Korea Times: Importing Teachers Waste of Money

[CDW]

"Korea needs to realize that the need for Western teachers is small as their own people can do the job. Importing teachers is a waste of a lot of money as 'accent' is a non-issue. It has not hurt the African, the Southeast Asian or Indian English speaker, thus it will not hurt the Korean English speaker.

"It is best for Korea to start supporting its own people and instilling in them the confidence they need to carry the teaching load and show that their students that their teachers are qualified and are setting the example."
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2011/12/137_100248.html

[Jeff619]

Before reading this I'm gonna guess this was written by Dave Theissen.

[Jeff619]

Heh. Not surprised.

[hilarity ensues]

Maybe if we all e-mail the Korean Times at once, they'll stop publishing his articles.

[notinKS]

Maybe he needs to read this article before he says Korea doesn't need foreign teachers:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/12/182_100297.html

[toddc06]

cdw -  the last time a Dave Theissen article popped up on here, you were the one who started the thread about it.  Hahaha, I don't think it's really worth sharing.

p.s. Are you Dave Theissen?   

[confusedsafferinkorea]

All of us must bombard the KT with replies discrediting this idiot, I have replied there, do the same, perhaps they will get the message that no-one takes him seriously and stop publishing his drivel.

[southcareer]

I hate to say it, because I absolutely love my job, but what this guy is saying basically congruates with current theory in World Englishes language ownership and new paradigms about 'standard' English.  Jennifer Jenkins' research in phonology in lingua franca English usage (amongst a whole heap of other contemporary research) shows that the 'native teacher' concept in frankly a load of old rubbish.  Granted, ROK is not ready for the transition as yet.  And I agree this author is a fool, an unmitigated oaf.

[flasyb]

A lot of hate for old Dave here but I think he has a point. The government spends huge amounts of money on us and for all the time we've been here, we haven't made that much difference. Certainly, what the Korean school system needs (in terms of learning English) is not expensive under-qualified teachers flown in from foreign countries but a total reform of its examination system (at least when it comes to English).

Of course, what Dave has done is make the common mistake and assumed that we're all actually here to teach English.

[Andyroo]

Well I agree that accent isn't worth importing teachers for.

I don't think that is the only thing NET's bring to the table though. Despite some of my co workers having great English they use it very sparingly in the classroom.
One contract teacher at our school was mid 20's (so graduated not long ago) had hogwon experience and had lived in the US for a year and had great conversation skills.
She still taught the kids in 95% Korean during a conversation class.

I try to understand why and I think it's the great fear of making mistakes. It is a huge loss of face when the kids mock their pronunciation/accents/mistakes...and kids willl be kids. The current contract teacher has got a hard time from the kids on her Korean accent, and this is at a rural vocational high school.

[Andyroo]

A lot of hate for old Dave here but I think he has a point. The government spends huge amounts of money on us and for all the time we've been here, we haven't made that much difference. Certainly, what the Korean school system needs (in terms of learning English) is not expensive under-qualified teachers flown in from foreign countries but a total reform of its examination system (at least when it comes to English).

My co teachers take home pay is 4.5m a month plus bonuses.
He teaches half as many classes as I do (when he is having a good week and not palming his classes to someone else).
The two other permanent teachers would be getting as least as much (one is older so I assume more).

The contract teacher gets less than me for a base package (she makes good money from teaching additional conference classes but that is more work) but she is allowed to teach privates because of her special status.

If I wasn't here then they would either have to make her a full contractor (those who get a full year full contract are paid the same as me but don't get the W400k for housing) or get another full teacher.

Getting a fresh graduate teacher would possibly be cheaper for a few years but in the long run cost the government a lot more and aren't so easily "not renewed".

Because of the salary freezes for so long I don't think it is right to classify us as expensive any more.

[Davox]

cdw -  the last time a Dave Theissen article popped up on here, you were the one who started the thread about it.  Hahaha, I don't think it's really worth sharing.

p.s. Are you Dave Theissen?   

I believe Dave Theissen's on here, but that's not him.  I think Dave is Archaeologist or something?  Anyway, I'm sure he'll show up here in this thread soon, if he hasn't gotten himself banned or muted.

