|
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 |
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
We would be a threat to their jobs if native English speakers (in general, not specifically) replaced or surplanted KTs as English teachers in public schools. I understand that seems laughable now but it wasn't when this program first started.
Many KTs that I talked to (graduate school of English) felt that the bringing in of FTs signaled their failure to teach their students well enough and that they were not capable of teaching their student sufficiently to meet the parents demands. Many said they felt shame.
If the native English speakers in the classroom experiment worked, we would have seen more and more NESTs and less and less KTs.
So, it has nothing to do with length of stay or visa type. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
tiger fancini
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Location: Testicles for Eyes
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| We would be a threat to their jobs if native English speakers (in general, not specifically) replaced or surplanted KTs as English teachers in public schools. I understand that seems laughable now but it wasn't when this program first started. |
Yes I remember that idea floating around a few years ago. And if they'd brought in fully-trained, educated and experienced ESL teachers, there might just have been something for Korean English teachers to worry about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
liveinkorea316
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
Many KTs that I talked to (graduate school of English) felt that the bringing in of FTs signaled their failure to teach their students well enough and that they were not capable of teaching their student sufficiently to meet the parents demands. Many said they felt shame.
If the native English speakers in the classroom experiment worked, we would have seen more and more NESTs and less and less KTs. |
Not true at all. Because what about Hagwons. The plethora of Hagwons ALREADY signalled to these KTs that they were not doing their jobs well enough. They already knew it. Those Hagwons were and are staffed with foreign teachers.
So, no. NESTs did not suddenly make KTs feel shamed or anything. They were kidding you. Koreans are good at telling you excuses to divert you from the truth.
NESTs were never a threat to KT jobs. Their unions and Korean culture make it impossible to replace them. In the worst case scenario the Government would pay for them to retrain in the USA for a year to improve their ENglish. Absolutely no way anyone thought NESTs could ever replace KTs. Period. Those people are lying to ya.
KTs most feel annoyed with NESTs for the many reasons already explained by others - extra work, cultural and language barriers, reducing their role in the classroom, etc etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| silkhighway wrote: |
You've taken a broad statement about labour relations and made it into a personal statement about your amicable relationships with your co-teachers.
You're a threat to the Korean teachers because you create work for them, and you undermine them by your presence alone because it suggests they have failed to do their jobs properly. On the other hand, where's the incentive for them to ensure that you are successful? To pick up and defend you when you're attacked in the media or by taxpayers wondering why they're paying for you? They couldn't care any less, and rightly so, you wouldn't care about them if the shoe was on the other foot. A hagwon owner on the other hand has no choice to put his greasiest smile on put the parents mind at ease that he recruits only the highest quality teachers and sing your praises to to the hilt, because if the parents have no faith in you, they have no faith in him and he's out of business. |
I've done nothing of the kind. I made 2-3 separate and distinct statements.
As for being a threat to the Korean teachers because you create work for them and your presence suggests that they've failed to do their jobs properly?
Let's look at this claim and debunk it.
Creating work for them is not a threat. It is a problem (a burden if you will) but it is not a threat for them.
|
You're splitting hairs.
| Quote: |
As for suggesting that they don't do their jobs properly...so what? Most have tenure and can't fired anyway. As for the rest...do you really think anyone is going to fire the Korean teachers and put NETS in their places?
That is never going to happen...so we are not a threat to their jobs, or careers. |
I wasn't even talking about impacting them financially, although Unposter has covered that quite well. How about sheer pride? If you were a math teacher in the US after the failed math reforms, how demeaning would it have been for the government and your administration to force you to have a foreign mathematician come in to supplement your lessons and tell you that you have to manage this foreigner, keep him happy, etc.? Probably a lot. It's hard enough to get teachers and schools to implement little changes let alone drastic ones like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| liveinkorea316 wrote: |
| KTs most feel annoyed with NESTs for the many reasons already explained by others - extra work, cultural and language barriers, reducing their role in the classroom, etc etc. |
right..
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
So, none of those things would be resolved by adopting this criteria
1) An on-site tefl certificate involving practical teacher-training.
2) You must be over 25 yrs of age.
3) You must have at least six months experience- either in tefl or as an assistant in an acreedited govt school in your home country.
And all of them them would be solved by either the NET speaking Korean or the KET speaking better English. Since it is actually the KET's job to speak English it's not unreasonable to suggest that this is the best way to sort out the problems. However with a young NET it is easier for the principal, and KETs to pressurise them into learning Korean and probably easier to get away with blaming any grievances they have on the NET's failure to understand Korean culture. I'm pretty sure not much of the problems are really about teaching. |
So I would suggest 5 main ways to reduce conflict between NET and KET:
1) Delineate clear separate areas of responsibility. Write it into the contracts of both. KET's must be responsible for discipline and translation, NET's for pronunciation and english instruction. Both must co-operate in lesson planning and be given equal teaching time.
