"The native speakers are not qualified and are often involved in sexual harassment and drugs."
Wagner made a reply on the Gusts of Popular Feeling post that brought this story to light:
President Song was good enough to make a personal call in reply to the email.
He was misquoted by the KT. President Song explained that while problems with foreign teachers as covered in the press were mentioned in passing, he did not say "The native speakers are not qualified and are often involved in sexual harassment and drugs."
President Song said the focus of the discussion was the need for more qualified teachers because his school is responsible for training them.
If that's true, then Kang Shin-who, the worst journalist in Korea's English-language press, is making a lot of enemies among schools. In June he misquoted the International Graduate School of English president Park Nam-sheik, putting these words in his mouth:
The president [Park Nam-sheik] stressed that a teaching license doesn't mean competence as an English teacher. ``Schools should open their doors more to those who can speak English well. Still many teachers are opposing to give opportunities to English teachers without teaching certificates to teach students at public schools,'' Park said. At the same time, he was very pessimistic about the increasing number of foreign English teachers from the U.S., Canada and the U.K.
``Most of the native English speakers don't have much affection toward our children because they came here to earn money and they often cause problems,'' Park said. ``If we need native English speakers, it would be better inviting young ethnic Koreans who have hometowns here. Also, we have to invite qualified English teachers from India, Malaysia and the Philippines as English is not a language only for Americans and British people.''
``Above all, we should produce qualified teachers who can replace native English speakers. I can assure you our school will produce such teachers,'' he added.
Both SNUE and IGSE are in charge of training Korean English teachers, and thus such comments from people responsible for training these teachers are quite alarming. As it stands, it looks like we simply have these comments coming from journalists.
I see Gusts of Popular Feeling just posted on this, and he's right that credit goes to Benjamin Wagner and commenter Scott Burgeson for working to pursue this. Thanks for your good work, guys. The GoPF post has contact information for the Times, but I think what would really be useful is for teachers and presidents---whose ranks also include Wagner and Seoul National University professor Douglas Gress earlier this month---misquoted and misrepresented by the Times and by Kang Shin-who to get formal complaint letters in the paper. If the Korea Times won't take them, I certainly will.
28 comments:
If he didn't say it directly, then he damned well implied it.
Afterall, why then did he say that "Korean teachers should replace native English-speaking teachers as soon as possible"?
Oh, I get it, it was a "misunderstanding."
Well, that's a good point, David. Like somebody just said on my Facebook, sounds like he's doing some backtracking.
If he's serious about being misquoted, and serious about that misquotation not reflecting what he's about, then he needs to come out and address this distortion in public. Saying "oh, I was misquoted" and getting that message out to a couple hundred readers here won't really cut it, considering his article---like Park Nam-sheik's---dragged our names through the mud with impunity.
To someone like President Song, "qualified" equals "credentialed." And if native English speakers aren't credentialed (only some 20% are "qualified" by his definition), then getting credentialed Korean teachers better at English to take over those jobs is a reasonable solution.
Of course, getting more of the 80% who are "unqualified" into "qualified" status would be another way to go.
David, you put quotation marks around the journalists' paraphrasing, not around SNUE's actual words: Song also stressed that Korean teachers should replace native English-speaking teachers as soon as possible. "Currently, only 20.5 percent of native English speaking teachers (at schools) have teaching licenses (according to data from the Education Ministry, November 2008), so it is urgent for us to foster teachers who have excellent English proficiency," Song said. The paraphrasing is waaaaaaay more inflammatory than SNUE President's own words, which are uncontroversial.
And the quote "The native speakers are not qualified and are often involved in sexual harassment and drugs." is freestanding; unattributed. Who said those words? The reader's left to infer they're uttered by SNUE President. As Brian says, that's really shoddy journalism by staff writer Kang Shin-who. Or possibly an example of poor grammatical skillz, but given the writer's history and penchant for the inflammatory, I'd say that's a benefit of the doubt Shin-who doesn't deserve.
