|
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 |
Stan Rogers
Joined: 20 Aug 2010
|
 Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Waygeek wrote: |
| South Korea is finally realizing that the East is growing at a faster rate than the West, and that they should have been sending their kids to Mandarin Chinese Hagwons these past few years, not English Hagwons. It sucks, especially considering I seem to have missed the boom, but ah well! |
They don't like the Chinese very much.
People also study English for reasons other than money.
Oh and business is worldwide, not Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| earthquakez wrote: |
I suspect most NETs in Korea won't feel too sympathetic for these Korean teachers and will understand the karmic b###chslap being delivered here.
Many of those same contract Korean teachers were also the ones who didn't give a tinker's about NETs being in positions that are insecure and stressful because of the possibility of not being renewed, being assessed by stupid or vindictive students or just subjected to the usual illogical decisions of Korean bureaucracy. They scapegoated the NETs or were happy to join in the usual scapegoating etc.
My message to those Korean teachers is - get used to it. Contract labour is a reality and you're going to have it more in Korea. Just like those despised foreign workers whether they're the 3D workers or the English teachers who are stereotyped as drug taking, HIV ridden perverts. Karma's a bish, aint it?  |
Dude, they've had nothing to do with the implementation of policies. You wouldn't protest for them and they shouldn't be expected to protest for you.
These contract teachers are not a monolithic group. Some were still in Uni when these new regulations came out.
| Quote: |
| Karma's a bish, aint it? |
There's no such thing as karma and even if there were, the karma of something applied to an entire group of Korean teachers makes as much sense as applying it to an entire group of NETs. "They" haven't done anything wrong just as "We" haven't done anything wrong either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewchon
Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Location: Back in Oz. Living in ISIS Aust.
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| They know they signed on as contract workers. What they are hoping for is: some backlash against civil service by the general populus who are, by the way, seriously unhappy with the civil service already. Call it jealousy if you like, but not ten years ago being a civil servant was a personal embarrassment. Nowadays, they are No.1 on the list of ajummas and ajosshis with daughters to marry-off (and sons vice-versa). Their voices won't be heard anyway. In this country money and only money talks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newb
Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Dude, they've had nothing to do with the implementation of policies. You wouldn't protest for them and they shouldn't be expected to protest for you.
These contract teachers are not a monolithic group. Some were still in Uni when these new regulations came out.
|
I have one that visits our school. She seem to enjoy gossiping and back stabbing NETs in our district. I won't lose my sleep over her if she's gone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
salutbonjour
Joined: 22 Jan 2013
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewchon wrote: |
| They know they signed on as contract workers. What they are hoping for is: some backlash against civil service by the general populus who are, by the way, seriously unhappy with the civil service already. Call it jealousy if you like, but not ten years ago being a civil servant was a personal embarrassment. Nowadays, they are No.1 on the list of ajummas and ajosshis with daughters to marry-off (and sons vice-versa). Their voices won't be heard anyway. In this country money and only money talks. |
Civil servants is good for girls, but guys can do better in South Korea. Banks or chaebols pay 50-100% more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dairyairy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Meanwhile, english budgets continue to shrink (science is the new flavor).
|
Funny, I had heard that gym class/fitness will soon become the next big priority because of rising obesity rates among young people in Korea. But maybe that person was just guessing. You never know. |
It's just too bad the clothes sold here weren't made to reflect that. Don't think Koreans have been really short and skinny for 15 or 20 years or so. Common sense never seems to be around when you need it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| earthquakez wrote: |
I suspect most NETs in Korea won't feel too sympathetic for these Korean teachers and will understand the karmic b###chslap being delivered here.
Many of those same contract Korean teachers were also the ones who didn't give a tinker's about NETs being in positions that are insecure and stressful because of the possibility of not being renewed, being assessed by stupid or vindictive students or just subjected to the usual illogical decisions of Korean bureaucracy. They scapegoated the NETs or were happy to join in the usual scapegoating etc.
