Job Discussion Forums

[eltbert]

Does the EMB generally choose NETs with a BA in TESOL/Linguistics/English Language in preference to those with one in English Literature? It says in the website that these are all recognised relevant majors but do they prefer some over others? (Just assume for the moment that all applicants are holders of a BA AND a DipEd with at least one year's teaching experience)

Do you necessarily get the $10,000 allowance? Are there circumstances in which you don't?

The second question may have appeared in one form or another in this forum. My apology to those who have previously responded to a similar one.

[Zero Hero]

It has been a while since I was on the EMB NET scheme but, as I understand it, there is no preference for one BA discipline over another; at least not at any level relevant to NETs. It may well be that principles - who often hold some sway - evince a preference, but there would always be some who quite like the idea of a NET with knowledge of English literature, at least as regards the recruitment of SNETs.

The only circumstances in which you do not receive the housing allowance (or, as I believe it is now termed, the special allowance), is if your normal place of residence is not outside of the SAR of HK. Obviously, even with the fairly recent change of title, most if not all NETs will use their 'special' allowance for rent and their domestic helper.

[eltbert]

Thank you for your response, Zero Hero.

Chances are that I might even be asked to teach Literature in English, which I might or might not enjoy. I've heard it's commonplace that NETs with suitable qualifications are sometimes called upon to teach subjects other than English Language.

[Zero Hero]

I don't know about 'commonplace'. Indeed, at least as regards mainstream classes I would say it was pretty rare for a NET to teach anything other than English. The schools in HK, and their respective principles, tend to like clubs, schemes, and the like though, so it may be this to which you refer.

[eltbert]

I was actually referring to NETs who are engaged in the teaching of other subjects in the curriculum (History, Literature and so forth). Perhaps they have been employed under a different scheme though.

I am sure English Language itself would involve enough preparation work to keep one relentlessly busy, especially if you are asked to teach matriculation English. They have this Use of English paper that has a very absurd component known as "Practical skills for work and study". It doesn't assess candidates' ability to use the language (grammar is hardly the focus) but their ability to put pieces of information together to draft a letter or complete a set task.

[Zero Hero]

You should not confuse NETs with NETs. The term 'NET' is employed in HK both for (any old) teacher who is a native speaker of English, and for (HK SAR) EMB NETs. Only the latter class are relevant to discussions of the 'NET scheme'. As I understand it, apart from the Mandarin initiative (the 3 language policy), there are no other schemes in HK within compulsory education; and certainly not for history and English literature.

Remember also that many schools in HK employ English as the medium of instruction. At the school I worked at when on the scheme, save for obviously Cantonese and Mandarin language and literature classes, all subjects were taught in English. This does not mean that all other teachers were NETs of course. On the contrary, I was the only NET - in both senses of the term. The local HK teachers simply all gave their lessons in English.

On the NET scheme it is not only the preparation that tends to keep most NETs relentlessly busy, as many present day NETs will testify. As I said, it has been a while since I was on the scheme, but my friends who are still on it seem to be kept busy enough. Indeed, to be quite frank, some of them appear to have a workload that is nothing short of horrific - really quite ridiculous. For others, however, their NET post is more akin to a part-time position, with low contact hours and minimal, if any, extra-curricular responsibilities and/or need to create materials. I was somewhere around the centre of this cline when on the scheme. Indeed, it is often said that, from the perspective of the actual NET, the scheme is something of a lottery, the outcome of which largely depends on the school, its banding, its principle, its school-internal 'culture', its degree of autonomy from the EMB, and numerous other factors.

As regards the paper you mention, it is compulsory and, even if absurd, is simply one of those things for which the EMB are prepared to pay NETs to prepare students for. You see, in a simple sense, it cuts both ways. They like to do things their way, such as, for example, spending the high sums required in an international market to get the type of teacher they want in to their classrooms. Another example would be the paper you cite, and many others like it. Either way, they are both examples of 'their way' in action. If you accept the former, they expect you to accept the latter.

Having said that, even with the intrinsic lottery element of the NET scheme, my experience and that of my friends suggests that NETs are typically afforded a high degree of (and often total) autonomy when it comes to how they teach the set material, which is refreshing.

[eltbert]

Thank you very much for the clarification on the NET scheme as of the present. The roles and duties of NETs under the current regime are set out transparently in the EMB website. Having had a close look at it, I realise that NETs are only meant to teach ESL to "Chinese students" in HK (a bit bewildered cuz there's a visible presence non-Chinese students in the territory) and assist in teacher and curriculum development. Perhaps the native-speaking English teachers that my friend referred to are part of the cohort of the pre-EMB scheme (there has only been one NET scheme since the EMB has inaugurated). They were not subject to the same terms of employment as NETs are today under the current EMB scheme (not sure if you'd call it the 'enhanced scheme'. Forgive me if I'm again not getting my terminologies right.)

I agree that the scheme is like a lucky draw for the appointees. There's hardly any guarantee that you'll be selected by the school that suits you the best given its pedagogical orientation and culture. Nevertheless, with the increasing number of directly subsidised schools being established, we can hopefully expect to have more choices.

I do realise that Practical skills is a compulsory paper (worth a very high percentage of marks) and that of course we are expected to gear our shoulders to the wheel when it comes to the teaching of it, however irrelevant the task might seem. Of course, the only way around it would be to try and stay in the system for as long as possible in the hope that one will be in a position to introduce reforms to the curriculum one day. The UE examination will not be around for very much longer though, as the AL exam will give way to the new matriculation exam in a few years' time.