|
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 |
matthews_world
Joined: 15 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:03 pm Post subject: Once and for all, define "Qualified native-English teac |
 |
|
There's certainly a double standard in Korea when it comes to the definition of a qualified native-English teacher
I see this term misused so often in the press and it makes me think am I wasting my time here with my lowly BA and TESL certificate. However, I'm a happy, yet lucky, Level 1 EPIK teacher so go figure.
In fact, the minimum that it takes to become employed in Korea is a 4-year degree.
When in fact B.Ed or those with master's degrees are more sought after, the goverment has yet set in motion any initiative to raise the bar in terms of minimum hiring standards.
There seems to be a lot of disparity in the true definition of a qualified native-English teacher. It's time to nip this in the bud. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oldfatfarang
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: On the road to somewhere.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shouldn't you be addressing this with the Korean Ministry of Education?
Nothing anybody says on daves esl cafe is going to change the Koreans' expectations/definition of a 'qualified' NET.
Good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
winterfall
Joined: 21 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One day they're push the bar up. A BA in education doesn't mean much. This is EFL. Here Linguistics means a lot more than education. If this was ESL maybe it'd have more weight. But its not.
Besides I don't think having a teaching degree makes much of a difference. I've met crap teachers with 5+ yrs of experience and a phd. And all they do is complain about Koreans standards and go on about rubrics. They might be "book smart". But they've got no idea what the hell they're doing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RMNC
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agreed. You have to be a "ground level" teacher before you can teach in another country. I think people should have some experience teaching at home before they come to Korea. I'll even admit to being crap for a bit when I first started, but if people were required to have experience, at least it wouldn't result in so many "Oh man, Korean people are so dumb blahblahblah" lines that a lot of frat boys seem to spew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Louis VI
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Location: In my Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any one of these makes one a qualified English Language Teacher according to international standards:
A CELTA or equivalent
An MA in TESOL or equivalent
A DELTA diploma or equivalent
a Bachelor's Degree in Education with ESL concentration
Anything else isn't directly relevant, isn't really a qualification, but is 'good enough' to be recognized locally. In some countries that means any Education degree major (any teacher), in other countries like South Korea it means any undergraduate degree (any educated English language user). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you're talking about teaching in Korean public schools, the only qualification that completely matched the requirements of the job, in my opinion, would be a course of input sessions and practical teaching observations specifically in the area of TEFL for Young learners in a large Korean class room environment. The closest I've heard to this is the ICELT - In Service Certificate in English Language Teaching, which Korean teachers can do while they're teaching. Even this has its drawback, however, as the tutors generally don't come from a Korean public school background. However the practical element takes place in the schools with the materials and students they have to use on a daily basis. I've never heard of a GET or NET doing the ICELT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juregen
Joined: 30 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RMNC wrote: |
| Agreed. You have to be a "ground level" teacher before you can teach in another country. I think people should have some experience teaching at home before they come to Korea. I'll even admit to being crap for a bit when I first started, but if people were required to have experience, at least it wouldn't result in so many "Oh man, Korean people are so dumb blahblahblah" lines that a lot of frat boys seem to spew. |
Under those reqs, the supply would dwindle immediately and wages will shoot up exorbitantly.
Not a good idea if you want to teach your entire population a second language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Juregen wrote: |
| RMNC wrote: |
| Agreed. You have to be a "ground level" teacher before you can teach in another country. I think people should have some experience teaching at home before they come to Korea. I'll even admit to being crap for a bit when I first started, but if people were required to have experience, at least it wouldn't result in so many "Oh man, Korean people are so dumb blahblahblah" lines that a lot of frat boys seem to spew. |
Under those reqs, the supply would dwindle immediately and wages will shoot up exorbitantly.
Not a good idea if you want to teach your entire population a second language. |
Not to mention the fact that the suggested requirement is fairly arbitrary.
Any organization that genuinely wishes to have good teachers would be best served not by demanding high levels of qualification, but by requesting reasonably low levels of qualification and then training their hired teachers with a focus on their duties.
This drive to push ever more of the training burden onto the pocketbooks and initiative of the worker instead of the employer is part of what's responsible for the problems we're experiencing right now in the West. The idea that shelling out tens of thousands of dollars and spending years of your time in hopes of getting a decent job is reasonable is simply crazy. None the less, the public has fallen for it, and the results are unsurprising.
