Friday, March 26, 2010

From "unqualified" to "ineligible" and "inadequate."

The latest piece by Kang Shin-who in the Korea Times, "Legalizing Eligibility of 'Hagwon' Teachers Sought," uses two new terms to describe what often falls under the umbrella of "unqualified" teachers.
Education authorities and lawmakers plan to propose a bill to screen out ineligible teachers at private institutes or hagwon.

Under the current regulations, Koreans who completed at least two-year college courses are entitled to teach at hagwon without legal binding.

Officials from the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology told The Korea Times, Friday that they are likely to submit a bill to ban inadequate teachers from working at hagwon.

"There have been no attempts to regulate eligibility of hagwon teachers by law. We plan to submit a bill next month, disallowing ineligible hagwon teachers, to the National Assembly," said an official in charge.

The first half of the piece is clearly talking about ethnic Korean teachers working in schools without undergoing the same background checks required of foreign English teachers on E-2 visas. Eligibility for the E-2 visa is, of course, regulated by law, but not all teachers at hagwon use E-2 visas. Ineligible would be a good substitute for "unqualified" in some cases, but currently, as the article says, uniform rules of eligibility for foreign teachers across the board do not yet exist.

"Unqualified," as we've discussed many times on this site, like yesterday for Kang's last piece, is an improper term because it's used as a catch-all to talk about teachers without visas or the proper paperwork, teachers without training as teachers or advanced degrees in TESOL, teachers who act unprofessionally, or teachers who dress poorly, use drugs, and date Korean women. Kang played with that ambiguity in his last article, in a piece supposed to be about ethnic Korean teachers hired by cramschools without undergoing background checks:
Both immigration and education authorities have long turned a blind eye to loopholes in screening "unqualified" foreign English teachers.

That inattention occasionally horrifies parents and students when such teachers show their true colors.

. . .
Police announced Tuesday they arrested a group of unqualified English teachers who habitually took drugs.

The first half of today's Kang Shin-who article is about eligibility, and about one of many pieces of proposed legislation. I'm sorry to see the discussion shift back to native speaker English teachers, and to inadequacy, though I oughtn't be surprised.
For now, a total of 13 bills related to hagwon are pending for approval at the parliamentary. Especially, a bill, proposed last year by Rep. Choi Young-hee of the main opposition Democratic Party, is seeking to tighten the screening of native English-speaking teachers at hagwon.

The bill is to mandate foreign English teachers to submit documents proving no criminal and drug records, whenever they are hired or transferred to other hagwon. It is because some E-2 or English teaching visa holders, once caught for taking drugs or sexually harassing children, were often found to be rehired at hagwon.

Rep. Choi said "We could have prevented those foreigners (from working at hagwon), if my bill were passed last year."

In addition, the bill stipulates ``cannabinoid" tests in drug check-up in order to detect marijuana users. The immigration authorities initially planned to conduct the tests on E-2 visa applicants, but the idea was scrapped.

Choi Young-hee is no stranger to this site. An article by Kang Shin-who appeared in the Korea Times on June 9, 2009, and you'll see what Kang wrote today about lawbreakers moving to new hagwon is taken almost word-for-word from a quotation by Choi's aide:
Rep. Choi Young-hee of the main opposition Democratic Party submitted the bills obliging foreign English teachers to present criminal record and health check documents, including HIV-AIDS tests, before they are hired at public or private schools.

Under immigration regulations, applicants for an E-2 English teaching visa have been required to submit those documents since December 2007.

``E-2 visa holders, once caught for taking drugs or sexually harassing children, were often found to be rehired at another school or hagwon,'' said Yeo Jun-sung, an aide for Rep. Choi. ``The proposed bills are to remove these loopholes from the current immigration law.''

Gusts of Popular Feeling looked at the three bills introuced last summer by Choi, a must-read. Here's something interesting:
Note the term “native English teachers” (원어민교사), and not specifically E-2 visa holders. Does this mean all native English teachers will have to undergo these requirements, regardless of their visa? According to Ben Wagner, who talked with an aide of Choi Young-hee, the answer is no – the bill applies only to E-2 visa holders. Still, those on other visas might wish the bill to be a little more specific in its language.

Also, when he initially spoke with them, Wagner told me that Choi’s office seemed to be unclear as to what an E-2 visa was or what its limitations are, as they seemed to be trying to stop people moving from job to job, something that, unless an employer closes their school, is impossible under the terms of an E-2 visa.

If you look at the statistics collected in the "Wagner Report" you'll see there's little cause for lawmakers or journalists to use "often" in tandem with drug-use or sexual harassment. The report shows, on pages 16 and 20 and with numbers from the Supreme Prosecuters' Office, here were 13 foreign teachers from the "Big 7" countries arrested for drug offenses in 2008, and 34 arrested for "sex crimes."

Nhrck Report 2 Nhrck Report 2 popular gusts


Kang's piece today concludes with another piece of legislation, one given attention on my site last year as well.
Another bill, submitted by Rep. Cho Jeon-hyuk of the governing Grand National Party, is to provide a mandatory course on Korean culture to native English speakers at elementary and secondary schools as well as hagwon

The Assemblyman said many foreign English teachers are involved in a number of criminals and the government needs to help native English instructors better understand local culture and also improve their teaching skills.