I hate to say it, because I absolutely love my job, but what this guy is saying basically congruates with current theory in World Englishes language ownership and new paradigms about 'standard' English.  Jennifer Jenkins' research in phonology in lingua franca English usage (amongst a whole heap of other contemporary research) shows that the 'native teacher' concept in frankly a load of old rubbish.  Granted, ROK is not ready for the transition as yet.  And I agree this author is a fool, an unmitigated oaf.

I think there's a difference between say India, South Africa, and Southeast Asia (I assume we're talking Phillipines here) and Korea.  Well, two differences, actually.  Firstly, in many of these places (especially India), English is a unifying language.  Ie, they have many different first or mother tongues, but everyone's second language is English.  This means that if you want to talk to someone from a difference region of your country (which, if you live in a city, will happen frequently) you have to speak English.  Which means you're a) speaking/hearing it more than 2 hours a week and b) you're actually using it to construct your own language and express your own thoughts.  None of which happens in Korea.

Secondly, many of these countries were affected by English Colonialism.  Which, whatever other terrible effects it had (boy did it ever), promoted English as a language of learning and worth learning seriously over generations worth of people.  As a result, these countries actually have a fairly large number of people who already speak English well enough to teach it immersion style (actual immersion style, instead of the 'teach English in English' where teachers present one 15 minute long lesson plan to a panel of judges and then either get rated pass or fail based on that, and then go back to speaking Korean in class*).   And these English speakers can teach it with some confidence to anyone who wants to learn.  Point is, these countries, through generations of effort, already have good English speakers in significant numbers: enough to maintain or even increase the number and quality of competent English speakers without outside help.  Korea does not...yet.

If Korea was going to be smart about using us, they wouldn't have us in random classrooms.  They'd have us teaching current and future teachers of English in a full English immersion environment.  But that would be low status people (us) in a position of authority over higher status people (Korean teachers) which is impossible.

*Not my co-workers, who speak English quite well, even if they themselves don't believe that they do.  However, it must be said that the test is not an adequate one and can be passed by a teacher who intends to (or can only) speak mainly Korean in class.

[SpaceRook]

A lot of hate for old Dave here but I think he has a point. The government spends huge amounts of money on us and for all the time we've been here, we haven't made that much difference. Certainly, what the Korean school system needs (in terms of learning English) is not expensive under-qualified teachers flown in from foreign countries but a total reform of its examination system (at least when it comes to English).

Of course, what Dave has done is make the common mistake and assumed that we're all actually here to teach English.

The problem is that NETs are expected to be all things to all students, and then people blame us when we aren't.  I'm one guy teaching 1000 students, some of who can't even read or answer the question "What did you last weekend?"  I see them once every two weeks.  Exactly what am I supposed to be accomplishing?  In what other area of Korean education is one individual expected to have such a huge impact? 

This may sound cold, but for me, 75% of the students should not be in my class.  It is just a waste.  If a student can't answer "What did you do last weekend?"  then I really can't help them.  At least not in a room full of 35 screaming kids.  What I am really good at is teaching small groups of motivated kids who have some basic level of English.  That should be our job. 

[flasyb]

A lot of hate for old Dave here but I think he has a point. The government spends huge amounts of money on us and for all the time we've been here, we haven't made that much difference. Certainly, what the Korean school system needs (in terms of learning English) is not expensive under-qualified teachers flown in from foreign countries but a total reform of its examination system (at least when it comes to English).

My co teachers take home pay is 4.5m a month plus bonuses.
He teaches half as many classes as I do (when he is having a good week and not palming his classes to someone else).
The two other permanent teachers would be getting as least as much (one is older so I assume more).

The contract teacher gets less than me for a base package (she makes good money from teaching additional conference classes but that is more work) but she is allowed to teach privates because of her special status.

If I wasn't here then they would either have to make her a full contractor (those who get a full year full contract are paid the same as me but don't get the W400k for housing) or get another full teacher.

Getting a fresh graduate teacher would possibly be cheaper for a few years but in the long run cost the government a lot more and aren't so easily "not renewed".

