

I also took exception to the contention that JETs are either overpaid or should be paid the same as language school teachers. I won't state my reasons again, but this sounded like sour grapes to me. Moreover, Glenski must be one of the few teachers in the industrialized world who believes that public school teachers should be paid less, not more.

Also, like C Thulhu, I don't see 3.6 million yen a year as being an overly generous salary. JET participants are paid by the Japanese government to come to Japan. One of the original goals of the programme was to have them to go back to their home countries with a good impression. Providing them with a subsistence wage (i.e. 3 million yen/year) would not achieve this aim very well. Moreover, I don't consider a salary 20% higher than the minimum wage to be excessive, especially when you are trusting ALTs to help educate the youth of your country. A youth that is legally obligated to attend the ALTs classes.

Again Glenski, I respect most of what you have to say in other issues and this is not meant as a personal attack, but the JET Programme is something I know a little bit about and I found it difficult to sit back and listen to some of your comments. Anyway, I hope that you are enjoying the dialogue.

Mosley · Joined: 17 Jan 2003 Posts: 158

Well, Reesy, can you explain why I(a 3-yr. vet of JET), who will be forever grateful for the experience, BASICALLY(w/a few reservations) agrees w/ Glenski? Simply put, his impressions of JET(and JETs) ring true and are held by many non-JET gaijin teachers. Also, you stated that students are "legally obligated to attend the ALTs classes." Isn't it true that only junior high school students(and younger) are compelled by law to go to school?

lajzar · Joined: 09 Feb 2003 Posts: 647 Location: Saitama-ken, Japan

JETs do NOT get paid a subsistance wage. Assuming a worst case scenario of 4 weeks actual holiday and their pay of 360,000 yen a month, that works out as about 1900 yen an hour. Take a look at the job listings for local people at the just out of high school/uni make ends meet jobs, and you are be looking at about half that.

I an an ALT (not a JET), I get paid far less than JETs, but I still consider myself very comfortable in terms of my current financial situation. You don't need a high salary to justify leaving JET with a good impression of Japan.

Japanese teachers teaching JETs as actual human beings would go far more towards leaving a good impression. This is true in most cases, but not all.

Celeste · Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2003 10:13 pm Post subject:

That wage is 300 000 yen per month. 3.6 million per annum. No, not subsistance. (But let's not start any rumours that we get paid EVEN MORE!)

Generasian X · Joined: 06 May 2003 Posts: 50

As I see it, the Problem with the JET Programme isn't the ALTs its the PROGRAM itself. Itemize the problems as cause and effect and it is clear!
I will just submit a few here...please add on to the list, and it becomes clear that the ALTs are at the good end of a really bad deal!!

1) CAUSE = MONBUSHO actively recruits inexperienced, young, unqualified (minimum requirements) people to come on the program.
EFFECT = The quality of many ALTs is low to what any qualified teacher would consider acceptable

2) CAUSE = If any of you actually read the JET contract from MONBUSHO, the duties of ALTs (1-9) NEVER ONCE mentions TEACHING!!! Look it up, I'm looking at mine right now (2002-2003) The closest it ever comes to such a statement is "ASSISTING in ENGLISH EDUCATON in the CLASSROOM"
EFFECT= This is so vague that there is no wonder why teachers, principles, ALTs and the population at large have NO idea what to do with ALTs. THUS "Every situation is different." It seems like any educated person out there would know how fruitless it is to compare any JET ALT postion to any other teaching situation since, every JET ALT can't even do that among themselves!!! Each JET ALT is told that the program is not uniform thus EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. STOP comparing apples to oranges people! It'll get you no where!

3) CAUSE = There is a lack of uniformity and definition of concrete JET ALT duties.
EFFECT = You have ALTs that do nothing, and others that work hard, and jealous crybabies complaining about the program, and the public complaining about spoiled ALTS. LOOK, lets be realistic, WHO in there right mind would willingly ask for MORE WORK!!! DON'T BE IDIOTS!!!

If the GOVERNMENT decides to employ people without qualifications, not to give them any guidance and on top of that pay them a NICE check every month on top of benefits...WELL, BLAME THE GOVERNMENT, because the ALTs are at the better end of the deal. Why would they ASK for more responsibility, less benefits, more hours!!!

COME ON PEOPLE, this whole argument is silly. It is a government program, with governmental mandates, and a MASSIVE governmental failure to adequately recruit and train the best Teachers they can find!!!