My message to those Korean teachers is - get used to it. Contract labour is a reality and you're going to have it more in Korea. Just like those despised foreign workers whether they're the 3D workers or the English teachers who are stereotyped as drug taking, HIV ridden perverts. Karma's a bish, aint it? |
Well, conversation teachers never treated me this way. Though many in my area originally had 3 or 4 year contracts when hired. Nowadays, seems schools are trying to hire them for every semester, excluding when school is not in session during the winter and summer vacations. Not paying salary during this time and not having to pay severance. It's a total BS deal for them. Some ones from before are grandfathered in, but new ones have a bad deal. However, when the contract ends for the current batch, they may suffer a similiar fate. But, I do think they also had a union negiotiating for themselves originally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| salutbonjour wrote: |
| andrewchon wrote: |
| They know they signed on as contract workers. What they are hoping for is: some backlash against civil service by the general populus who are, by the way, seriously unhappy with the civil service already. Call it jealousy if you like, but not ten years ago being a civil servant was a personal embarrassment. Nowadays, they are No.1 on the list of ajummas and ajosshis with daughters to marry-off (and sons vice-versa). Their voices won't be heard anyway. In this country money and only money talks. |
Civil servants is good for girls, but guys can do better in South Korea. Banks or chaebols pay 50-100% more. |
Like I'm sure every guy here gets to work in these jobs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| salutbonjour wrote: |
| andrewchon wrote: |
| They know they signed on as contract workers. What they are hoping for is: some backlash against civil service by the general populus who are, by the way, seriously unhappy with the civil service already. Call it jealousy if you like, but not ten years ago being a civil servant was a personal embarrassment. Nowadays, they are No.1 on the list of ajummas and ajosshis with daughters to marry-off (and sons vice-versa). Their voices won't be heard anyway. In this country money and only money talks. |
Civil servants is good for girls, but guys can do better in South Korea. Banks or chaebols pay 50-100% more. |
And the guys have little life outside of work.
Money ain't everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Who's Your Daddy?
Joined: 30 May 2010
Location: Victoria, Canada.
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| schwa wrote: |
| maximmm wrote: |
...That was my introduction to the new generation of teachers in the elementary schools and let's just say, I wasn't impressed - at all.
By the way, I am talking about elementary school teachers - my high school co-teachers were all pretty legit. |
Fair point. Secondary school english teachers major in english, elementary school teachers do not. Many elementary school teachers are hopeless at english. But at the same time, many (but not all) elementary schools have special subject certified teachers dedicated to english as part of the regular curriculum. |
I don't think it is many. In my district the English teacher is just a rotation of regular elementary teachers just like the other subjects. The teacher is chosen by the principal from the teaching staff - in a small country school often none of the staff speak English well enough.
This always seemed odd to me. I've worked in schools where the best English speakers are teaching home rooms, and the English teacher is struggling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghostrider
Joined: 27 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
Basically its a giant pool of sharks competing for their slice of government money handouts. |
It's the same in public schools in the US. That's why Michelle Rhee met so much opposition when she laid off hundreds of ineffective teachers and increased the salaries of good teachers in DC. Teacher unions throw a lot of money at political candidates who will put the interests of teachers ahead of students. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dairyairy
Joined: 17 May 2012
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/05/116_136120.html
| Quote: |
Temp teachers demand job security Promotion to permanent status opposed by regular teachers
By Nam Hyun-woo
Thousands of contract English instructors at primary and secondary schools are calling for the government to guarantee their job security. However, they are facing strong opposition not only from the government but also from regular teachers.
Non-permanent lecturers teaching English conversation submitted a petition on May 16 to the National Human Rights Commission to prevent the scheduled lay-offs of some 600 such instructors.
The government launched the English conversation instructor program in 2009, hiring a total of 6,104 contract teachers up until last year. According to the tenets of the Enforcement Decree of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, however, they cannot work for longer than four years.