Because of the salary freezes for so long I don't think it is right to classify us as expensive any more.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that we get paid more than Korean teachers. I was referring to the whole EPIK/GEPIK/SMOE idea of "a native English teacher in every school" and saying that's a heck of a lot of tax payers' money. In terms of expense vs efficacy, I still believe that we are an expensive waste of tax payer money. If I were a Korean tax payer, I wouldn't be happy. As a non-Korean tax payer, I like to think that I'm paying myself.

The problem is that NETs are expected to be all things to all students, and then people blame us when we aren't.  I'm one guy teaching 1000 students, some of who can't even read or answer the question "What did you last weekend?"  I see them once every two weeks.  Exactly what am I supposed to be accomplishing?  In what other area of Korean education is one individual expected to have such a huge impact? 

I think you're close to the heart of the issue, SpaceRock. I don't know the fine details of your situation but here in my rural high school, I'm not even part of the education system. My classes are not examined, I have no curriculum/text book and I was told to teach "whatever you want" when I arrived. It might be that your classes are examined and that your class is crucial to whether or not your students pass - critical to their futures. However, my once weekly classes are, at best, extra curricular. 2.9mil a month (including accommodation) is a lot of money to pay some guy from the UK to teach whatever he wants. Plus flights/severance etc.

I think it was Rusty who said it best on another thread. Something along the lines of us being here so that when Korean students eventually meet a foreigner "in real life," they don't make fools of themselves. That's why I think Dave was mistaken when he said that we're not needed to teach English - we're not actually here to teach English. We're here to help our students learn how to deal with foreigners and some of us just happen to teach English effectively because out schools want us to. Some of us don't.

The way for Korea to improve its English speaking is to change the examination system and to properly train its existing teachers. The budget spent on having NETs in public schools would easily cover that. And of course, schools that are serious about English learning might employ fully qualified NETs from their own budget anyway.

[Andyroo]

My co teachers take home pay is 4.5m a month plus bonuses.
He teaches half as many classes as I do (when he is having a good week and not palming his classes to someone else).
The two other permanent teachers would be getting as least as much (one is older so I assume more).

The contract teacher gets less than me for a base package (she makes good money from teaching additional conference classes but that is more work) but she is allowed to teach privates because of her special status.

If I wasn't here then they would either have to make her a full contractor (those who get a full year full contract are paid the same as me but don't get the W400k for housing) or get another full teacher.

Getting a fresh graduate teacher would possibly be cheaper for a few years but in the long run cost the government a lot more and aren't so easily "not renewed".

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that we get paid more than Korean teachers. I was referring to the whole EPIK/GEPIK/SMOE idea of "a native English teacher in every school" and saying that's a heck of a lot of tax payers' money. In terms of expense vs efficacy, I still believe that we are an expensive waste of tax payer money. If I were a Korean tax payer, I wouldn't be happy. As a non-Korean tax payer, I like to think that I'm paying myself.

My point is that the alternative what would happen if we are not here (more Korean teachers) is an even bigger waste of money.

I can't see Korean English teachers agreeing to double their workload and work more than teachers in other departments. We will be replaced by Korean labour that will cost about the same (contract teachers) or much more (full teachers).

Some of those full teachers are really good (I work with one who is well worth the money he is paid) but a lot aren't.

[flasyb]

My co teachers take home pay is 4.5m a month plus bonuses.
He teaches half as many classes as I do (when he is having a good week and not palming his classes to someone else).
The two other permanent teachers would be getting as least as much (one is older so I assume more).

The contract teacher gets less than me for a base package (she makes good money from teaching additional conference classes but that is more work) but she is allowed to teach privates because of her special status.

If I wasn't here then they would either have to make her a full contractor (those who get a full year full contract are paid the same as me but don't get the W400k for housing) or get another full teacher.

Getting a fresh graduate teacher would possibly be cheaper for a few years but in the long run cost the government a lot more and aren't so easily "not renewed".