Pushing the requirement of training back on employers would create an incentive for employers to retain workers and treat them well, as losing that worker amounts to losing an investment. Pushing it on the employee creates a system of disposable workers who will compete for ever-lowering wages with ever-rising qualification requirements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MalFSU1
Joined: 27 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| RMNC wrote: |
| Agreed. You have to be a "ground level" teacher before you can teach in another country. I think people should have some experience teaching at home before they come to Korea. I'll even admit to being crap for a bit when I first started, but if people were required to have experience, at least it wouldn't result in so many "Oh man, Korean people are so dumb blahblahblah" lines that a lot of frat boys seem to spew. |
Under those reqs, the supply would dwindle immediately and wages will shoot up exorbitantly.
Not a good idea if you want to teach your entire population a second language. |
Not to mention the fact that the suggested requirement is fairly arbitrary.
Any organization that genuinely wishes to have good teachers would be best served not by demanding high levels of qualification, but by requesting reasonably low levels of qualification and then training their hired teachers with a focus on their duties.
This drive to push ever more of the training burden onto the pocketbooks and initiative of the worker instead of the employer is part of what's responsible for the problems we're experiencing right now in the West. The idea that shelling out tens of thousands of dollars and spending years of your time in hopes of getting a decent job is reasonable is simply crazy. None the less, the public has fallen for it, and the results are unsurprising.
Pushing the requirement of training back on employers would create an incentive for employers to retain workers and treat them well, as losing that worker amounts to losing an investment. Pushing it on the employee creates a system of disposable workers who will compete for ever-lowering wages with ever-rising qualification requirements. |
I couldn't agree with you any more! Competition is super high ....yet what are we really all competing for?! In the end we are all dispensable these days due to the lack of investment by companies in their workforce. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
winterfall
Joined: 21 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Juregen wrote: |
| RMNC wrote: |
| Agreed. You have to be a "ground level" teacher before you can teach in another country. I think people should have some experience teaching at home before they come to Korea. I'll even admit to being crap for a bit when I first started, but if people were required to have experience, at least it wouldn't result in so many "Oh man, Korean people are so dumb blahblahblah" lines that a lot of frat boys seem to spew. |
Under those reqs, the supply would dwindle immediately and wages will shoot up exorbitantly.
Not a good idea if you want to teach your entire population a second language. |
Not to mention the fact that the suggested requirement is fairly arbitrary.
Any organization that genuinely wishes to have good teachers would be best served not by demanding high levels of qualification, but by requesting reasonably low levels of qualification and then training their hired teachers with a focus on their duties.
This drive to push ever more of the training burden onto the pocketbooks and initiative of the worker instead of the employer is part of what's responsible for the problems we're experiencing right now in the West. The idea that shelling out tens of thousands of dollars and spending years of your time in hopes of getting a decent job is reasonable is simply crazy. None the less, the public has fallen for it, and the results are unsurprising.
Pushing the requirement of training back on employers would create an incentive for employers to retain workers and treat them well, as losing that worker amounts to losing an investment. Pushing it on the employee creates a system of disposable workers who will compete for ever-lowering wages with ever-rising qualification requirements. |
But to play the devil's advocate. You need the teacher to stay at least 5 years to get a return on your investment. And this generation in particular, post baby boomers aren't known for their loyalty. On top of that, unless you can guarantee they're stay. Exhaustive, even rudimentary training with classroom observations and feedback is expensive. Your talking about adding a whole new layer to the bureaucracy
Even companies back home put time requirements. A buddy of mine works at Merllil Lynch, they offer to pay for the Masters. But you need at least 4-5 years with company, good performance and then they're pay for your masters. But your expected to stay another 6 yrs. If you leave sometime during the 6 yr post-degree you've got to pay whatever difference is left and/or pay the whole bill.
If I remember right, even West Point has a penalty system. You get a paycheck for going there and no tuition. But if you transfer in your 3rd or 4th year, you've got to pay for all of your time there at a private school rate. A friend, of a friend went and burned out. Transferred when he was a junior to an ivy league with a full scholarship. Got stuck with a $50,000 + bill. If I remember right, though they did have a policy that lets you leave in your 2nd year, no strings attached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Fox is got the right idea here!
