| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
krnpowr
Joined: 08 Dec 2011
Location: Midwest, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2011 4:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevieg4ever wrote: |
| So Sherlock, if we are this unproductive do you have any reason why they have kept us here for so long and didn't dispense of us earlier?? |
An overzealous exuberance for English education subsidized by an over-bloated and inefficient budget?
For a long time, Korean men have been beating dogs to death and eating them thinking it will increase virility. But I don't think longevity of a belief or practice necessarily make it valid or viable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, lets review your post, shall we?
Budget shortfall
If there was no budget shortfall, would foreign teachers still need to be here? Alternatives have suggested sending KETs to foreign countries to learn English. Would that make it better or would it become a paid holiday?
Inefficacy of the NETs
What does this mean? Every public school follows the demands of Immigration, that teachers have a Bachelors degree in any discipline, and a clean national criminal record check. If you are trying to insinuate that this is not enough, we have all been saying the same thing. 
Inadequate grammar
If you take the scribblings from an internet message board as your basis for that conclusion, please direct your attention to the English texts which primary school children use. They have several errors, new errors in new editions. Nothing is done to remedy that.
You can't blame the NET as your the tone of your posts suggest. Would you kindly now, give me the other four reasons (or embellish on your sentiment)
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This seems to update the SMOE situation for now.
http://populargusts.blogspot.com/2011/12/smoe-budget-passed.html
(I don't usually like many blogs, but tend to like this one. The guy seems to research many things about Korea and translates many Korean news stories. No I'm not him. Ha ha.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pedrotaves
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Inefficacy of the NETs
What does this mean? Every public school follows the demands of Immigration, that teachers have a Bachelors degree in any discipline, and a clean national criminal record check. If you are trying to insinuate that this is not enough, we have all been saying the same thing. |
not sure you understand what efficacy means. efficacy is a measure of how effective something is. he's saying NETs aren't producing the desired effects for the government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pedrotaves wrote: |
| Quote: |
Inefficacy of the NETs
What does this mean? Every public school follows the demands of Immigration, that teachers have a Bachelors degree in any discipline, and a clean national criminal record check. If you are trying to insinuate that this is not enough, we have all been saying the same thing. |
not sure you understand what efficacy means. efficacy is a measure of how effective something is. he's saying NETs aren't producing the desired effects for the government. |
That's great, however the government never gave a clear and concise demand of what they wanted from NETs in the first place. Its easy to tell someone they aren't doing a good job when you didn't give them a proper job description to work with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krnpowr
Joined: 08 Dec 2011
Location: Midwest, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ThingsComeAround wrote: |
That's great, however the government never gave a clear and concise demand of what they wanted from NETs in the first place. Its easy to tell someone they aren't doing a good job when you didn't give them a proper job description to work with. |
True. That's why I stated it was a perceived inefficacy. The govt. never provided a quantifiable goal and thus results are by no means gaugeable.
However, the fact of the matter remains that budgeteers are sharpening their pencils and tightening their belts, cutting off the excess fat; and NETs are considered excess and dispensable, and thus on the chopping blocks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krnpowr wrote: |
| However, the fact of the matter remains that budgeteers are sharpening their pencils and tightening their belts, cutting off the excess fat; and NETs are considered excess and dispensable, and thus on the chopping blocks. |
The budgeteers are more interested in circulating that money among Korean hands. If they were more upfront about it, and didn't politicize it, the fact would be easier to swallow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ThingsComeAround wrote: |
| krnpowr wrote: |
| However, the fact of the matter remains that budgeteers are sharpening their pencils and tightening their belts, cutting off the excess fat; and NETs are considered excess and dispensable, and thus on the chopping blocks. |
The budgeteers are more interested in circulating that money among Korean hands. If they were more upfront about it, and didn't politicize it, the fact would be easier to swallow. |
Exactly. But they will never be upfront about it.
The "budget" issue is mostly a politicized smoke and mirrors game.
They can pass any budget they want, but It's hard to swallow when you see the budget just being allocated to other wasteful things that simply keep the money within Korean hands (EX: No budget for NETs, but here's free lunch for everyone! OR Cutting back teacher training programs (done by NET teacher trainers), but let's send Korean teachers abroad for free vacations....er "training workshops" OR Kicking NET's out of the housing at an education institute so Korean administrators and teachers can party there or whatever they'll do (while lying to the NETs about the reason for kicking them out). Shady business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith63
Joined: 23 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:58 am Post subject: Lobbyists perhaps? |
|
|
I was talking with a good friend of mine who is Korean national who is very well informed. I brought up the subject of the NETs in Seoul being let go and that I didn't understand why that was happening when the entry tests for universities was changing towards more emphasis on speaking English and less on written.
