Job Discussion Forums

[kowlooner]

I don't think anybody's saying one shouldn't get the proper training! Still, though training clearly helps, it equally clearly does not ensure quality. Perhaps equating teaching to waiting tables isn't terribly accurate (which puiwaihin noted), but neither is the comparison to doctors (or mechanics or plumbers, for that matter). Meanwhile, I don't think we should be too quick to dismiss enthusiasm. The truth is it does go a long way in teaching, simply because teaching is inherently non-technical. Of course training will be helpful, which is why the OP is planning on getting the TESOL certificate.

When I did my practice teaching, I taught English and History. The history teacher was a woman with a mean streak who believed education meant discipline. Very knowledgable. Very experienced. Very hated and feared by her kids (and by other student teachers). Quiet classes though! The English teacher loved English and loved teaching, and his kids responded. Also very experienced. The point is experience, and formal training, still resulted in completely different classroom ideologies. Gardner's theories weren't published until the mid-80s, so it's doubtful that either of these teachers were familiar with the concept, though the latter teacher didn't need an academic's thesis to know that kids are different and react in different ways. I would argue that many better teachers are the same!

Anyway, I do wonder how many trained teachers would be able to adequately fulfill the following criteria:

[Smoog]

[Smoog]

[kowlooner]

No argument there!

[puiwaihin]

[11:59]

[Horizontal Hero]

Yeah.

I posted this here before, but it's so relevent to 11.59's post, I'll post it again. And yes, the teacher actually worked at this desk, at my old secondary school in HK. I can only pray that within that pile of shat on his desk, there was actually something - ANYTHING! - which actually enhanced a HK student's learning. But I doubt it.

[Smoog]

[puiwaihin]

[kowlooner]

Wow! That a lot of noodles (mostly in soup)! Day in, day out. Personally, I haven't noticed quite that much fixation on noodles in HKers (mainlanders maybe). Perhaps I'm missing something?

A question about that desk picture: was that representative of the teacher's desk throughout the year or just of a particular(ly bad or busy) point in time? Were other teachers' desks equally messy? How about a picture of your own desk? And for some more pictures, check out this link! http://www.calibre-furniture.co.uk/desk.php

Smoog, I think you're missing, or playing with, puiwaihin's point. He clearly admitted that "no, a couple months of being a PNET would not suddenly make you perfectly suited to the job." And it's hard to argue with the second part, that "any first time teacher would have a similar difficulty knowing how to do any of the things you list (and that) it takes years of experience to really be able to know the needs of students." Heck knows my first year was something I wouldn't wish to repeat!

I think puiwaihin did actually deal with your question about how "a person could be handed a class fresh off the boat and after a month or two be a good educator." He did say, "A lot of what I talked about was life experience and qualities that will enable the teacher to have effective classroom management." He continued, "And for the novice teacher, that's going to be the #1 determiner of whether or not they can effectively teach a class."

And, again, the comparisons to "your hairdresser, mechanic, electrician, plumber, accountant, carpernter, physiotherapist, physical trainer, lawyer..." aren't really that fair. Let's see:

- hairdresser (whoops, bad haircut, but it'll grow out in a month or so, now where'd I put that toupee...);
- mechanic (whoops, it looks like he forgot to put the breaks back innnnnnnnn.....);
- accountant (whoops, an IRS audit? hope they don't find those Liechtenstein files...);
- electrician (whoops, there goes the house and the pictures and the ...)
- plumber (whoops, the poop's hit the bathroom exhaust fan, this is going to take some serious time to clean up!)

Meanwhile, your child gets educated by a variety of teachers, and sometimes they need exactly that enthusiastic, fresh-off-the-boat teacher to offset their other jaded but pedagogically sound teachers (not to mention the jaded, pedagogically challenged teachers that 11:59 aptly describes as the common model in HK, and elsewhere to be honest). Fortunately, because your child's education does not depend on one person, and generally takes more time than a visit to (or from) the hairdresser, mechanic, accountant, electrician, etc etc, your child is likely to be exposed to a range of different teachers each bringing in different experiences, opinions, and abilities. It's that mosaic that counts in the long term.

This isn't to argue with your point about qualifications. That's already been noted above. But perhaps a bit more "enthusiasm" wouldn't hurt either? I'm seriously not trying to start (or continue) a fight. I just figure that you've made some great points, as has puiwaihin. It's not an either/or type of deal.

