Korean Job Discussion Forums

[garykasparov]

Stricter screening system




We strongly support the regulation of foreign langauge teachers.
Prospective teachers should be screened better.

Too many bad teaching experiences are happening. Something must be done. Our organization, Teachers of English Abroad in Korea stresses the responsibility of employers and recruiters.

Native English speakers are in such high demand and the business of teaching English so lucrative that many foreign teachers of English are recruited without requiring and checking references, aptitude and experience for teaching English and working with children abroad, qualifications as language instructors, etc. Too often, an accent or physical appearance takes priority over interest and skills.

Agencies, governments and job candidates should ask, what are the employers' interests, knowledge and standards of education and instructions? What is their track record with respect to hirees?

Many private academies merely seek cheap labor. Standard contracts require a heavy workload of 30 teaching hours a week and demand additional work time on preparation and administration for a salary of 2 million won.

In short, private schools get what they pay for. Quality education is generally not what they seek. They want the benefits of having a foreign teacher on staff.

Some of the changes to immigration rules do not address the real issues. Police checks are justifiable -- but at whose expense? What process exists for police checks? Physical check-ups and interviews would only make it extremely difficult for English teachers to come to Korea.

We point out that schools sometimes seem not to want their foreign employees to be on contract for more than a few months. This way, they can avoid paying the return airfare, one month's severance pay, and bonuses that should be paid at the end of a full term contract by unloading contractees prematurely. Thus, employers are often at fault for causing teachers to switch job frequently and reapply for teaching visas.

The message from immigration's changes: foreigners are not wanted. Is that what the Korean authorities wish to communicate to the international arena?

We ask, is the government changing its attitude regarding native speakers of English in Korea?

Finally, our organization, TEA-KOR points out that the situation of the foreign pedophile may well be an isolated case out of the thousands of foreigners who are and have been teaching or whom have taught in Korea over the past 10 years. That case should not be a point of reference for lawmakers here. Highlighting this case and basing policy and regulations on it frames the central concern around foreign teachers as a national security issue.

There is no need for such fear. We stress that such a person arrived to a school in Korea probably because the school and the education system in Korea failed to demand high enough teaching and employment standards.


Teachers of English Abroad in Korea (TEA-KOR)




2007.12.26

[aarontendo]

What is TEA-KOR? Any relation to TEA-BAG?

[ontheway]

It should be pointed out that there is already a scarcity of English teachers from the official 7 countries. The new regulations, by making it much more difficult and onerous to teach in Korea, will drive many new and current teachers away from Korea. Some will stay home or return home earlier than planned. Some will go to other countries.

This will engender greater desperation among employers due to a reduced supply of teachers. Since school prices are regulated, increasing pay to teachers is not possible beyond a small percentage. This will not alleviate the problem.

The final result will be that the quality of teachers available and working in Korea will be significantly LOWER as a result of the new regulations. Every teacher no matter how unqualified, unskilled, or unsatisfactory on the job will be able to find a job. Schools begging for any BODY will take any body.

This means that all potential problem teachers, whether potential pedophiles like the one who started this whole foolish ill-conceived regulatory fiasco, or any other previously unconvicted potential criminal will be able to meet the requirements that harassed, innocent individuals will prefer to avoid.

Korea has set up a system that will welcome the least desirable.

If we want quality teachers in Korea, we need to make it EASIER for teachers to come to Korea, to own their own visas, to change jobs when the jobs are bad.

Korea should focus on punishing criminals who are indeed criminals, after they have done some criminal act. Trying to regulate everyone, in advance, is doomed to failure and will fail. Like all government regulation, Korea's new rules will have the opposite effect to that the government claims to seek.

Of course, politicians know these policies won't work. The real intent is to show that they are "doing something about the problem," even if what they are doing will make the problem worse. And, after all, making things worse just gives politicians more problems to solve.

Korea's new rules will lower the quality of teachers in Korea, put the children at greater risk, and lower the overall English level of those generations forced to learn under the new system.

[marlow]

[Juregen]

[mindmetoo]

[Flummoxed Lummox]

[ontheway]

It will lower quality because every bad teacher will have a job.

Good teachers who hate all the paperwork, time and expense will be able to go elsewhere. For the losers of the world, they will always be able to find a job in Korea. Just jump through all the hoops and the job is yours.

Some schools actually try to find good teachers and fire bad ones. They attempt to make sure the bad ones leave Korea. I've seen this happen on several occasions.

Under the new system, no teacher will be turned away. No matter how terrible, they will all have a job. Quality will, therefore, decline.

Good schools may be forced to choose between hiring the bad teachers or closing their doors. Bad schools with bad teachers will keep going.

[pharflung]

On the whole, ontheway makes some good points.

But I think we would all agree that some improvement from the old system was needed. The problem is these new rules do little or nothing to achieve that objective.

Ultimately, isn't the responsibility for hiring good teachers up to the school and the students' parents? The parents should visit the hagwon and meet the teacher. If they are not comfortable with the teacher and the quality of the teaching, they should not send their children there.

What could be simpler?

So far, when I talk with my public school officials, no one knows about the new rules. The teachers I talk to each give me a different version of what they think the new rules are. Some say the new rules do not apply to public school teachers renewing their contract.

If I don't get some straight, consistent answers from government officials, I am going to be lost.

If others are in the same situation, Korea is going to lose hundreds or thousands of good, experienced teachers.

[PRagic]

And what about the term limits being imposed by schools and universities? So what is the message the government is sending? We want only decent, qualified teachers, and we want prospective teachers to handle the burden of proving their status, but it'll still be ok to legally fire them after 3-4 years so that educational institutions won't have to pay a fair remuneration and make equitable retirement contributions?

It just doesn't add up.

[Young FRANKenstein]

[PRagic]

Many do, and many are starting to implement them. The point is that if they are allowed to do this, whether or not they choose to, it goes against the spirit of the new proceedures.

In general, my point is that if Korean educational institutions want to recruit quality teachers, they should be prepared to allow them to work indefinitely under sponsorship.

Akin to this is the binding of teachers to individual institutes or schools. Why make is so much more difficult for decent, qualified people to get jobs, but then 1) not police the institutes and schools, and 2) force teachers to work only for one institution?

I'll admit that my viewpoint is westerncentric. The workings of Korea's bureacracy are culturally embedded. Still, given that the focus of the new proceedures is on western teachers, it would behoove the Korean government to at least voice their rationale in an understandable manner.

[Ilsanman]

Please....we don't want to know what you do on a Friday night.

[bacasper]

[PRagic]

I agree. The problem is that most of the visas are being generated by people who are not teachers, per say, but are working as teachers.

It would be more correct to say, "I fully agree that making it easier for [b][i]people to come here to teach [/i][/b]will improve the quality of education here as well as the plight of [i][b]people teaching here[/b][/i]

There is a big difference. Korea puts its intentions into words long before it synthesizes a plan for action. Now they want more teachers, but they are making it more difficult for anyone to come here to teach.

Here, it's all about quantity over quality, and that's what they've been getting.