|
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 |
shk77
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: questions about smoe transfers... |
 |
|
| Hi, everyone. I currently work at public elementary school since last year. In Aug, I'll be finishing my contract. I want to renew my contract with smoe but wanted to transfer to different school because I want to teach middle school students. So I requested a transfer but today I got a email from smoe saying that I will not be able to go to a different school because I am supposed to stay with the same school for at least 3 years before requesting a transfer. So my question is for those of you who wants to be transfered to different school, have you experienced the same thing? or is it just me? Please share your story so I can get some insight on this. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nomad-ish
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Location: On the bottom of the food chain
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bcjinseoul
Joined: 13 Jan 2010
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wasn't allowed to transfer either. So I didn't renew. In the meantime, I have not made the gangnam public school cut (despite my 4th year, 3rd time at a public school and 2nd time at a high school), and have also applied to tons of colleges in Seoul...all those jobs want MA's which I don't have, but I apply anyway...figure I got better odds than the lottery, and it doesn't cost me anything. Most likely I'll work at an after school progam or afternoon hogwon next, but I MIGHT consider GEPIK or a rural public school as a dead last resort....I'll see what I can get 2 months from now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
winterfall
Joined: 21 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomad-ish wrote: |
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
Can you define "ALOT"? At least half are gone after the 1st year and most are gone by the 2nd. Lifers usually don't stay in system, they head to universities or FLHS
If anything, this is probably SMOE's first move that had any foresight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eljuero
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:19 am Post subject: Hard to believe |
|
|
| winterfall wrote: |
| nomad-ish wrote: |
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
Can you define "ALOT"? At least half are gone after the 1st year and most are gone by the 2nd. Lifers usually don't stay in system, they head to universities or FLHS
If anything, this is probably SMOE's first move that had any foresight. |
While I've become somewhat more accustomed to the "logic" of working in Korea, this baffles me if the policy is in fact carried out this way.
Turnover is considered expensive in almost any business barring long term employees who are on Cadillac plans from the past.
How could it possibly make financial sense to lose any re-signable teachers with under 4-5 years of time working for SMOE? Especially over a relatively minor matter as a transfer?
The stats SMOE gave out at the last meeting was that 70 percent of people didn't go on from their first year including early dropouts (higher national rates for hogwons). I can't see how taking a shot at a pool of unknowns with a high probability of dropping is better than the pool that wants to resign after a good year or two but would like to transfer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xuanzang
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Sadang
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:33 am Post subject: Re: Hard to believe |
|
|
| eljuero wrote: |
| winterfall wrote: |
| nomad-ish wrote: |
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
Can you define "ALOT"? At least half are gone after the 1st year and most are gone by the 2nd. Lifers usually don't stay in system, they head to universities or FLHS
If anything, this is probably SMOE's first move that had any foresight. |
While I've become somewhat more accustomed to the "logic" of working in Korea, this baffles me if the policy is in fact carried out this way.
Turnover is considered expensive in almost any business barring long term employees who are on Cadillac plans from the past.
How could it possibly make financial sense to lose any re-signable teachers with under 4-5 years of time working for SMOE? Especially over a relatively minor matter as a transfer?
The stats SMOE gave out at the last meeting was that 70 percent of people didn't go on from their first year including early dropouts (higher national rates for hogwons). I can't see how taking a shot at a pool of unknowns with a high probability of dropping is better than the pool that wants to resign after a good year or two but would like to transfer? |
They just want warm bodies that cost less. They don't care about quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eljuero
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: Re: Hard to believe |
|
|
| Xuanzang wrote: |
| eljuero wrote: |
| winterfall wrote: |
| nomad-ish wrote: |
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
Can you define "ALOT"? At least half are gone after the 1st year and most are gone by the 2nd. Lifers usually don't stay in system, they head to universities or FLHS
If anything, this is probably SMOE's first move that had any foresight. |
While I've become somewhat more accustomed to the "logic" of working in Korea, this baffles me if the policy is in fact carried out this way.
Turnover is considered expensive in almost any business barring long term employees who are on Cadillac plans from the past.
How could it possibly make financial sense to lose any re-signable teachers with under 4-5 years of time working for SMOE? Especially over a relatively minor matter as a transfer?
The stats SMOE gave out at the last meeting was that 70 percent of people didn't go on from their first year including early dropouts (higher national rates for hogwons). I can't see how taking a shot at a pool of unknowns with a high probability of dropping is better than the pool that wants to resign after a good year or two but would like to transfer? |
They just want warm bodies that cost less. They don't care about quality. |
My point is that turnover isn't cheap or cheaper unless people get to the higher levels of the salary scale and paid benefits. There are a lot of costs that are incurred with new employees not all of whom would necessarily be paid less than say someone resigning for a second year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
southernman
Joined: 15 Jan 2010
Location: On the mainland again
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
How come SMOE, EPIK, GPEIK are different.
I'm at EPIK , I asked for a transfer last Monday and stated what I wanted.
I got a very polite ph call this afternoon (the following Monday) advising me of my new location but saying she was sorry that she couldn't guarantee that my extra classes would have gifted students, I had also requested extra classes to teach the more gifted English learners.
Maybe they should all just become one entity to make things more uniform across the country |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
winterfall
Joined: 21 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with eljuero, I worked in logistics before I came here. And turnover was really high on the loading and unloading side. I had new kids coming in everyday. When I charted the efficiency drop, I was amazed.
