| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Netz
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Location: a parallel universe where people and places seem to be the exact opposite of "normal"
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 4:52 pm Post subject: Change of E2 sponsorship qualifications? |
 |
|
I heard last week through a friend in the public school sector, that Korean immigration has recently implemented changes to E2 sponsorship eligibility.
The new policy is requiring the Korean sponsor (Hagwon owner) to actually own the land/building/property, as well as the hagwon, in order to sponsor E2s.
All existing E2s are supposedly grandfathered until renewal?
Can anyone verify this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like a great idea |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are all kinds of rumours floating around this industry of ours.
That said, I wouldn't put much stock into this unless I saw it in a newspaper somewhere complete with quotes and names of the officials proposing this change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
different
Joined: 22 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sounds like a great idea |
It sounds like a terrible idea.
A rich school doesn't equal a good school. Schools that have enough money to buy their buildings don't necessarily provide better education, or better working conditions.
Such a policy would put lots of hagwons out of business and reduce how many teachers can work in Korea.
Could some corporate hagwons have gotten together and bribed the government to do this?
I doubt it's true. It's too stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| different wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sounds like a great idea |
It sounds like a terrible idea.
A rich school doesn't equal a good school. Schools that have enough money to buy their buildings don't necessarily provide better education, or better working conditions.
Such a policy would put lots of hagwons out of business and reduce how many teachers can work in Korea.
Could some corporate hagwons have gotten together and bribed the government to do this?
I doubt it's true. It's too stupid. |
Yes, but a school that doesn't own their building has a much higher chance of being a fly by night operation
This makes sure they are committed and responsible for the long term |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kinerry wrote: |
| different wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sounds like a great idea |
It sounds like a terrible idea.
A rich school doesn't equal a good school. Schools that have enough money to buy their buildings don't necessarily provide better education, or better working conditions.
Such a policy would put lots of hagwons out of business and reduce how many teachers can work in Korea.
Could some corporate hagwons have gotten together and bribed the government to do this?
I doubt it's true. It's too stupid. |
Yes, but a school that doesn't own their building has a much higher chance of being a fly by night operation
This makes sure they are committed and responsible for the long term |
It's just a silly idea. Obviously not true.
Go into any large Korean city. Look at the high rise skyscrapers with multiple large tenants and enterprises, multiple hogwans, in each tower. Now, do you suppose that any of those buildings are owned by any of the hogwans that occupy a small portion of the space?
Most huge corporations lease premises. Building ownership and management is a far different affair from running a business or a school from inside the rented space. You might as well require the schools to act as their own architects, pour their own concrete, or generate their own electricity.
It is unlikely that even 1 out of 10 hogwans own their own building. Maybe fewer than 1 out of 50. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kinerry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| kinerry wrote: |
| different wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sounds like a great idea |
It sounds like a terrible idea.
A rich school doesn't equal a good school. Schools that have enough money to buy their buildings don't necessarily provide better education, or better working conditions.
Such a policy would put lots of hagwons out of business and reduce how many teachers can work in Korea.
Could some corporate hagwons have gotten together and bribed the government to do this?
I doubt it's true. It's too stupid. |
Yes, but a school that doesn't own their building has a much higher chance of being a fly by night operation
This makes sure they are committed and responsible for the long term |
It's just a silly idea. Obviously not true.
Go into any large Korean city. Look at the high rise skyscrapers with multiple large tenants and enterprises, multiple hogwans, in each tower. Now, do you suppose that any of those buildings are owned by any of the hogwans that occupy a small portion of the space?
Most huge corporations lease premises. Building ownership and management is a far different affair from running a business or a school from inside the rented space. You might as well require the schools to act as their own architects, pour their own concrete, or generate their own electricity.
It is unlikely that even 1 out of 10 hogwans own their own building. Maybe fewer than 1 out of 50. |
I had to laugh after reading that.
Only those with cash flow issues and loan covenants lease property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the Ed. ministry is starting to realise how out of control the situation really is. Like a can of worms with worms all over the floor and crawling around the walls - it really isn't contained. Look at all the fly by night camps for example.
I imagine the ministry does have its hands full dealing with all the Mom and Pop operators.