I think you missed my point. I wasn't saying that we get paid more than Korean teachers. I was referring to the whole EPIK/GEPIK/SMOE idea of "a native English teacher in every school" and saying that's a heck of a lot of tax payers' money. In terms of expense vs efficacy, I still believe that we are an expensive waste of tax payer money. If I were a Korean tax payer, I wouldn't be happy. As a non-Korean tax payer, I like to think that I'm paying myself.

My point is that the alternative what would happen if we are not here (more Korean teachers) is an even bigger waste of money.

I can't see Korean English teachers agreeing to double their workload and work more than teachers in other departments. We will be replaced by Korean labour that will cost about the same (contract teachers) or much more (full teachers).

Some of those full teachers are really good (I work with one who is well worth the money he is paid) but a lot aren't.

Hmmm, well, at the moment, I only see each class once a week and teaching 14 classes (no 3rd grade in the second semester). The classes with my co-teachers (they seldom come) are included in their regular contract hours. That is to say, if I left, they would take over teaching the classes and wouldn't receive extra pay because they're already getting paid (not to turn up to my classes). There would be no extra personnel or pay required to replace me. Of course, in small schools, particularly small elementary schools where an NET plays a larger role, it could be more expensive to replace an NET. Granted. However, overall, I think the savings from scrapping the NET program would be greater than the cost of hiring (particularly in schools like mine where hiring wouldn't be necessary) Korean replacement contract teachers.

[Spongeblob]

It really just boils down to the individual's teaching ability.

You don't really need to have a high education etc., but it helps.  You don't even have to fully understand English like a Native speaker but it helps.  Every little extra bit helps the students learn.

What doesn't help is a reliance on strictly memorization techniques to cover up a teacher's lack of understanding in the subject they are teaching.  Now, don't get me wrong there are a lot of talented intuitive teachers Korean and Foreigner but each should be judged to their own ability or results.

In short you get what you pay for?  Are students paying for a show or are they paying to learn?  The real question is why do they continue to ignore the system has been broken for many years.   The answer, I think, is cultural pride and corporate greed.

[Andyroo]

Hmmm, well, at the moment, I only see each class once a week and teaching 14 classes (no 3rd grade in the second semester). The classes with my co-teachers (they seldom come) are included in their regular contract hours. That is to say, if I left, they would take over teaching the classes and wouldn't receive extra pay because they're already getting paid (not to turn up to my classes). There would be no extra personnel or pay required to replace me. Of course, in small schools, particularly small elementary schools where an NET plays a larger role, it could be more expensive to replace an NET. Granted. However, overall, I think the savings from scrapping the NET program would be greater than the cost of hiring (particularly in schools like mine where hiring wouldn't be necessary) Korean replacement contract teachers.

We are supposed to be teaching 22..... If you are doing less than apparently you are less favoured for renewal (source: GEPIK orientation speach) but I have never seen any hard evidence to back that up.

I have a copy of my schools timetable which shows that I teach the most classes of anyone at my school.
The teacher with the 2nd most is my 1st grade co techer listed as 20 but that is 10 by himself and 10 with me. Despite being contracted to teach those hours if he was expected to actually teach those 10 that I do that would be a massive increase to his workload and wouldn't be fair compared to the workload of other Korean teachers.

They would have another Korean Contract teacher added to staff before the last soju shot was poured at my farewell party

[flasyb]

Hmmm, well, at the moment, I only see each class once a week and teaching 14 classes (no 3rd grade in the second semester). The classes with my co-teachers (they seldom come) are included in their regular contract hours. That is to say, if I left, they would take over teaching the classes and wouldn't receive extra pay because they're already getting paid (not to turn up to my classes). There would be no extra personnel or pay required to replace me. Of course, in small schools, particularly small elementary schools where an NET plays a larger role, it could be more expensive to replace an NET. Granted. However, overall, I think the savings from scrapping the NET program would be greater than the cost of hiring (particularly in schools like mine where hiring wouldn't be necessary) Korean replacement contract teachers.

We are supposed to be teaching 22..... If you are doing less than apparently you are less favoured for renewal (source: GEPIK orientation speach) but I have never seen any hard evidence to back that up.

