The Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education said it has raised the budget to finance hagwon fees for 444 English primary and secondary schoolteachers in Seoul this year from about 200 in 2008.
Each teacher receives about 450,000 won ($350) in subsidy for three months. Of the 444 teachers, 204 are at elementary schools and 240 at secondary schools. Many other teachers are learning at hagwon without subsidy, and the number is expected to rise further.
Many teachers say they are feeling growing pressure to strengthen their proficiency, as they are required to conduct English-only classes by 2012 as part of government-led programs to boost English classes at public schools.
Oh You-hwan, 47, an English teacher at Paekahm High School, has attended an English-speaking class at a hagwon in Seoul since April.
``I want the authorities to offer various training programs for English teachers with greater subsidies,’’ said Oh, who has taught for 19 years.
Yoon Yeon-mo, 50, another English teacher at Sorabol High School, has found the subsidy is not enough to cover her hagwon fees.
``I can easily find other English teachers from public schools in my class (at the foreign language institute). Many English teachers are under pressure to study English, as they have to conduct English-only classes,’’ said Yoon, who has worked in education for about 25 years.
I wrote about those TEE certificates earlier in the month, and Chris in South Korea has a good write-up today. He brings up a Korea Herald article that has an interesting line:
The Seoul education office will begin operating the system in the second semester this year. Whether a teacher in Seoul has the TEE certificates will be disclosed to parents, many teachers are expected to strive to gain one.
On the one hand, I totally get that English class isn't about English in secondary schools, but that it's about teaching toward exams, thus making the language an obstacle in its own class. But, and this is me being a little cranky after a long day at the office, let me just say "oh, God forbid an English teacher is actually evaluated on his or her ability to use the language." Okay, that's out of my system.
There was a lot of news about English teachers in June; another story which intersects with this is the planned introduction of Korean English "lecturers" who will be able to teach English class in English. Actually, the news this month was that the government didn't attract nearly the number of applicants it expected.
But the interesting thing about these lecturers, and about these teachers with TEE certificates in the public schools, is that their will roughly coincide with the start of a domestic English test aimed at replacing the TOEFL exam. The Minister of Education said last year that he sees it being accepted overseas, like Japan's Eiken, though by showing how few schools actually accept the Eiken, I think I made it clear that the Korean test can only hope to be used domestically. News at the time said the test would be of "practical English skills,"
The government will introduce a state-certified English proficiency test from 2012 to improve practical English skills of students and eventually replace TOEFL and other foreign exam material.
and likewise these English "lecturers" would teach "practical English."
This year, it will hire 2,000 ``practical English instructors'' for elementary schools and another 3,000 for secondary schools.
I mentioned in my Korea Herald article last week, and in a couple other posts this past year, that these teachers, backing up this test, are not set up to fail like we are. Can you imagine how more successful native speaker English teachers would be in the schools if "practical English" were actually a priority now?
3 comments:
They're doing it all backwards. Practical English isn't taught in schools because, like you mentioned, English is only used to pass entrance exams. (They're learning for tests instead of for life)
If the government was to revamp the national university entrance process and encourage private universities to adhere to an officially recognized admission process as well, then learning for tests wouldn't be needed and you could then re-envision the objective of primary school education. And if primary education was adequate at creating life opportunities for Korean children, then hagwons would naturally decrease as they're rendered unnecessary. (So the government wouldn't need to push legislation suppressing private business operation)
That test is going to be worthless because they will "Koreanize" it.
We native English teachers were hired to expose students to native English. We are here mainly as ambassadors, not necessarily as teachers in the traditional sense of the word.
I'm finding that my greatest successes are outside the classroom. I have conversations with my students in the halls, on the playground, and on the street. I have set up a point system and students get points if they initiate and carry on a MEANINGFUL conversation outside the school grounds. (I live in a relatively small community and I see my students on the street often.) I have noticed how at ease students have become when speaking since I started here in October. Contrary to what Brian says, I do not believe that I am set up for failure because I am succeeding in what I was sent here to do. I am not here to be a "teacher" like the traditional Korean teachers. I am a radical teacher who do things outside the box.
My goal is for the students to use the knowledge they have gained even if it was gained through the terrible grammar-translation method or teaching for the examination. I try to help the students synthesize what they have learned from their other teachers. The Korean teachers have their job to do and I have mine. They teach grammar for the most part and I encourage the students to use this language in a meaningful way. We have decided to it this way and it is working well for us. We have a symbiotic relationship.
But I must point out that there has been a shift in the English language program here at my school. The Korean teachers are now teaching practical English and are speaking with their students in English. They are doing more role plays with their students. I would like to think I had something to do with that.
Our job as native teachers in the public school requires us to be innovative, creative, resourceful and to work with hand we have been dealt. That is why I chose to work in a public school and leave CDI (where the word "creativity" is not in their lexicon).
I believe our job is not to sit around and bitch and moan about how Korean teachers and the methods they have employed. We are ambassadors who try to direct our Korean colleagues closer to a more communicative style of teaching. It requires us to be diplomatic and convincing that the communicative method is far more superior.
Post a Comment