2) Institute an independent FT schools inspector whose job is to monitor and regularly visit several schools to oversee the programme. This person must regularly translate private meetings between the KET and their principal. They must be only a phone call away to arbitrate complaints, disputes and ideas , ensuring all given a fair hearing by the proper channels. Because as it stands the FT has no communicative outlet other than the KET who basically manipulates them.
3) Regulate the hiring process to ensure standards and fairness. Teachers must be selected by a central hiring office (not individual principals) based on i) TEFL qualification ii) Tefl Experience iii) Korean language ability and experience. iv) Language and english qualifications.
This would give more credibility to the FT's. Payscales should be graded to match.
4) Start compulsory Korean classes for FT's, and english classes for KET's.
These should be small classes of not more than 7 students. Not roman circuses where 40 unwilling KT's maul a lone FT.
Koreans complain that foreigners do not speak korean, but then they do not provide any classes for them to do so.
5) Replace deskwarming with optional extra classes. KET's complain that FT's are idle, but in fact most FT's would rather be doing something or at least have the chance to earn extra cash by doing extra afterschool classes.
But of course the whole public school experiment has already been declared a failure and it is probably to late to save it by implementing such common-sense structures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZIFA wrote: |
| liveinkorea316 wrote: |
| KTs most feel annoyed with NESTs for the many reasons already explained by others - extra work, cultural and language barriers, reducing their role in the classroom, etc etc. |
right..
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
So, none of those things would be resolved by adopting this criteria
1) An on-site tefl certificate involving practical teacher-training.
2) You must be over 25 yrs of age.
3) You must have at least six months experience- either in tefl or as an assistant in an acreedited govt school in your home country.
And all of them them would be solved by either the NET speaking Korean or the KET speaking better English. Since it is actually the KET's job to speak English it's not unreasonable to suggest that this is the best way to sort out the problems. However with a young NET it is easier for the principal, and KETs to pressurise them into learning Korean and probably easier to get away with blaming any grievances they have on the NET's failure to understand Korean culture. I'm pretty sure not much of the problems are really about teaching. |
So I would suggest 5 main ways to reduce conflict between NET and KET:
1) Delineate clear separate areas of responsibility. Write it into the contracts of both. KET's must be responsible for discipline and translation, NET's for pronunciation and english instruction. Both must co-operate in lesson planning and be given equal teaching time.
2) Institute an independent FT schools inspector whose job is to monitor and regularly visit several schools to oversee the programme. This person must regularly translate private meetings between the KET and their principal. They must be only a phone call away to arbitrate complaints, disputes and ideas , ensuring all given a fair hearing by the proper channels. Because as it stands the FT has no communicative outlet other than the KET who basically manipulates them.
3) Regulate the hiring process to ensure standards and fairness. Teachers must be selected by a central hiring office (not individual principals) based on i) TEFL qualification ii) Tefl Experience iii) Korean language ability and experience. iv) Language and english qualifications.
This would give more credibility to the FT's. Payscales should be graded to match.
4) Start compulsory Korean classes for FT's, and english classes for KET's.
These should be small classes of not more than 7 students. Not roman circuses where 40 unwilling KT's maul a lone FT.
Koreans complain that foreigners do not speak korean, but then they do not provide any classes for them to do so.
5) Replace deskwarming with optional extra classes. KET's complain that FT's are idle, but in fact most FT's would rather be doing something or at least have the chance to earn extra cash by doing extra afterschool classes.
But of course the whole public school experiment has already been declared a failure and it is probably to late to save it by implementing such common-sense structures. |
"common-sense structures" is a bit over the top. The public school system is extremely conservative, and when change does happen, it tends to be incremental. There's limited time and money, and contrary to many FTs belief, the world doesn't revolve around them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quite true Silk.
One thing I will say here: Korean PS would be mad to allow more leeway and responsibilities to FTs under the current system because there basically are no standards of selection for FTs now beyond the extremely minimal BA in anything and being a native speaker.
The only way for PS to expand the scope of responsibilites for FTs would be to (like another poster just said) have actual qualification requirements for the hiring of these FTs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
We would be a threat to their jobs if native English speakers (in general, not specifically) replaced or surplanted KTs as English teachers in public schools. I understand that seems laughable now but it wasn't when this program first started.