There is a minimum qualification (for the E-2 visa) and then the rest is what the market will bear.
How much money are you willing to spend to get an ESL job in Korea? Some people are willing to shell out thousands of dollars on credentials in their quest to get "the best" jobs in Korea.
As for the question of what makes one "qualified" to teach English in Korea other than meet the minimal requirements of the visa, I personally think the only thing can really answer that is to administer an exam in Korea which includes a teaching demonstration. Before that I don't think any other so called qualification means anything other than what individual schools put into them.
As for whether Korea should actually do this, well, it depends on how it is implemented, but basically, no, I don't think it is necessary. The system works just fine as it is. The best thing to do is to do is let each school provide orientation/training sessions as they see fit, especially hakwons. Public schools are already providing some kind of orientation and regardless of the quality that is all that is necessary. For university and other positions, I don't think any training is necessary, though it certainly can be done, because you should be able to do the job before you are hired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Not to mention the fact that the suggested requirement is fairly arbitrary.
Any organization that genuinely wishes to have good teachers would be best served not by demanding high levels of qualification, but by requesting reasonably low levels of qualification and then training their hired teachers with a focus on their duties.
. |
True for most places but this wouldn't work in Korea (at least as far as foreign teachers go). The biggest problem is that with the organizations in Korea (EPIK, GEPIK, SMOE) that the E-2 visa (which is the visa for most teachers) limits the employee to one year. I can't see too many employers developing an extensive and expensive training program for someone who may only stay one year (or even do a runner) only after a few months. The return on investment just wouldn't be worth it. Even if most completed the full year you'd be constantly training new teachers each and every year. Most foreign teachers don't end up staying here long-term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Not to mention the fact that the suggested requirement is fairly arbitrary.
Any organization that genuinely wishes to have good teachers would be best served not by demanding high levels of qualification, but by requesting reasonably low levels of qualification and then training their hired teachers with a focus on their duties.
. |
True for most places but this wouldn't work in Korea (at least as far as foreign teachers go). The biggest problem is that with the organizations in Korea (EPIK, GEPIK, SMOE) that the E-2 visa (which is the visa for most teachers) limits the employee to one year. |
The E-2 visa, as far as I'm aware, allows for unlimited renewals so long as you remain employed. You are correct, though, that Korea would have a hard time retaining employees for a long period. Fortunately, though, I think that's reconcilable with the fact that the kind of training required for an ESL teacher of the variety they want isn't particularly time consuming or expensive. An investment of two or three weeks of moderately intensive training in new NETs would pay dividends, I think, and a portion of the time required would overlap with the currently useless orientations anyway. A CELTA only takes a month if memory serves, and such training certainly needn't be as intensive as CELTA training. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| winterfall wrote: |
| But to play the devil's advocate. You need the teacher to stay at least 5 years to get a return on your investment. And this generation in particular, post baby boomers aren't known for their loyalty. On top of that, unless you can guarantee they're stay. |
I'm fairly realistic about this I think. Intensive, year-by-year training should be reserved for companies which can reasonably expect employees to remain on for years. Inherently transient positions (like ESL teachers in Korea) only warrant a small training investment, but fortunately, they only need a small training investment.
A solid two or three week "orientation" that focused on methodology instead of Korean culture and "Hey, you can use power point and candy," isn't an unreasonable investment for a year or two of service in my eyes, and it would result in teachers that were sure to enter the classroom knowing what was expected of them and able to provide that, and the training time would be drawn from time where the teacher was probably not teaching much (if at all) anyway. The runner rate for foreigners in public schools is only like 5%, so I don't think the risk of a runner is that big of a deal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
randall020105
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Location: the land of morning confusion...
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:43 am Post subject: still... |
|
|
and still no one has answered the actual question...
keeping focused would probably be one of the many definitions...
and then others may argue: 'why define something which doesn't need defining?' what good's that gonna do other than give the one asking a sense of purpose. few places in K-land(from what i've seen thus far) care whether you're good or not... the only yardstick in their minds would be that you 1.show up at work and 2.do what you're told.
between those 2 points there's room for you to add your signature which separates you from others... inevitably defining who you are.
answer the question 2 y'rself OP... thats all that matters! |
|
| 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
