|
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 |
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| MollyBloom wrote: |
| 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.
|
Teacher evaluation is a contentious issue. Think about how controversial and despised the "No Child Left Behind" policy is in the US.
The problem with a "FT schools inspector" idea besides the financial cost, is how would their mandate be any different than a superintendent and how could they enforce it? To some degree you can standardize curriculum and learning outcomes, and they do; however when it comes to technique, there's no "right way" to teach just as there's no right way to learn. One of the reasons teachers are made to go to teacher's college and become semi-professionals is because they do have so much autonomy when they're in the classroom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| silkhighway wrote: |
| MollyBloom wrote: |
| 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.
|
Teacher evaluation is a contentious issue. Think about how controversial and despised the "No Child Left Behind" policy is in the US.
The problem with a "FT schools inspector" idea besides the financial cost, is how would their mandate be any different than a superintendent and how could they enforce it? To some degree you can standardize curriculum and learning outcomes, and they do; however when it comes to technique, there's no "right way" to teach just as there's no right way to learn. One of the reasons teachers are made to go to teacher's college and become semi-professionals is because they do have so much autonomy when they're in the classroom. |
But I don't think his imaginary job would be to evaluate teachers, but rather to evaluate the relationship between the FT and the school, and to help all involved. I do agree with you, however, that enforcing standardized curriculum and trying to force certain techniques would be ridiculous. My vision of it was to travel to schools and observe the classes for an idea of the FT/KT relationship, help the FT with any problems, and work to improve the FT's time at the school.
Of course, each district in Seoul (I've never worked outside of that city so I don't know what GEPIK has) has a FT representative that is supposed to fulfill many of the duties I have mentioned above. Unfortunately, in my experience, they don't do much. You can hardly get in touch with them, only see them at district workshops 2-3 times a year, and they are basically kissing the asses of the district heads. I can see how it looks good on a resume, but I only know of one person that has been an effective district rep. I haven't thought about if the "ft schools inspector" should take over the job of the district reps, but why not eliminate the middle man that really doesn't know anything about the teachers in his/her district? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
How would you improve the FTs experience? From what perspective would you act?
Just curious here.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
How would you improve the FTs experience? From what perspective would you act?
Just curious here.... |
I've been writing somewhat impulsively thus far, so I'll have to think about your questions and offer a meaningful response! The job would def. require some training...maybe dealing with conflict resolution, workplace communication..I think the job would be more about problem solving and less about teacher training. I'll think about how to answer over the weekend! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MollyBloom wrote: |
| silkhighway wrote: |
| MollyBloom wrote: |
| 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.
|
Teacher evaluation is a contentious issue. Think about how controversial and despised the "No Child Left Behind" policy is in the US.
The problem with a "FT schools inspector" idea besides the financial cost, is how would their mandate be any different than a superintendent and how could they enforce it? To some degree you can standardize curriculum and learning outcomes, and they do; however when it comes to technique, there's no "right way" to teach just as there's no right way to learn. One of the reasons teachers are made to go to teacher's college and become semi-professionals is because they do have so much autonomy when they're in the classroom. |
But I don't think his imaginary job would be to evaluate teachers, but rather to evaluate the relationship between the FT and the school, and to help all involved. |
Right, when I wrote that I was remembering how when I had a problem with my co-teacher there was no third party I could go to to help sort it out.
Even when I met with my principal it was my co-teacher who was translating, even though it was her that I was complaining about!.. 
Of course she changed what I was saying to make herself look good half the time. It was a farce.
When it came to filling out a "confidential" questionnaire from the POE, the paper was not in any secure envelope and I had to hand it back to my co-teacher. So basically whatever I wrote was open to view by anyone in the school. Hardly a discrete channel of communication.
So the way it was set up was that the FT is basically fenced in and subtly manipulated by his co-teachers who essentially control him. He has no real options and if he steps out of line or criticises his co-teachers then there are a million little ways in which they can make his life a misery.
Being a PS FT is basically like being in the ring against 3 heavyweights with your hands tied behind your back. They have all the power, you don't even have a voice, and there is no referee.
A theoretical "independent schools inspector" would change all that... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
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. |
I came in in the second year of the program. That's when I heard about the "temporariness of FTs". The Gyeonggi Superintendent of Education came on stage at the orientation and told us that we were here temporarily to train KTs (and students) so that the KTs could take over and teach the classes in English and students would gain greater facility and ease of commmunicating with foreigners.
So basically right from the start it was the plan. And no I'm not going off rumours in the media or anything like that. I was THERE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThingsComeAround wrote: |
| 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. |
I've been in Korea...(not at the same P.S or hakwon) for over a decade. I wasn't in Korea all that time of course (back home, vacationing in other countries). The one quality that kept me here? I wouldn't say it was just one quality, rather a whole bunch of little things that when added up amounted to a rather good situation...at least in my case and I'm not talking just finances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
One cost-effective way of implementing many of the suggestions you guys are talking about would be to outsource NETS to a third party who would manage the NET, similar to what ALT dispatchers in Japan do, assuming Korean immigration laws would allow it.