I have a copy of my schools timetable which shows that I teach the most classes of anyone at my school.
The teacher with the 2nd most is my 1st grade co techer listed as 20 but that is 10 by himself and 10 with me. Despite being contracted to teach those hours if he was expected to actually teach those 10 that I do that would be a massive increase to his workload and wouldn't be fair compared to the workload of other Korean teachers.

They would have another Korean Contract teacher added to staff before the last soju shot was poured at my farewell party

Different horses for different courses. I arrived 2 months after the previous NET at my school left. I didn't replace any short-term contract teachers. My co-teachers just filled in for the classes that they are already paid to teach but rarely come to because I teach them. The main reason they keep hiring NETs is because they get a special budget for it from the Chungnam MOE. I actually bring in more money for the school simply by being here. Hence the other department heads (math, science, etc) have been sniffing out my brand spanking new English Only Room money. They've seen the 50mil budget we have for it (moved to a brand new school building) and want a slice of the action. The infighting over that budget that they all want a piece of has meant that 6 months after moving into the new school, my room still stands totally empty and I still go to the students' homerooms.

What I'm saying is that there are more expenses involved here than just your personal pay, which is all you seem to be focussing on. Even if a contract KET would be considerably more expensive than you (a claim that I refute) there are other factors involved. Schools receive a large bit of extra cash for the NET aside from his/her pay. Plus there's provincial/national admin for the various NET programs too. It's a lot of money and you seem to be ignoring/unaware of the additional costs. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that replacing NETs with contract KETs and closing down the "one NET in every school" madness would be more expensive. To suggest otherwise is to ignore facts.

Now, I'm not complaining here. I've got a sweet deal. I can't wait to start cooking chocolate brownies/pasta bakes in my brand new full size oven (with 4 ring gas range) that my school just bought me and the vacuum cleaner that my school bought me two weeks ago works superbly well - they have a budget for me which if they didn't spend by years end, they wouldn't get next year. What I am saying is that there is no way on this earth that replacing contract NETs with contract KETs would be more expensive.


PS I'm high school and most high schools don't teach the 3rd grade in the second semester. That's why my classes went down from 21 (22 contract) to 14 at present. They had me make it up with after school classes for a while but they got cancelled. Also, I'm not GEPIK, I'm EPIC (with a C) and with the poor NET turnover in rural areas, my school were overjoyed when I re-signed.

[Andyroo]

Different horses for different courses.

I am actually on the same side as you in that I question the need for NET’s  I just disagree with cost being the reason.
The point I am making is I can not see expenses in the English department at my school going down because I know I would be replaced.

What I'm saying is that there are more expenses involved here than just your personal pay, which is all you seem to be focussing on.
Even if a contract KET would be considerably more expensive than you (a claim that I refute) there are other factors involved.
Schools receive a large bit of extra cash for the NET aside from his/her pay.
Plus there's provincial/national admin for the various NET programs too. It's a lot of money and you seem to be ignoring/unaware of the additional costs. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that replacing NETs with contract KETs and closing down the "one NET in every school" madness would be more expensive. To suggest otherwise is to ignore facts.

I guess you are right about it being horses for courses I just cost what I cost and you get what you get, I didn’t come with a bundle of cash to spend
The huge waste on English only rooms strikes me as unrelated to the N part of the NET. That’s just crazy waste that could happen with or without our presence and not necessary. The English rooms thing was just a stupid fad, like sending Korean teachers abroad for a month, robots and the new video conference rooms so that the kids can talk to Filipino teacher.

I admit I forgot to consider the admin organizations (like GEPIK) and it is true that is a huge expense (when they listed what GEPIK admin cost I was gob smacked) and although I could live without it I think it’s a necessary evil if they ever wanted to hire any new NET's. So overall there would be an improvement to the bottom line by getting rid of me in my case after you allocate my proportion of GEPIK costs to my overall cost.

What I am saying is that there is no way on this earth that replacing contract NETs with contract KETs would be more expensive.
 

I didn’t say that contract teachers are more expensive, I said roughly the same (and demand for them would go up) I only said full teachers are more expensive.