|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Thank you for that, thegadfly. I am certainly not trolling, I was trying to encourage a real discussion of which one of the objectives was to learn something for myself. I never could have imagined the angry barrages that rolled into this thread - I guess I underestimated Dave's. 
I see how knowledgeable you are in this field and I'm not going to act like I could outdebate you on this issue, but let me summarize my point. I know perfectly well that a hagwon only has a fraction of the influence on a student's overall education and that there are many other factors to consider. But I still feel that with a large and prolonged collection of data, certain conclusions can still be made based on conspicuous patterns. For example, I grew up in a school district with seven high schools. Every year, a ranking of the schools would appear in the local paper based on how students performed on the final exams. Every year the schools were ranked in the exact same order, with the Baptist school and the Catholic school both in the cellar. Obviously students from these schools were all educated in different kindergartens and had a different set of circumstances in their lives. And any given ranking from one year could not be considered reliable. But when you get the same ranking 10 years in a row, that is something to look into.
There are definitely potential problems with the concept I suggested, and perhaps results should not be publicized due to the possibility of unreliable data being misinterpreted. But if there was a hagwon that was ranking in the bottom three out of 50 year after year (even with new ages of kids coming and going), certain conclusions could be made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thegadfly wrote: |
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I have yet to find any substance whatsoever in your OP. |
Emphasis on the word in bold. Not that that surprises me.
| Quote: |
| Just a bunch of newbie nonsense |
Yes, I get it catfisher. You've been in Korea a while. Everyone should admire your success as a life-long ESL teacher in Korea. You're so high on the intellectual food-chain that you can attack people without reading or understanding their arguments. |
Just because someone disagrees does not mean that person does not understand. Your basic premise is fundamentally flawed -- what you propose would not work. Ice does not make good kindling for a fire, snow is not an excellent way to bake cookies, and sand does not run through the coffeemaker to brew a cuppa joe -- things don't work that way. |
catfisher didn't demonstrate any civil form of disagreement (which I can respect). He went straight to the trolling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wooden nickels
Joined: 23 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thegadfly wrote: |
OK, Lichtar, I am going to work from the premise that you are serious in your suggestion, and want to improve the system, and are not just trolling....
First, right off the bat, to whom do we attribute any student's score? The most recent teacher or school? The teachers or schools that have had the most contact with the student? The teacher or school by which the student first encountered English? Studies indicate that the ability of one's kindergarten teacher is what sets the tone for all subsequent learning -- if you had a great kindergarten teacher, you do better in high school, regardless of the quality of your high school teachers....
Unfortunately, while we believe that better educators exist, we can not support that belief with empirical evidence -- which is why teacher evaluation and "merit pay" in the states is such a bone of contention. We know there are good teachers, mediocre teachers, and poor teachers, and we kinda think we know the things that make a teacher better or worse...but it has not yet been able to be quantified in a way that stands up to peer review...therefore, the most common method of teacher evaluation is anecdotal -- if students and parents THINK a teacher has helped, then the administrators accept that.
Until we have a metric upon which people can agree, and can account for the cumulative influences of all the teachers and educational situations in which a student has been placed, then a "standardized test" like you are suggesting would not only not work, but if used, would muddy the waters even further.
I'm not even addressing the corruption that would spring up with folks trying to "game the system" you suggest, or the relative ease of doing just that.
What you suggested does not measure what you imagined it would measure. You can certainly measure a student's current ability in a subject (within the parameters and scope of the test design -- hope you design an accurate test that actually DOES measure a student's true ability, and not isolated skills out of context, or the student's ability to recall idiosyncratic usages or exceptions to the rules), but even if you DO somehow make a test that is an accurate measure of ability (and again, there is doubt that even THIS feat is possible), and administer it in a way so as to allow it to retain its validity, you STILL won't be able to reliably ascertain how, when, and where the student learned to do what the student has done.
That was a pretty long sentence!