She made a very good point: Lobbyists. Lobbyists for the Hagwons and private institutions who have no doubt lost money when Lee instituted the English programs in the public schools. This is the only thing that makes any sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mix1
Joined: 08 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: Lobbyists perhaps? |
|
|
| lilith63 wrote: |
She made a very good point: Lobbyists. Lobbyists for the Hagwons and private institutions who have no doubt lost money when Lee instituted the English programs in the public schools. This is the only thing that makes any sense. |
Not the only thing, but certainly one more possible element in the mix.
Other elements I've heard or read (not presented as facts, just hearsay and speculation at this point - anyone feel free to chime in) :
Politics: it's cyclical. Lee Myung Bak's opposition (including the new liberal mayor) are trying to make a stand against his policies by reversing them or making them look bad. Funding for NET's should be cut accordingly, and to do that it's in their interest to talk about budget costs and paint NET's as unqualified and inefficient (some are, but most do the best they can within the unorganized system they operate in).
Korean teachers union: They tend to be hyper nationalist, borderline socialist (ex: free school lunch), and anti President Bak. They have quietly resented having NET's around for quite a while but haven't been able to do much about it. Many of the higher ups in the education ministry are from this group or are sympathetic to it.
Economics: Belts are tightening. It costs money to employ NETs. What benefit are they? What else could we spend the money on? What employment benefits can we cut and still have people come to Korea? (this was actually stated by the hiring staff during a group renewal interview) First it was lower pay grades by not paying for previous experience or credentials for new hires. Then it moved to cutting programs and teachers full scale.
Teacher training: Korean teachers have been going to teacher training programs for a number of years and their English has been improving steadily. That means less need for NETs.
Of course, in brilliant fashion, the education ministry in their desire to rid themselves of NETs have jumped the gun a bit and neglected teacher training programs, and the NETs in those training jobs are being screwed as well since they are on the same contracts as the regular teachers. The overall program has had little oversight or planning from the top, almost as if they wanted the program to fail. (see below:)
Policy cycles/incompetence:
A lot of the management at the education ministry is shuffled around so often they don't take ownership of the programs. If there is a good idea, it gets stomped on by the next set of management, who have to make changes just because, or because they want to be seen as effective before they move on to their next position, which hopefully will be principal or vice principal or higher up the admin ladder.
The previous management doesn't share any info with the new management, so you get repeating cycles of incompetence. Anyway you often get managers with little practical knowledge of education or curriculum management, and the few that are knowledgable seemingly do not get together to come up with a rational plan for English education, or if they have, it hasn't been implemented properly.
However, it's easiest to blame the lowest chain in the link: the NETs, who they can then blame as incompetent when they don't get the dream results they wanted. So suddenly you see news reports saying how expensive and ineffective they are to help justify the cuts, as well as all manner of smoke and mirrors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kwangjuchicken
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Location: I was abducted by aliens on my way to Korea and forced to be an EFL teacher on this crazy planet.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why don't they just net the sacks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
english puppet
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kwangjuchicken wrote: |
| Why don't they just net the sacks? |
I agree completely with the sentiment if not the word order 
I'm disappointed they haven't offered a bailout early deal. I'd be more than happy to split the difference on the remainder of the contract. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
b-class rambler
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's a serious misconception that a lot of people on this, and similar, forums appear to be under, that the SMOE NSET and other NET programs were initiated by the Lee Myung-Bak administration.
This is completely untrue. They may have been expanded (and some might argue in a way that was neither sustainable, sensible nor particularly well thought out) under LMB, but both the SMOE and EPIK programs were established and well up and running several years before his administration came to power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There's a serious misconception that a lot of people on this, and similar, forums appear to be under, that the SMOE NSET and other NET programs were initiated by the Lee Myung-Bak administration.
This is completely untrue. |
Exactly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
english puppet
Joined: 04 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| b-class rambler wrote: |
There's a serious misconception that a lot of people on this, and similar, forums appear to be under, that the SMOE NSET and other NET programs were initiated by the Lee Myung-Bak administration.
This is completely untrue. They may have been expanded (and some might argue in a way that was neither sustainable, sensible nor particularly well thought out) under LMB, but both the SMOE and EPIK programs were established and well up and running several years before his administration came to power. |
Just curious then, how far back does SMOE & EPIK go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
