More money going into English education next year.

The government will increase spending on English education programs next year, according to the Korea Times. They will spend more on elementary school programs, and will increase training programs for teachers. This part was funny:

Meanwhile, more than half of English teachers are opposing the introduction of ``Teaching English in English (TEE)’’ teachers, planned by the government for next year. The government plans to recruit 23,000 TEE teachers, who will conduct classes only in English, over the next five years.

Korea’s largest teachers group, the Korean Federation of Teachers’ Association said Sunday that 56.7 percent of English teachers negatively responded to the TEE teacher plans in a recent survey, while 24.9 percent said they need TEE teachers.

Among those respondents against ``English-only'' teachers, 46 percent said it would bring unqualified teachers to schools and 21 percent said current teacher levels are already enough for English education. The teachers' group questioned 425 English teachers at elementary and secondary schools nationwide between April and May.

Um . . . bring unqualified teachers? Can they be any more unqualified? I try my best to be sympathetic to all the new, and perhaps hasty, changes proposed by Lee Myung-bak, and how intimidating they must be to teachers. And I know that one of the chief objections to TEE is that teachers students just aren't good enough to manage a class conducted entirely in English. But, you know, rather than plugging away at grammar and readings that neither the students nor the teachers can understand, why not aim for more functional English?

But come on, would you tolerate social studies teachers who couldn't use a map? Math teachers who couldn't do long division? Than why the easy-going attitude toward English teachers who clearly aren't proficient in the subject they teach? I'm not simply talking about being able to speak fluently---but is that really too much to ask?---or even being able to produce the sounds of English---of course a necessity, but one which most can't do on a regular basis---I'm also talking about being able to comprehend texts and use the basics of English grammar. Grammar is supposed to be their specialty, after all, but the idea of the Asian grammar expert so embraced by out-of-touch academic journals is clearly a myth. Why, then, is every utterance filled with errors? Maybe they just suck at speaking, you say, but then why is every newspaper, every magazine, every textbook, every advertisement, every commercial, every piece of stationary, every t-shirt, and every other scrap of English so heavy in errors and in awkward English? Perhaps Koreans just aren't good at writing, then. Sorry, but if you can't use grammar and can't recognize when it's used improperly, you don't know grammar. Time to hit the books again. I wish I could say bad English were simply a holdover from the older generation, but having dealt with younger teachers over the years I can say that's not the case.

From the article it's not clear whether Korean English teachers will still get paid for the co-teaching classes they don't attend, and the Ministry offered no comment on a proposition (by me) to deduct pay for those who opt to read magazines in the back during our class time. The union did not accept my suggestion to pay me a bonus for each co-teacher who skips the weekly workshop. I realize they're busy, though; too busy, in fact, to learn how to pronounce "busy." Moreover, it's unlikely that my decision to open-hand slap anyone who says "Koreans have no chance to use the English" will catch on nationwide.

Sorry, it's been one of those days, one that has made me prone to hyperbole. Do I get my own Korea Times column now?