To make a short story long -- what you suggest won't work, for too many reasons to explain clearly, succinctly, and in a way that a layman could understand. It would be like me going in to a meeting of engineers and saying, "you know, we should make a car that uses water as a fuel -- why don't you guys do that? Just make a car that can run on water! Or better yet -- the sun uses fusion, and it isn't even all that smart -- why don't you make a car that uses fusion!" They'd tell me that it can't currently be done, that it isn't a "simple" thing, and if I claim that they aren't giving my ideas a chance (or "reading carefully enough") they would just stare at me in slack-jawed amazement...much as you are being stared at....
Points for wanting to improve the system, but you need to go back to the drawing board and learn to control a whole slew more variables than you have even considered. |
Now this is 100% understandable. I've been in the language education field a long time and this statement is worth it's weight in gold. I have observed and participated in this as a certified teacher from the elementary level to the university level in the public system. My wife and I have owned a language school in Korea for a long length of time. I'm not saying I know the answer to everything, but thegadfly hit the nail on the head. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thegadfly
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
Thank you for that, thegadfly. I am certainly not trolling, I was trying to encourage a real discussion of which one of the objectives was to learn something for myself. I never could have imagined the angry barrages that rolled into this thread - I guess I underestimated Dave's.
I see how knowledgeable you are in this field and I'm not going to act like I could outdebate you on this issue, but let me summarize my point. I know perfectly well that a hagwon only has a fraction of the influence on a student's overall education and that there are many other factors to consider. But I still feel that with a large and prolonged collection of data, certain conclusions can still be made based on conspicuous patterns. For example, I grew up in a school district with seven high schools. Every year, a ranking of the schools would appear in the local paper based on how students performed on the final exams. Every year the schools were ranked in the exact same order, with the Baptist school and the Catholic school both in the cellar. Obviously students from these schools were all educated in different kindergartens and had a different set of circumstances in their lives. And any given ranking from one year could not be considered reliable. But when you get the same ranking 10 years in a row, that is something to look into.
There are definitely potential problems with the concept I suggested, and perhaps results should not be publicized due to the possibility of unreliable data being misinterpreted. But if there was a hagwon that was ranking in the bottom three out of 50 year after year (even with new ages of kids coming and going), certain conclusions could be made. |
Well, if a hakwon's income is based on its ranking (as some schools in the US have funding based on student test scores), then you would have the problem of schools teaching to the tests (which the hakwons would do, because it would improve their ranking, and an improved ranking in the newspaper would be free advertising, and improve their profit margin).
Schools in the US DO teach to the tests that determine their funding, and this effect of trying to "standardize" learning and inject "school accountability" is actually damaging the field of education. Most educators agree that this kind of ranking is detrimental to learning. The trouble is, there is no better metric available, and people WANT to have numbers. People love statistics.
You want to know what determines your school rankings, in the example above? The median income (the single characteristic that correlates across the board with educational performance). The number one ranked school will also have the highest median family income, and on down the line. The reasons for this are manifold -- richer families feed their kids better (nutrition), have safer environments with less stress (not as many bill collectors, drug dealers, angry landlords, or parental worries about making rent or getting evicted), tend to value education more, more often have a history of valuing education, and have the luxury of parental involvement/support.
A single mom working double shifts to send her kid to parochial school has her heart in the right place, and is doing the best she can, but even in a "good" school, that kid is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a wealthy kid going to a "bad" school. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's proper -- but it is what nearly every study has indicated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wooden nickels
Joined: 23 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thegadfly wrote: |
| lichtarbeiter wrote: |
Thank you for that, thegadfly. I am certainly not trolling, I was trying to encourage a real discussion of which one of the objectives was to learn something for myself. I never could have imagined the angry barrages that rolled into this thread - I guess I underestimated Dave's.
I see how knowledgeable you are in this field and I'm not going to act like I could outdebate you on this issue, but let me summarize my point. I know perfectly well that a hagwon only has a fraction of the influence on a student's overall education and that there are many other factors to consider. But I still feel that with a large and prolonged collection of data, certain conclusions can still be made based on conspicuous patterns. For example, I grew up in a school district with seven high schools. Every year, a ranking of the schools would appear in the local paper based on how students performed on the final exams. Every year the schools were ranked in the exact same order, with the Baptist school and the Catholic school both in the cellar. Obviously students from these schools were all educated in different kindergartens and had a different set of circumstances in their lives. And any given ranking from one year could not be considered reliable. But when you get the same ranking 10 years in a row, that is something to look into.