Many KTs that I talked to (graduate school of English) felt that the bringing in of FTs signaled their failure to teach their students well enough and that they were not capable of teaching their student sufficiently to meet the parents demands. Many said they felt shame.
If the native English speakers in the classroom experiment worked, we would have seen more and more NESTs and less and less KTs.
So, it has nothing to do with length of stay or visa type. |
Given that NESTS are supposed to CO-TEACH why would we have seen less KT's?
That makes absolutely no sense at all. Plus it's less of an administrative hassle to hire someone who speaks the language and who doesn't have to worry about visa issues.
Plus the majority of FTs don't stay here for a long time, so it makes no sense to hire and train them for a permanent position. Then too you'd face wide-spread and violent opposition from the teachers unions.
No...we were never a threat to their jobs. The Education Superintendent made it very clear that FTs in the public schools were only a temporary measure. We were NEVER intended to have a permanent presence.
So if the experiment HAD worked the way it was intended to we would have seen LESS NESTS. Once the KTs and many students were up to speed it was planned to phase us out.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| silkhighway wrote: |
You've taken a broad statement about labour relations and made it into a personal statement about your amicable relationships with your co-teachers.
You're a threat to the Korean teachers because you create work for them, and you undermine them by your presence alone because it suggests they have failed to do their jobs properly. On the other hand, where's the incentive for them to ensure that you are successful? To pick up and defend you when you're attacked in the media or by taxpayers wondering why they're paying for you? They couldn't care any less, and rightly so, you wouldn't care about them if the shoe was on the other foot. A hagwon owner on the other hand has no choice to put his greasiest smile on put the parents mind at ease that he recruits only the highest quality teachers and sing your praises to to the hilt, because if the parents have no faith in you, they have no faith in him and he's out of business. |
I've done nothing of the kind. I made 2-3 separate and distinct statements.
As for being a threat to the Korean teachers because you create work for them and your presence suggests that they've failed to do their jobs properly?
Let's look at this claim and debunk it.
Creating work for them is not a threat. It is a problem (a burden if you will) but it is not a threat for them.
|
You're splitting hairs.
| Quote: |
As for suggesting that they don't do their jobs properly...so what? Most have tenure and can't fired anyway. As for the rest...do you really think anyone is going to fire the Korean teachers and put NETS in their places?
That is never going to happen...so we are not a threat to their jobs, or careers. |
I wasn't even talking about impacting them financially, although Unposter has covered that quite well. How about sheer pride? If you were a math teacher in the US after the failed math reforms, how demeaning would it have been for the government and your administration to force you to have a foreign mathematician come in to supplement your lessons and tell you that you have to manage this foreigner, keep him happy, etc.? Probably a lot. It's hard enough to get teachers and schools to implement little changes let alone drastic ones like that. |
No hair-splitting is going on. Merely defining the terms being thrown around.
Yes I already said that some KTs would be unhappy about the extra work. Where we disagreed is that we were a threat to their jobs. We were NEVER intended for a permanent place in the PS system (as was told to us at orientation)...so where is the threat coming from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think in hindsight you are right TUM but I don't think it was that clear when it was first instituted.
The mere fact that FTs were required to co-teach (which vertually never happened) was seen as a threat to KTs. It meant that they were not sufficient to the tast of teaching their students. Many KTs were worried that their students would neglect them and look to the FT for all things English. Many KTs even competed with their FT for dominance in the classroom whether the FT made an effort in that direction or not.
Addmittedly, KTs worked hard to push FTs out of their schools and they have succeeded in saving their jobs and removing the threat that the FT posed minimumly to their professional dignity.
As for the public claims to the temporariness of FTs, I did not hear about it (at least in the media) when the program was first established. That did not come out until a year or two ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
The mere fact that FTs were required to co-teach (which vertually never happened) was seen as a threat to KTs. It meant that they were not sufficient to the tast of teaching their students. Many KTs were worried that their students would neglect them and look to the FT for all things English. Many KTs even competed with their FT for dominance in the classroom whether the FT made an effort in that direction or not.
|
+1
It was a pissing contest from the start.
Hagwons were winning the "real education" battle and the government stepped in to give all children a fair chance (which I agree with).
KTs (some) probably had a bad experience with one foreigner and they quickly used that to push an agenda of pushing NETs out of the public sector. Personally, I dont believe they are ready, but that isn't for me to tell them.
I'll go back to the quote you had given in its entirety:
| Quote: |
Please explain how a TEMPORARY worker on a TEMPORARY work visa, with a TEMPORARY contract is any threat to the average TENURED Korean teacher?