The 600 teachers, representing the first batch of teachers recruited in 2009, will complete their contracts in August without the possibility of renewal. The remaining 5,900 will also be sacked after their contracts expire.
In the initial stage of the system, instructors with quality English language skills applied for the program. But in 2011, the government changed the recruitment system to allow individual schools the autonomy to recruit their own teachers based on their criteria. That system triggered concern about a decline in tuition quality alongside complaints of unfair treatment from the temporary teachers.
�The government should be in charge of recruiting and managing the instructors. That would solve the problems of unfair treatment and discrimination we face,� said Ko Sun-kyung, who leads the Korean Association of Primary and Secondary English Conversation Teachers (KAPSET).
Last year, the education ministry proposed a revision of the law to extend their term to eight years but it failed because of opposition from the Ministry of Government Legislation.
�The education ministry pledged our stable employment and the improvement of working conditions. But it is ignoring its own promise,� another official at KAPSET said during a press conference in front of the association�s building in Seoul.
KAPSET plans to stage a massive protest in front of the National Assembly on June 1, calling for the abolishment of the act and their promotion to permanent positions.
However, the education ministry said it will not propose any further revision to the current law.
�The ministry will fully support instructors whose contracts expired to move to other schools. But another round of revision proposal is not planned,� said an official at the ministry.
Regular teachers unhappy
Regular teachers are also dissatisfied with the influx of new English teachers.
The Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union (KTU) opposes the lecturers� demands, claiming the education ministry unfairly favors English conversation teachers.
�Other irregular instructors, such as sports instructors and foreign English lecturers, take roles as assistant teachers who cannot grade students. But the English conversation teachers, only 73.4 percent of them having teaching certificates, can grade students. It is preferential treatment,� said an official at KTU.
According to data released by the union in October 2012, a regular English teacher with three years experience received 2.23 million won ($1,978) monthly, but the monthly paycheck of an English conversation teacher who worked the same period, was 2.55 million won. The workload of a general teacher, ranging from taking care of students to paper work, was more than that of an English conversation teacher who only takes charge of English classes.
The KTU official said English conversation teachers have already enjoyed privileges by making inroads into limited English teacher positions originally allocated for graduates from teachers� colleges.
Another umbrella educators� federation, the Korean Federation of Teachers� Associations (KFTA), echoed KTU�s view.
�The English conversation teacher system could be a temporary resolution for a lack of English teachers coming from the increase of English classes in schools. Before promoting them to permanent status, thorough class inspections and surveys of public opinions should come first,� an official at KFTA said.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goreality
Joined: 09 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can't stand the lack of details transparency when regular employees compare their pay to regular teachers.
A regular worker gets different bonuses and their pay-scale is based on decades, rather than years. They don't have the annoyances and pressures associated with renewal. They also have a lot more difficult to calculate benefits. Besides same amount of experience can be a misleading term. Didn't work in Korean public schools for same amount of time, but experience in education could be a lot longer. Don't have the same academic background, but could have a lot more training specific to English education.
Ok more paper work, everyone complains most of it is useless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tob55
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The fact that these people are contract employees says alot. They are likely NOT regular teachers who have passed the national exam for educators in South Korea. This is why they must work as contract employees. There is already a large supply of nationally certified educators working in the public school right now, so the MOE is simply reducing the excess from their budgets and these people are the first ones to go. It is nothing different than school saying we want to replace the NETs with our own educators in an effort to tighten our financial belts. It is not pretty, but it is the same thing that hit the U.S. and other countries about 10 years ago, right before I came here as an educator out of work in the States. Hard times a comin to Korea for those people who are in education, especially at the lower grade levels IMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nationally certified or not, it seems like a dangerous precedent to be hiring teachers and firing them three years later so you don't have to offer them permanent status. Turning over contract workers to replace them with more contract workers in the same position means it is not a temporary position. The court should force the MOEs hands and say you either need these workers (regardless of their qualifications) and offer the employees in them full-time status or you don't and eliminate the positions. The KTU should be supporting these "temporary" workers. |
|
| 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