But SMOE's new policy is on par with how they treat all of their teachers. They have to rotate every 4-5 years and they don't choose what age group they teach. We at least have some kind of choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomad-ish
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Location: On the bottom of the food chain
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| winterfall wrote: |
| nomad-ish wrote: |
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
Can you define "ALOT"? At least half are gone after the 1st year and most are gone by the 2nd. Lifers usually don't stay in system, they head to universities or FLHS
If anything, this is probably SMOE's first move that had any foresight. |
obviously, i don't have a complete statistical profile to offer you. i have read somewhere (i think in an article posted on dave's), that teachers often decide to come back for a second year.
anyways, the point is: how does it make sense to have more turnover than absolutely necessary each year? they may save some money on salary increases, but in the end, paying recruiters and training the new teachers, as well as the fact that some teachers (new to korea) will leave before their contracts are finished, will cost them more. why would smoe choose to take this path when transferring those who want to be transferred is a relatively easy task?
how does smoe have foresight in this matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomad-ish
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Location: On the bottom of the food chain
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| winterfall wrote: |
I agree with eljuero, I worked in logistics before I came here. And turnover was really high on the loading and unloading side. I had new kids coming in everyday. When I charted the efficiency drop, I was amazed.
But SMOE's new policy is on par with how they treat all of their teachers. They have to rotate every 4-5 years and they don't choose what age group they teach. We at least have some kind of choice. |
very true, but we're not korean teachers as you should know by now. people often like to compare korean PS teachers and the NETs, but our jobs our very different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
winterfall
Joined: 21 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomad-ish wrote: |
| winterfall wrote: |
I agree with eljuero, I worked in logistics before I came here. And turnover was really high on the loading and unloading side. I had new kids coming in everyday. When I charted the efficiency drop, I was amazed.
But SMOE's new policy is on par with how they treat all of their teachers. They have to rotate every 4-5 years and they don't choose what age group they teach. We at least have some kind of choice. |
very true, but we're not korean teachers as you should know by now. people often like to compare korean PS teachers and the NETs, but our jobs our very different. |
Its very different in the expectations and how we're treated. But in a nutshell, we're doing their job. While they're bogged down with administrative paperwork, we teach more classes.
To get back to your other point. Your perfectly right, keeping experienced teachers is in everybody's interest. And I'm sure SMOE knows, you shouldn't be teaching EFL once in a week to classes bigger than 20 students and you shouldn't fire hose FTs either (1 to each school. Some school's have 3 but they're usually much bigger so it evens out anyway). But, with the budget and demands they've got. Putting 5 of us into each school isn't an option and keeping fewer experienced doesn't seem worth it in the grand scheme of things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloopity Bloop
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Location: Seoul yo
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow SMOE... what a horrible organization. Are transfers really that complicated? Good thing my co-teach has a great relationship with my district supervisor. Hopefully I'll get this transfer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kwokman
Joined: 09 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I got the same e-mail stating that I would have to stay at my school for at least a minimum of 3 years before I can ask for a transfer. Why not keep the teachers that are willing to resign happy? It has seriously made me reconsider even resigning with SMOE and working at a *gasp* hagwon or someplace else. Now the question that I'm wondering is how can I switch over to EPIK if I'm coming from SMOE. Based on southernman's post, it seems like they have a better idea of how to run things in EPIK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulio
Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomad-ish wrote: |
| winterfall wrote: |
| nomad-ish wrote: |
this is smoe's new standpoint on transfers. you can transfer every 4 years to a different school, unless there are special circumstances (and from what i've heard: very, very special circumstances).
it's a crap move by smoe though, i think they'll find they lose a lot of good teachers and have a ton of new teachers to recruit and train, while schools will need to go through the whole process of getting them adjusted and opening bank accounts, etc. in the end, no one really wins. does smoe lack foresight? |
Can you define "ALOT"? At least half are gone after the 1st year and most are gone by the 2nd. Lifers usually don't stay in system, they head to universities or FLHS
If anything, this is probably SMOE's first move that had any foresight. |
obviously, i don't have a complete statistical profile to offer you. i have read somewhere (i think in an article posted on dave's), that teachers often decide to come back for a second year.
anyways, the point is: how does it make sense to have more turnover than absolutely necessary each year? they may save some money on salary increases, but in the end, paying recruiters and training the new teachers, as well as the fact that some teachers (new to korea) will leave before their contracts are finished, will cost them more. why would smoe choose to take this path when transferring those who want to be transferred is a relatively easy task?
how does smoe have foresight in this matter? |
1) Its actually 3 years
2) how do you know in any way if the transferring process is any easier?
3) have you considered how this effects housing and other things?
4) Do you have any idea how many teachers want to transfer to other district, different schools, different areas?
5) what's the guarantee that a new teacher isn't going to runinto the same problems at the new school you did ( assuming this is the motivation for the move.)
6) MANY (not all, I am not painting all of us with the same brsh) want to move because we are too set in our ways to make our school situation work. Many of us think we are so hard done by we want to move to a new school where they treat us better, or we got stuck in a school that does 4 weeks of camps, so we want to see if we can get a school that does less.
YOu think its just that simple, oh you want to change, here you go, then at the last second minds get changed etc and now thay have no idea where to slot people.
I can't even count the number of peole at my orientation alone that didnt want to work at the schools because of the location.
BUt SMOE should just transfer you if you want to after a year?
They already have huge numbers of spots to fill from the teachers who leave, and you think that it's just a snap of the fingers to allow every other teacher not happy for whatever reason to just be allowed to transfer?
Wow, I think some of you may like to have that job for a little while then if "it's so easy" Go ahead, try to slot hundreds of people...... married couples, people who want certain locations, people who are new with an even mix of veterans etc, and figure out how easy it is.
I would think it's already quite detailed and hard given what I saw at orientation. Refusing every teacher who wanted to move ( often on a whim) seems like a sound policy to me. |
|
| 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