Don't make yourself a burden and then you won't be one. |
When you work with someone for a year, you aren't really seen as TEMPORARY. Some personalities don't mix. Sometimes the man leads the horse to water. Sometimes there are just abrasive individuals that shouldn't be in a classroom. Sometimes its gold. I've met some trash NETs that stayed at their schools, and good NETs that moved on to something else. Please explain how a Korean teacher could feel if they aren't the focus of the classroom? If the NET gets more respect, but may or may not deserve it?
You yourself stayed here for how long? What would you say is the one quality that kept you here? I'm not trying to measure sticks- rather get an idea for new teachers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Every time a Korean teacher brings up the issue of credentials for the NETs, I politely remind them that they are not qualified to teach at a public school in the US. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there "Teacher Exchange" programs between different countries. I think being a certified teacher in any developed nation certainly brings something to the table.
I mean that's like saying to a Panamanian doctor that they aren't qualified to practice medicine in the U.S. Maybe until they get certified, but they certainly know more about their medicine than some Sociology major. I think that's a pretty silly claim.
As someone who grew up with a public school elementary teacher for a parent I can tell you that that exposure to their workplace and work culture has prepared me immensely for working in a public school. Things like hands on materials and you being as much an arts and crafts specialist as a linguist. That and the insane bureaucracy and unions that are involved with teaching as well as tyrant principals, unruly students, insane parents, and moronic legislative mandates (Sound familiar?).
| Quote: |
It's incredible the way the NET scheme is run. Random, unqualified grads with little or no relevant training or work experience (come to think of it, some people here have had no work experience of any kind) are thrown into an completely alien environment and expected to perform miracles.
Koreans need to look at their own lack of planning skills first before they blame the people they ship in almost willy-nilly.
I've always wondered why they don't provide free Korean classes, because as already pointed out above, the language barrier greatly contributes to the workplace tension between NET and KT. |
Blame is 50-50. Incompetent hiring practices, mixed with applicant egos= the craptastica we have now.
I mean its not like all the applicants began their resume with "now I know I'm not qualified in any way, but....." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happiness
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
after 10 years, the last thing Ill tell you that you can expect is cooperation and logic. support can happen, sometimes great support can happen. Cooperation will ONLY happen if someone up high is guiding it, if not, the sh++ that goes down. even for me, everyday, it boggles the mind how I got used to it....
you dont think nsets are allowed to save the money they can because of nothing? would anyone really like working in these situations with the locals.
as far as non-Koreans you have to be kinda tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happiness
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
after 10 years, the last thing Ill tell you that you can expect is cooperation and logic. support can happen, sometimes great support can happen. Cooperation will ONLY happen if someone up high is guiding it, if not, the sh++ that goes down. even for me, everyday, it boggles the mind how I got used to it....
you dont think nsets are allowed to save the money they can because of nothing? would anyone really like working in these situations with the locals.
as far as non-Koreans you have to be kinda tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ZIFA wrote: |
2) Institute an independent FT schools inspector whose job is to monitor and regularly visit several schools to oversee the programme. This person must regularly translate private meetings between the KET and their principal. They must be only a phone call away to arbitrate complaints, disputes and ideas , ensuring all given a fair hearing by the proper channels. Because as it stands the FT has no communicative outlet other than the KET who basically manipulates them.
|
I basically *beep* my pants when I read this. I would LOVE to do this job. If this position was created tomorrow, and the location covered every school in Seoul, I would kill potential competitors, and their pets, to get this job. If I had a say in things, I would travel 3 days a week to schools in Seoul, then spend the other 2 in the office, doing paperwork, making phone calls, etc. I love teacher training/education as well. I would jump at the chance to give open classes in the districts I worked in just to talk to the new teachers after and help them prepare with their first year teaching PS. I probably would have been hired by SMOE years ago, working along with Jon Pak, but my fluency isn't where it should be.
It's really a shame about PS, because I love the job in general. Of course, the two biggest problems, which matter a great deal, are the curriculum and disorganization. The thing that matters the most are the kids, and it sucks that they are the ones being affected. For example, one of my co-teachers told me the other week that the head of our Eng. dept. told him weekly meetings about student progress are not important. Why, you ask? "Because the students are not worth it. They aren't that smart and they are too poor, so they probably won't go to university." I couldn't believe what he told me. Frankly, it depresses me to think about it, but it makes me want to change the system even more. But, the reality of the situation means that changing the program would require a lot of money and people that are willing to compromise and change. Getting money, possible. Getting a lot of DOE people to change, unlikely. |
|
| 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