There are definitely potential problems with the concept I suggested, and perhaps results should not be publicized due to the possibility of unreliable data being misinterpreted. But if there was a hagwon that was ranking in the bottom three out of 50 year after year (even with new ages of kids coming and going), certain conclusions could be made. |
Well, if a hakwon's income is based on its ranking (as some schools in the US have funding based on student test scores), then you would have the problem of schools teaching to the tests (which the hakwons would do, because it would improve their ranking, and an improved ranking in the newspaper would be free advertising, and improve their profit margin).
Schools in the US DO teach to the tests that determine their funding, and this effect of trying to "standardize" learning and inject "school accountability" is actually damaging the field of education. Most educators agree that this kind of ranking is detrimental to learning. The trouble is, there is no better metric available, and people WANT to have numbers. People love statistics.
You want to know what determines your school rankings, in the example above? The median income (the single characteristic that correlates across the board with educational performance). The number one ranked school will also have the highest median family income, and on down the line. The reasons for this are manifold -- richer families feed their kids better (nutrition), have safer environments with less stress (not as many bill collectors, drug dealers, angry landlords, or parental worries about making rent or getting evicted), tend to value education more, more often have a history of valuing education, and have the luxury of parental involvement/support.
A single mom working double shifts to send her kid to parochial school has her heart in the right place, and is doing the best she can, but even in a "good" school, that kid is going to be at a disadvantage compared to a wealthy kid going to a "bad" school. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's proper -- but it is what nearly every study has indicated. |
I also observed this when teaching in the US. I would have to say it's at least 90% on tee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thegadfly
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lichtar,
Going back to your original post, I have a question: how many students did your school retain for a year or more? You seemed to have posted the question because you felt your school was not being held accountable, but I am curious how many students stayed for the full year? Was there stable enrollment, or was there a great deal of turn-over, with new students coming in and other students leaving?
If your school had high turn-over, then there WAS accountability for the "typical shenanigans." Parents simply pulled their kids when they realized they weren't learning. They voiced their opinions with their feet and their wallets -- they took their kids and their money elsewhere.
If the students stayed at the school for the whole year, then my next question would be what rate did the school charge? Was tuition especially low?
In my experience, parents do NOT put up with hakwons that are not giving them what they want for their kids -- if parents want education, and they feel their kids are not getting it, they pull them out right away...in fact, they may pull them out even when they ARE learning something, drawn by the possibility that they may learn more quickly at a different place, with a "new" method or system or teacher...on the other hand, sometimes a "good deal" on tuition will get them to stay at a place that they would otherwise abandon....
Last edited by thegadfly on Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
To the OP.
You also forget the babysitting factor...
Some Korean parents send their children to hagwons to keep them busy and out of the PC bang or off the street. If the kids learn a bit of English to boot, so much the better.
I've had Korean parents admit this to me personally.
Some hagwons exist to serve more as day-care centers than schools.
If Korean parents really wanted their kids to advance in English, they would pull them out of hagwons altogether and move towards private tutors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Catfisher
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| If Korean parents really wanted their kids to advance in English, they would pull them out of hagwons altogether and move towards private tutors. |
Yeah, but again, for what most of the "teachers" I know claim to charge for a private lesson, one week of private lessons costs the same as one month of a hagwon. Most middle class Koreans even, especially with the current economy here, can't afford to pay the "tutors" what the want. That's why most parents, though they know the system is inherently flawed, take their chances with such-and-such hogwan which probably accounts for why they jump around from hogwan to hogwan with their kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
minos
Joined: 01 Dec 2010
Location: kOREA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
To the OP.
You also forget the babysitting factor...
Some Korean parents send their children to hagwons to keep them busy and out of the PC bang or off the street. If the kids learn a bit of English to boot, so much the better.
I've had Korean parents admit this to me personally.
Some hagwons exist to serve more as day-care centers than schools.
If Korean parents really wanted their kids to advance in English, they would pull them out of hagwons altogether and move towards private tutors. |
bingo....
I wished I did art hagwon as a kid instead of daycare.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Private tutors charge what they charge, the fact remains it's a lot more effective way of teaching.