Though, I don't see how this could be that they must own the buildings, perhaps leasehold rights is what they mean? I think they are aiming for physical addresses of the registered operators, rather than as it is some imaginary 'company' operating out of an officetel can be a sponsor.
It would certainly shut down the very shady after school operators and and cut off the principals' graft in public schools. Though the latter probably isn't any intention.
Netz does have his ears in a few places so there will be something to what he says.
I think it is a great idea! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Mac
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Both of the hogwans I worked at owned their own buildings.
But I certainly see a lot of hogwans that are obviously in rented spaces. I would think there would be a serious backlash from the industry if this was ever put into place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And who will be moving into all the empty leased spaces? There could be backlash from that quarter too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Netz
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Location: a parallel universe where people and places seem to be the exact opposite of "normal"
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cheonmunka wrote: |
I think the Ed. ministry is starting to realise how out of control the situation really is. Like a can of worms with worms all over the floor and crawling around the walls - it really isn't contained. Look at all the fly by night camps for example.
I imagine the ministry does have its hands full dealing with all the Mom and Pop operators.
Though, I don't see how this could be that they must own the buildings, perhaps leasehold rights is what they mean? I think they are aiming for physical addresses of the registered operators, rather than as it is some imaginary 'company' operating out of an officetel can be a sponsor.
It would certainly shut down the very shady after school operators and and cut off the principals' graft in public schools. Though the latter probably isn't any intention.
Netz does have his ears in a few places so there will be something to what he says.
I think it is a great idea! |
Thanks Cheonmunka
As I stated, this was secondhand info, and I had to do a comprehension check myself after they told me. In fact, I still don't know how much water it holds, like so many things here, hence the post.
I assumed that a few of the F holding hagwon owners on this board might be able to shed some light on it, if not a "heads up".
I know there are some posters on this board that lack the experience in Korea to realize that just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it it won't happen. To the contrary, that's what made me give it any credence at all, is the fact it's so implausible, it's probably true. I asked them at least 5 times to clarify, and every time they said, "yes it's true".
Also, I've noticed in the last couple years that the Korean government seems hellbent on containing the ESL industry presently. After the horrible E2 changes, rewards for tips on illegal schools/tutors, recent crackdowns on camps/schools/tutors, not to mention the reactionary segment of the population that sees waygooks as a bad/evil influence on "pure Korean society". (i.e. Anti-English Spectrum)
I've also noticed that in the past 5 years or so, the Public/Government school system has streamlined it's screening/hiring process, as well as standardizing much of it's contract/pay/regulations. As a result, I think many people here now consider Government jobs to be the cream of the crop. They must be doing something right, and it goes along with the seeming Government "push" to eliminate the "privatized ESL industry", and consolidate it for their own reasons in the public education system.
Anyway, it's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that the K Govt is tired of all the lost revenue from illegal ESL activity. These changes seemed aimed at eliminating the worst of the ESLers (bad hagwons-agnecies/illegal teachers) from the overall equation. I'd dare venture a guess that the majority of the ESL problems in Korea come from these sources. Still, I can't blame them for taking the stance they have, and have always said that the only solution needed for the problems in the ESL industry, is for Korea to enforce it's own laws.
I guess we'll see.
I'm not trolling, it's not my style, but I would like to know if it's true, since I don't own a hagwon.......yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Netz
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Location: a parallel universe where people and places seem to be the exact opposite of "normal"
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any Hagwon owners been able to check this out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big_fella1
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 5:43 am Post subject: Re: Change of E2 sponsorship qualifications? |
|
|
| Netz wrote: |
I heard last week through a friend in the public school sector, that Korean immigration has recently implemented changes to E2 sponsorship eligibility.
The new policy is requiring the Korean sponsor (Hagwon owner) to actually own the land/building/property, as well as the hagwon, in order to sponsor E2s.
All existing E2s are supposedly grandfathered until renewal?
Can anyone verify this? |
Can I say that I would find this statistically unlikely. Many large Korean Hagwon chains such as YBM, Poly School, Pagoda, Chung Dahm, YES, Wall Street, and many others operate from leased buildings.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that even if you checked those chains that 'own' their building, it would be the wife of the chairman who owns the building not the company.
I believe when the government wants to stop Hagwons hiring it will be through a tax crackdown, not some E2 regulation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
