Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jrwhite82]

The ESL teachers here fall on a broad spectrum of experience, knowledge and interest in their job. Some are here for a one and done year. Get in, make their money, skate by and get out. Others don't even last that long. Then you get some that like it well enough, but not enough to take it seriously. Then you get others that do take it seriously, practice and listen to feed back. Then you have others that go out and actively improve themselves by going back to school or getting a certification etc.

So the ones at the far end of the spectrum, that don't care, aren't interested in even learning about teaching....well that is kind of a joke. And the problem is hiring them to begin with. They are specifically asking for this kind of applicant. And now, it sounds like they don't even want anything more than that. Then coteachers, VP's, newspapers, parents, politicians, etc, complain about the poor quality of NETs. Well duh...because you are specifically hiring individuals who have no qualification to step foot into a classroom as a teacher. Some gorillas can communicate in sign language....does that mean they are qualified to teach sign language?! Just because you speak English doens't mean you are qualified to teach it. If all they want is us to speak to the kids and play games etc...well that's fine. But don't complain about us as educators then, because you didn't hire an educator. You hired someone to talk and play a game.

The answer is simple. If they want NETs to come and actually do a good job teaching, they need to hire people who have studied and learned how to teach. How can you ensure that someone has backgroudn knowledge about how to design effective lessons, manage a classroom and ensure student success? Hire someone with a background in education.

[silkhighway]

jrwhite82, I see what you're saying. But it wasn't that long ago that high school teachers didn't have anythign more than high school diploma themselves. There's no doubt high school teachers are better trained today than 40 years ago and provide better education, but I still think high school teachers 40 years ago would have been sincere enough to do the job, and at the time, there weren't enough college graduates willing to teach high school that setting a degree as the standard would have been feasible.

I have had a lot of different job experiences, and I don't mean to brag, but I know what the working world is like. People are asked to do things they're not necessarily "qualified" to do all the time. For example, programmers and engineers often have to use software tools and practices they're not used to using. You could say that that their backgrounds in engineering prepare them for that, but it's really not as cut and dried as that, and the learning curve can be much steeper than learning to teach EFL with a co-teacher to hold your hand during that time.

Basically, I think people advocating stricter qualifications are looking at the general complacency and unprofessionalism of the ESL scene in Korea and seeing the lack of specific qualfications as the cause of that. I see it the opposite way, where the lack of teachers being interested in professional development and obtaining higher qualifications is a product, not the cause, of an unprofessional scene. Or perhaps more accurately, it's the product of a system they do not have a stake in.

[silkhighway]

[ThingsComeAround]

[jrwhite82]

So you feel that our hosts don't expect much from us, so they are basically getting what they ask for. Even in this case, if it is going to improve, they need to raise the standards. Expect more from us.

I look at a program like Teach for America for example. This program is a proven success. It takes people without degrees in education and places them into the classroom. Sounds similar to Korea. Now why does this work so well in the US? Well for starters, these teachers are given clear goals and their results are tracked. Secondly, they receive a rigorours amount of training and professional development so they will be qualified and able to meet those goals. All resulting in them obtaining their certification.

You need both higher standards and goals and then we need to be given the training to get them. So raise the standards, give us clearer objectives and then we need to learn and train to obtain them.

[edwardcatflap]

[tiger fancini]

If you look at the jobs in the Middle East, where salaries are very healthy, you'll find that most of the jobs require an MA, CELTA, and/or at least 2 years of teaching experience. I have no idea of the calibre of teachers over there, nor the general situation in EFL/ESL there, but I'd make a guess and say that they probably don't have as many problems with native English teachers as Korea does.

Things also need to change in the general treatment of native teachers too. Somebody mentioned a lack of meetings, guidance, supervision, constructive criticism, observation etc. I've noticed this in all of the jobs I've had here in Korea, and frankly it is beyond ridiculous. A previous boss of mine used to constantly complain about one of my co-workers, saying that the students didn't like her and that her classes weren't interesting. He even said he was considering getting rid of her. When I asked the boss if he had told my co-worker any of this, he just smiled nervously and said, "Well, not yet."

I still think the TEFL/TESL certification requirement would be a good change for the short term for potential teachers. At the very least, people would have some idea of what they were letting themselves into and learn a few tricks of the trade to get started. There also has to be a change in how native teachers are used. The employers need to make clear guidelines on what the role of the native teacher is, and how they will be implemented. They also need to know how to handle native teachers. Telling them to merely, "Teach English conversation" is NOT enough.

[young_clinton]

[silkhighway]

[conrad2]

[some waygug-in]

Part of the problem in the PS system is that the Korean staff don't want foreign teachers, they don't believe foreign teachers can teach because they can't see how someone who doesn't speak Korean could control the classes, (no matter what qualifications) and they just don't want the hassle of dealing with a NET.

This is reflected on up the chain of command many times through the principal, the education office, etc.

(not always, but many times)

They would rather hire someone with no experience and training because:

A) they feel an untrained newbie is easier to control

B) they are cheaper and this may be the biggest reason

C) they don't want someone who is going to point out all the failings of their system and especially them as educators. (in short, they are intimidated by a well trained NET)

D) another reason may be that they don't want foreigners taking their jobs, they sure don't want someone hanging around for years and perhaps depriving some KT of a job.

It really doesn't matter what new regulations the gov't comes up with, until they can address the attitudes of the Korean teachers and the KTU, not much will change.

So to answer the OP's question "how to defend Korea against bad teachers" (a strange notion to begin with)

The biggest answer is - Stop hiring untrained and unqualified newbies.

The next thing is - they have to be willing to pay more for people who do have the training.

The third thing is - they have to be willing to allow those who do have such training the freedom to teach as they see fit and not be relegated to the role of a tape recorder or a dancing monkey.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[tanklor1]

Don a cape and take it to the streets!

[some waygug-in]

This

http://www.classicgamesarcade.com/game/21638/defender.html

[sirius black]

Some of the posts touched on valid points. I'd also like to add that if Korea wanted to really improve their public school system with good/quality teachers it would cost a helluva lot of money.
EPIK/GEPIK/SMOE recruiters advertise the job saying no experience, how much less work time you have than we have traditionally in the west (30 hrs max v. a standad 40hr workweek in Ameica at least), etc. The recruitment isn't designed to get good teachers. Anyone with two brain cells knows you're not going to get quality yet they want their cake and eat it too.
If they want proven quality they gotta pay a helluva lot more money for one and second do a better job of helping teachers aclimate. The EPIK/GEPIK orientation is a good start but the individual schools themselves once you're there needs to do a better job as well. Simple things like going to the store, post office, etc, can be a nightmare to a new teacher when you don't know the language. Even to a seasoned traveler. Also some of the nonsensical things they do. From deskwarming to jeaous, dysfunctional, tryannical co teachers, vice principals, etc.
The fact is the Koreans themselves aren't doing enough and aren't spending enough to get quality. Stop blaming the foreigners. You get what you pay for. If I had a company back in America and advertised the same way (no experience required, work less than a 40 hr workweek, etc), should I expect to get good, dedicated workers? Of course not.