What does the average hagwon charge/ month?
Are the kids there every day or 2 days/ week?
Figure out how many hours a student spends in a hagwon class per month,
then figure out how many private lessons could be had for that same money.
I'd bet the private lessons work out to be more cost effective in the long run, mainly because there are too many distractions/interfering factors in hagwon classes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Catfisher
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Private tutors charge what they charge, the fact remains it's a lot more effective way of teaching.
What does the average hagwon charge/ month?
Are the kids there every day or 2 days/ week?
Figure out how many hours a student spends in a hagwon class per month,
then figure out how many private lessons could be had for that same money.
I'd bet the private lessons work out to be more cost effective in the long run, mainly because there are too many distractions/interfering factors in hagwon classes. |
Nah, if you think so, you need to work on your math skills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nero
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bobbybigfoot wrote: |
| nero wrote: |
Look, the truth of the matter is we are face saving baby sitters who allow parents (mothers) a guilt free afternoon and evening of free time. After all, their little darlings are learning !!
It's for their future!!
They DON'T CARE that the hagwon system is flawed. They pay us to look after their kids, we take the money and do the best we can with the materials we are given and everyone is happy. |
If you are right, then why don't hagwons tell us directly:
(1) you are a babysitter
(2) make it fun
(3) teach some English if you can |
Because Mr Bobby...(leans in close and whispers)..
We live in a pretendy world!
You get it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Catfisher wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Private tutors charge what they charge, the fact remains it's a lot more effective way of teaching.
What does the average hagwon charge/ month?
Are the kids there every day or 2 days/ week?
Figure out how many hours a student spends in a hagwon class per month,
then figure out how many private lessons could be had for that same money.
I'd bet the private lessons work out to be more cost effective in the long run, mainly because there are too many distractions/interfering factors in hagwon classes. |
Nah, if you think so, you need to work on your math skills. |
Well, take a child with 100 hours of hagwan classes vs a child with
100 hours of private tutoring and see which one has improved their English skill the most during that time.
That's what I meant by cost effective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Catfisher
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| Catfisher wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Private tutors charge what they charge, the fact remains it's a lot more effective way of teaching.
What does the average hagwon charge/ month?
Are the kids there every day or 2 days/ week?
Figure out how many hours a student spends in a hagwon class per month,
then figure out how many private lessons could be had for that same money.
I'd bet the private lessons work out to be more cost effective in the long run, mainly because there are too many distractions/interfering factors in hagwon classes. |
Nah, if you think so, you need to work on your math skills. |
Well, take a child with 100 hours of hagwan classes vs a child with
100 hours of private tutoring and see which one has improved their English skill the most during that time.
That's what I meant by cost effective. |
Ok. You got me there.
I was comparing the hours of private tutoring that you could receive for the amount that hogwan enrollment costs. Keep in mind that when enrolling in hogwans, parents pay a lump sum for 3 months at a time. Being that the average greedy wayguk charges 40-50k an hour for tutoring, a 3 month 450,000 won hagwon enrollment fee would only net you 9 hours at 50k an hour, or about 11 hours at 40k an hour. So, parents have to look at 1 month of private tutoring or 3 months of a hagwon for their money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
southernman
Joined: 15 Jan 2010
Location: On the mainland again
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that the gadfly is correct and to a degree what he says is already happening in Hagwons here anyway.
My Hagwan charged just under 800K a month, while I was there it increased it's fees by 20% with no student loss, in fact the student roll increased steadily. Two very large Hagwons close to me charged over 1 Mil a month.
I think the Hagwons that get the results charge more and can put their prices up as long as they're getting results. The Hagwons that charge around the 300-400K mark are more edutainers/babysitters. Koreans, generally, have no problems paying for quality or perceived quality.
At the time my worst student would get roughly 75% in the monthly tests I gave him but always scored in the 90's for his PS exams.
I think that because the price per month was high the parents took more interest in their childrens studies and the students were held accountable for their actions. Class behavior was great and my Director backed me up 100% in any discipline I gave. For example, if a student didn't do the lines I gave them. I just sent them to the Director and he said do double and have them finished by tomorrow.  . I gave out very few lines in my last year |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