Mattius,
None of us have a recording of the speech, but I think we can to some extent believe that at least much of what the KT reporter says was implied or suggested.
This is what Song reportedly said afterward:
"President Song explained that while problems with foreign teachers as covered in the press were mentioned in passing, he did not say 'The native speakers are not qualified and are often involved in sexual harassment and drugs.'"
Plunk one fact (80% unqualified foreigners) beside and a suggestive image (in passing, of course) and analogical reasoning takes over. I'll bet that KT reporter wasn't the only one walking away from the speech thinking: unqualified + drugs + sex = English teacher.
I am not saying that anyone involved is right or wrong here. But I think Song was irresponsible for bringing up the scandalous issues "in passing". It cheapens and discredits and his own argument and distracted people from it. That is his failure.
After reading comments like these recently, I'm seriously doubting any move to teach or live in Korea. I am learning Korean and will be almost fluent by the time I go there. Does that make a difference in anyone's opinion? Or are we all just sexually harassing junkies? (makes me think of the Japanese term Gaijin which still has very negative connotations and Westerners are often all tarred with the same brush)
Everything is explained as a "Misunderstanding." Noone will ever stand up and admit that they made a mistake. This is one of the more unfortunate aspects of the "Saving face" culture.
The thing is that even my Korean co-workers are really scared of the media here. They say they would be ruined if they ever got caught even reasonably hitting the students (students misbehaving, a few whacks that are not excessive in any way). They would be written about with a hit piece and be finished.
My question is that Koreans say they don't believe all the news, but it seems that they all eat it up anyway.
"If he's serious about being misquoted, and serious about that misquotation not reflecting what he's about, then he needs to come out and address this distortion in public."
I strongly agree with this point. As with Park Nam-sheik's comment, just leaving it there amounts to a ratification. Further, it's easy enough to focus on that one sentence. A phone call would suffice to have it removed from the article.
In an email and on the phone we suggested that Pres. Song take this approach with the KT and we directly mentioned the Park Nam-sheik incident where it didn't happen and people were understandably upset.
The president of Seoul National University is probably lying. If not, why does he tolerate being misquoted in a national newspaper making him look like an uneducated racist and not sue the journalist or force the Korea Times to print a correction?
That's a good point too, Mark.
I also wonder, too, if Song would have come out and said he was misquoted if Wagner didn't approach him, or if people didn't make a stink on the blogs.
While I definitely don't trust Kang Shin-who, I'm also a little wary of Park Nam-sheik and Song until they publically come out against the Times and what it wrote. Not only come out against the misrepresentation, but let people know why that misrepresentation was wrong. Simply saying it was a misquotation doesn't change that thousands of Korean readers and teachers saw those nasty remarks about NSETs.
David - the "fact" as you write is your characterization. SNUE President never said 80% of native speakers are unqualified, he said 80% of native teachers are unlicensed. It's unfair to say SNUE president equates "unlicensed" with "unqualified." He's a bureaucrat concerned with systemic proficiency and credentials affecting 50 million Koreans or so. Given what's already on his plate, why should he respond to an inflammatory journalist writing for maybe a few thousand non-citizens? Especially when his words and sentiments are perfectly reasonable?
"The native speakers are not qualified and are often involved in sexual harassment and drugs."
You know back home teachers arent thought of much differently. When I was going to teacher's college we were all treated as potential pedofiles. High profile cases are often printed in the papers and you never know what a kid who got a bad grade will say or do to smear your name and try to get you fired.
We actually had training in this. What do you do when little 4 year old Johnny comes running into class happy to start another day and goes to give you a hug? You quickly turn to your side so he hugs your hip that way his parents cant say you molested him for giving him a front facing hug...but then again you did touch him and maybe tomorrow he's pissed at you and tells his parents that it was a "bad" touch. Gotta pray that there were cameras in the classroom...but then those cameras are invading our privacy...but what are you doing that makes you not want cameras in your classroom...etc etc etc
What about starting up a petition of complaint to present to both SNUE and the KT? I bet if you posted at Dave's, you'd get at least several hundred signatures right there.