Be careful what you wish for though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kind of sounds like the 'after school' program.
FT's are seen as a 'threat' because they are not Korean. They don't automatically fit in to all things Korean, they often don't participate in things Korean (and often for good reason), they make KT's look bad because they do naturally and easily what the KT's can't seem to do after years and years of training. FT's are an intrusion into Korean sovereignty, especially since teachers can have a lasting effect upon their students. Koreans don't want their children to lose their respect for Korean ways. (a justified fear perhaps, but perhaps not such a bad thing from our perspective)
I think one of the biggest fears amongst many Korean staff is that they might get a NET who is an excellent teacher and who knows how to teach English, then they would have to concede that all things Korean are not superior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZIFA
Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Location: Dici che il fiume..Trova la via al mare
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
| I think one of the biggest fears amongst many Korean staff is that they might get a NET who is an excellent teacher and who knows how to teach English, then they would have to concede that all things Korean are not superior. |
Thats already happened. What they do is fight tooth and nailt to suppress the FT and make sure he doesn't get to upstage them.
its surreal but the GEPIk programme went to great expense to acquire foreign teachers, then went to great effort to make sure they didn't actually teach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainism
Joined: 13 Apr 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Kind of sounds like the 'after school' program.
FT's are seen as a 'threat' because they are not Korean. They don't automatically fit in to all things Korean, they often don't participate in things Korean (and often for good reason), they make KT's look bad because they do naturally and easily what the KT's can't seem to do after years and years of training. FT's are an intrusion into Korean sovereignty, especially since teachers can have a lasting effect upon their students. Koreans don't want their children to lose their respect for Korean ways. (a justified fear perhaps, but perhaps not such a bad thing from our perspective)
I think one of the biggest fears amongst many Korean staff is that they might get a NET who is an excellent teacher and who knows how to teach English, then they would have to concede that all things Korean are not superior. |
this sounds wonderful and I'd love to agree to join the bashing bandwagon, but in my personal case, it couldn't be more WRONG.
I must have gotten really lucky with all of my coteachers and immediate Korean staff but I know of others within gepik who also enjoyed very good situations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Coming in a bit late in the game here, and I don't want to read all nine pages... but a couple of points to make.
One, Korean teachers DO NOT make more than we do. Okay, some of them do, but many don't. Base pay is 2.0 (a bit less in the city, a bit more outside, but for the most part, 2.0 is the yard stick). I know for a fact of a couple of Korean English teachers who make 1.8 and 1.9 a month. Remember though, we get free housing, which we can say is equal to 400k a month (that's the usual stipend), plus the cost of the airplane tickets and the settlement bonus on top of that. So, if you amortize it all out, base pay is actually about 2.6 a month.
Sure, lots of the older teachers make more than that, but considering the new rules on Korean English teachers, MANY of the PS handlers/co workers are younger and thus, making less than we do.
Two, those handlers do way more work than people realize. My first job I was the first foreign teacher at the school. My handler was new to teaching (older woman, but still her first year teaching) and was given ZERO support from the VP/Principal or the are office of education/provincial office of education. ANY problem or issue that I had, she had to deal with. I'm a fairly low maintenance person, but still, my first week in Korea, she had to find a hospital for the medical check, then figure out all the visa stuff, then take me there, pick me up, etc. AT THE SAME TIME, she was EXPECTED to teach her OWN classes. So there I was, three days in Korea, still falling asleep at 4 pm from jet lag, no idea about anything here, and she's dropping me off at some random immigration building, promising to come get me FIVE HOURS LATER because she has to rush back to work to teach.
My GF was a handler for a NET and she was stressed out a lot by it. I know the NET and she's a fairly low maintenance person too. But it's the same deal - they have to do their work, and deal with us usually with little to no support. Plus, we all know the attitude a lot of foreigners have - "I don't like that so I refuse to do anything!" - an attitude which achieves nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I had another handler who was total garbage - I asked about using my vacation days to attend a CELTA course and was told the principal said it was impossible. Find out later that she never even asked him, and when he DID hear about it he said "that's a great idea - you can go to the training ON SCHOOL TIME if you'd like." A day late and a dollar short... There were so many other things that she did/didn't do, I couldn't list it all if I tried...
Anyway, just had to let that out there - the vast majority of handlers are hard working people who frequently get little support from above and little respect from NET's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Korean teachers get those massive bonuses twice a year. They also do not have to sweat out the renewal process ever year. And after enough time on the job, they are making well over two million a month. Some make over five million. All things considered, yes, Korean public school teachers do make more than we do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| Korean teachers get those massive bonuses twice a year. |
True if they are full-time teachers, but there are more contract teachers than you realize. Contract teachers usually do not get the bonuses. But you are right that experienced full-time teachers can make up to 5 million-won, or more, a month.
If you see a new young looking teacher in your school, maybe a 25% chance they are a contract teacher (who hopes to one day pass the national test). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
|
| 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