[Edit note: sorry, I posted my post after puiwaihin posted his own response. Hope this doesn't make it look like we're ganging up on you, Smoog. Definitely not the intention. All with good intentions!]

[anninhk]

I agree with most of what has been written - training does not necessarily make a good teacher - there is more to it than just attending a course, but we seem to be getting away from the original posting - the OP wanted to know about being a PNET teacher and I personally think that anyone without training and experience will find it very difficult to work effectively as a PNET. How can you co-plan with your colleagues if you have never taught a lesson yourself? How can you pass on good management skills if you don't know how to handle a class? How can you lead PD sessions if you have never taught children to read and write?

[11:59]

Some good points have been made, and some nice posts have been contributed (by Puiwaihin, Kowlooner, et al.).

Now, Puiwaihin, again there is little if anything you state with which I can argue against, but, again, I have to point out that none of your points are relevant to Hong Kong, and, as Ann in HK notes, especially not to the role of an EMB/EDB PNET. Having seen how many (indeed, an inordinate number of) local 'teachers' treat, view and regard native-speaking English teachers with 30-plus years of experience, a BEd, an MEd, a EdD, PGCE, CELTA and DELTA (namely, with downright and overt contempt), I have to wonder how they would 'welcome', treat, view and regard a fresh-off-the-boat teacher whose sole qualifications were native speaker status (which is but an accident of birth) and enthusiasm. I am afraid to say that I doubt if it would be too overly positive.

Also, although a few posters above have made some excellent and valid points, all of us who have experience here in HK (no matter at what level) know full well that all such points are but academic at the very best. There is only one thing that ultimately counts in HK and that is exam results. Everything and anything else is regarded as being tangential at best.

[puiwaihin]

@anninhk- You are right, as is Smoog as far as training being preferable to lack of training. The OP was asking about being a teacher in the PNET program and that definitely includes team teaching and planning. For these aspects, a newbie teacher without any formal training in course preparation is going to be at a serious disadvantage.

But:
#1- The OP mentioned he/she had a TESOL certificate, so there is at least some training. I'm not sure how much time, if any, that course spent on designing a curriculum design, but that is some training at least.

#2- The OP also expressed a willingness to put the time into doing research and planning. A person who puts significant time into professional development can make up a lot for lack of training.

#3- The administrative part is just one part of being a PNET. Actually teaching the class is a pretty big part of it as well.

It's true that the PNET position (moreso than the SNET position) needs someone with training and experience to truly fulfill the role because of the administrative demands. If that was all Smoog was saying I wouldn't disagree. But administrative duties are just one part of teaching, and even then a person without all the training can come in and still do a good job. Saying a master's degree in education is needed to be qualified is ridiculous.

Perhaps it might be realistic to say a person with no experience and minimal training would be better off getting their feet wet in a less demanding role than PNET, and that it would be better for the system. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who can come in without the training and do a good job.

@11:59- Good points. But I disagree that my points aren't relevant to HK.

True, HK's version of Sinocentrism takes the arrogance to a new level. Having the right pieces of paper on the wall helps you fit into the social pecking order much better and lacking credentials will put you back a few miles on the road to getting the respect and cooperation of your peers.

But I see that attitude as part of the problem, not as something that actually defines what a good educator is. Realistically, yeah, it will be something extra for the untrained FOB to deal with that the trained FOB might have a somewhat easier time with. But that's part of what needs to change.

Whether or not other teachers on the faculty can recognize this is beside the point. What matters to me when I am judging an educator is not how the HK system will evaluate such a person, but whether or not they are effective in teaching the kids.

And, as you have said that test scores are all that really matters in the HK analysis, I will argue that a teacher without training can (not probably, but possible) come in and help students get better marks. So, judging that way I still hold that a person with the right attitude and background can come in and do a good job regardless of lack of training or experience.

[11:59]

Puiwaihin, that is fair enough. You express your views well. No matter what we ultimately will have to agree to disagree on (and personally I do not think it worth pursuing any further), I want to say that, having read through your posts on this thread again carefully, I think the HK educational system can only benefit from having more teachers such as yourself � evincing the degree of enthusiasm for English language education that you do � in the classroom, on a daily basis, interacting with the kids.

As an (outside-of-my-own-classroom) armchair educational reformer, I say good luck to you. I hope you can make that all-important difference.

[arioch36]