It's been said before, but I'll repeat it:
By the way, SNUE is NOT SNU. SNU is a large, comprehensive university in Kwanak Gu. SNUE is a small,non-affiliated university in Kangnam Gu that only trains elementary school teachers.
Goldenzephyr,
If you came to Korea as a Korean-speaker you would probably be excused from those accusations because you "adopted the culture."
I completely understand that sentiment, as people in the U.S. often make comments about "effing immigrants who can't speak English" working at convenience stores or something. Then again, we're here to teach English... temporarily... not seeking a new and better life as economic refugees from failing 3rd world countries.
If you do come, use your Korean language skills for good and lay the smack down when you hear people talking out of their ass on the subway or in restaurants.
Bob, that's something worth bringing up twice. This isn't SNU, but SNUE, and it's important not to confuse the two.
It may certainly have the lesser reputation in Korea, but that doesn't mean Song wasn't profiled in a major English-language paper here, didn't reach thousands of readers (many of whom are teachers, students, and/or parents), and didn't throw out baseless accusations.
I think it's a valid point that the vast majority of native English instructors in Korea don't have any formal training. South Korea isn't desperate for teachers anymore and can afford to be more discriminating with who they allow into the country.
Elementary School teachers in Korea must study Elementary Education for four years at a University and then pass an extensive test (with essay questions and an interview in English!) to become qualified to teach ANY subject--even PE. And then they are paid equivalent salaries to native English speakers whose only requirement is a four year degree from any school with any major.
But obviously the drug and sexual abuse reference is way out of line, though I don't think he was misquoted. It was probably said in passing and it's certainly not unusual to hear people involved in Education to express similar sentiments.
I doubt he will apologize though because 1) the circulation of The Korea Times is very small and caters to an unimportant segment of the population and 2) he's not particularly worried about upsetting the 20,000 native English instructors in Korea when 50,000,000 Koreans basically agree with his sentiment.
It may certainly have the lesser reputation in Korea
I don't want to be a pain, but SNUE is actually as hard to get into as some mid-ranking depts. at SNU. It isn't as large or as famous (!), but SNUE is certainly one of the better places to go if you want to teach elementary school. In terms of what they do, SNUE is a highly-ranked school. And it isn't all the way off in freaking Kwanak-gu, it's right beside Kangnam Station. Anyway, thanks Brian.
mattius,
"Unlicensed" means "unqualified" in this situation (and just about every situation imaginable). That's one reason foreign teachers need to be replaced. Another reason, which you persistently (and curiously) ignore, was stated "in passing." So why then IS a bean-counting bureaucrat, so obsessed with licensing, insinuating the "problems of teachers in the media"? I'll say it again, the reporter and most everyone else there, I'm sure, put 1+1 together.
I get that people like to use the blogs to "vent" and there's nothing wrong with that. But with all the outrage over article after article from the KT (and other media outlets), I don't understand why more English teachers don't take action - especially since the ones that do get a lot done.
Continued assaults on teachers' characters and professional competence, wild unsubstantiated allegations of immoral behavior and criminal activity... your livelihoods and professional reputations sullied, not to mention you're very characters.
If the silence of Park and Song over inaccurate statements can be seen as consent then what of teachers silence over these continued articles?
-If the silence of Park and Song over inaccurate statements can be seen as consent then what of teachers silence over these continued articles?
I agree. Stop working for these jerkoffs. Sing it loud, sing it clear. Stop using your lawyerly instincts to seek accommodation, and just accept Seoul for the concrete hellhole that it it. I am not complicit of silence over these articles, in fact I think that if I really told you naive American Puritan pieces of shit what I really know you would all have abortions. The blogosphere in Korea is run by asshole Republicans pieces of shit tied to the rapist industrial complex that have never had a job in their lives and use their scumbag corporate Korean schill friends like Brendon Carr to uphold their asshole hold (clench?) on Korea, its people and the country. I swear, if you Yanks weren't all such uptight idiots Korea would be a much nicer place. Pity the country that gets colonized by you obese pricks.
well that drives home my point about venting...
"And then they are paid equivalent salaries to native English speakers whose only requirement is a four year degree from any school with any major."
Sure, IN THE BEGINNING that is true. But with twice-a-year bonuses, yearly raises, and opportunities for advancement that NETs are not afforded, KTs very quickly outstrip NETs in salary, even after as little as 5 years.
Under present contracts and conditions, NETs are capped and never higher they shall earn. Not so for the KTs.
ROK Hound wrote:
Sure, IN THE BEGINNING that is true. But with twice-a-year bonuses, yearly raises, and opportunities for advancement that NETs are not afforded, KTs very quickly outstrip NETs in salary, even after as little as 5 years.
Where do you get these numbers? I must admit that I don't know much about NSETs' salary arrangements in the secondary or primary school system, but at the college level, NSETs with master's degrees are typically paid the same bonuses and what-not that PhD-holding professors earn, or close to it.
On the other hand, many native Korean teachers are not fully contracted teachers, but work on a semesterly or annual contract, and they might find themselves bonus-less and earning half the salary of "regular teachers" and NSETs. Yet they are typically required to have a teaching credential. Someone who works for me was in that very situation for several years, saddled with a talent-less NSET (I read some of his lesson plans) who earned twice as much as she did and did half the work.
Under present contracts and conditions, NETs are capped and never higher they shall earn. Not so for the KTs.
Some KTs, perhaps. And how much housing allowance do the KTs earn?
All this talk of being "unqualified" makes me wonder exactly who Mr. Song and the previous bloggers here are talking about. Yes, there are many foreign teachers without a formal teaching qualification working in Korea, which I was very surprised about when I moved here having completed many years teaching in Europe where such things do not happen. However, I find myself amazed that no one has brought up the point that seemingly, the vast majority of Korean hagwan teachers have never so much as thought of teaching before they are employed. They suddenly 'qualify' to teach on the basis that they may know some English and are Korean. Moreover, if Korean public school teachers have to study for four years to become 'licensed', then what exactly are they doing. I haven't seen less professionalism anywhere in all my yeas of teaching.
People seem to be forgetting that NET's are not normaly afforded the same rights in schools as Korean teachers and mostly play a very marginal role in the kinds of practices that a full teaching qualification would train them in, such as discipline and punishment. The point of us being here is not so much to act as the complete package teacher, but to bring something Koreans cannot bring themselves, i.e. native English. Anyone who thinks that with the current system of archaic language teaching practice in Korea, it will be possible to replace NETs with ETs in the forseeable future is incredibly naive. We have a role to play, we play it, where is the problem?
On a different note, it is common practice for skilled workers and ex-pats to get higher wages than other workers, worldwide. An NET is both, having the skill of native English and having moved thousands of miles to fill a gap in the market. You might even argue that our wages could be increased in the light of the potential psycholoical damage we face thanks to marginalisation and xenophobia, a sort of 'danger money' if you like. Of course that's meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek.
This however isn't:
Bob. I am confused by your posts entirely. Was that rant serious or not? If not, then good, please excuse my inability to get your sense of humour. If however you were serious the please keep it to yourself. I've heard people say things like that before and all it does is degrade your character. Are you from the UK, as your choice of words suggests. If so, you need to take a long hard look at your own (and my) country and people before you attack others. I am ashamed to read such things especially aimed at people standing up for others.
Actually, I realised that I made a huge generalisation by saying 'the vast majority of Korean hagwan teachers...' What I should have said is that the vast majority of Korean hagwan teachers I have met...'
Would be nice to see the KT say something similar.
Post a Comment