I first posted on this plan in November after KBS had a little blurb on it:
Cho said most foreign teachers in the nation do not have enough of an understanding about Korea’s culture and practices. He said the revisions are aimed at raising the quality of the nation’s English education programs by mandating that foreign teachers have better knowledge of Korea.

I did a follow-up in December, and wrote about it in the Korea Herald, the main idea of those three write-ups being the sort of "training" teachers do get at the already-mandatory orientation programs isn't especially helpful and doesn't address any of the challenges native speaker English teachers face in the classroom. It's interesting to note now that Cho brings up the criminal element, or at least Kang says he does, while those three write-ups last year approached the issue of training. Not even Kang's sloppy article last November put those words in Cho's mouth:
"Schools and hagwon hire native English speakers but most of them are visiting Korea for the first time and have no teaching experiences," Cho said.

I've talked about conflation and about the worst traits, real or imagined, or native speaker English teachers get merged into vague terms like "unqualified," and I see the spirit still leaves even when one word is swapped out for two others.

17 comments:

Chris said...

I assume anyone who wants to come to Korea will do some research about the place...if they have their shit together anyway.

What are the chances of them finding stories like this one?

How many have already decided not to come to Korea because of this issue? How many of them have deduced that Korea is a f**ked up place because of stories like this one?

Two sarcastic thumbs up for people like KSW, AES and the rest of them.

There are a lot of these stories online now. If stories like this were around eleven years ago, I wouldn't have stepped foot in Korea.

Peter said...

Hmm, if only there were ways to screen potential employees and weed out the crappy ones. Well, I suppose employers could, you know, actually conduct thorough interviews of potential employees, and maybe even check their credentials, past experience, and references ... no? You're right, that's crazy-talk.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew said...

"Another bill, submitted by Rep. Cho Jeon-hyuk of the governing Grand National Party, is to provide a mandatory course on Korean culture to native English speakers at elementary and secondary schools as well as hagwon.
...the government needs to help native English instructors better understand local culture"

I speculate that if NETs knew the culture here, they might not have come!

Brian said...

Kang is certainly right there's no definition of eligibility, and it's strange that some teachers are screened while others are exempt. But his routine is tired, and I shouldn't be surprised he took the opportunity to bring it back to native speaker English teachers once again. Seriously, I guess there's nothing else to do in the English-language media here. You know they don't break any news, and you know everything they do is conducted in Korean and "translated" into English (hence the similarities in all ofhis articles).

When I was in Korea---I left last month---I should have spent more time looking into what exactly the requirements are for E-2 visa holders who are not English teachers. I've known teachers of other languages on E-2 visas who didn't have to submit the criminal background check, and who didn't face hassles elsewhere. When I sent money back to the US last month I had to show my bank my teaching contracts back to 2006, though when a teacher of another language sent tens of thousands of dollars overseas no questions asked.

Nik Trapani said...

The libel laws here really stifle the ability, one that should be available in any free market economy, to scrutinize private institutions in a public forum. This information asymmetry allows bonehead hagwon owners to hire bonehead teachers (foreign or otherwise), without certain market forces suppressing poor quality services.
Of course there are several other culprits only one of which might be select E2 visa holders.

Peter said...

@Brian
You had to show all your contracts back to 2006, just to send money to your US bank account? Wow, sounds like regulations have really tightened up since I left Korea, which was almost exactly 1 year ago. I don't think I had to show any documents at all to send money home, besides my passport of course.

Brian said...

Yep, everything was going smoothly until the teller saw I wanted to send home something like 30 million won.

I don't think they really keep track too well in the computer. I've shown contracts in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and again this year, it's just that I've used three or four different KEBs over that time to send money home. If, say, in 2007 we established I worked in Korea in 2005 and 2006, I don't know why it was necessary to bring those contracts around in later years.

But, as you well know, it varies from bank to bank, day to day, teller to teller.

kushibo said...

Peter wrote:
Hmm, if only there were ways to screen potential employees and weed out the crappy ones. Well, I suppose employers could, you know, actually conduct thorough interviews of potential employees, and maybe even check their credentials, past experience, and references ... no? You're right, that's crazy-talk.

That interviews and background checks would prevent this kind of thing is crazy talk. ;)

Puffin Watch said...

I had two unpleasant experiences exiting Korea. One, I got a temporary extension on my visa. You can apply for it online and print the document. When I went to the airline counter, I handed them the document and my passport. She saw I was past my visa and said I needed to go to the immigration counter. I showed her the extension form. She didn't even bother to read all the useful Korean on it and sent me to the immigration desk. Fine. I went to the immigration desk. The woman there said I didn't need to go to the desk as the form I had was the proper paper work. That was the whole point of applying online. Saves these steps. I got it. The immi woman got it. The Korean manning the NorthWest counter was clueless. I said "well, they won't give me a plane ticket... can you write a note?" I grudgingly got a note. I went back, showed her the note, and without a single apology for wasting my fkin' time I was checked in. Dicks.

Second, trying to transfer money back. Not all us make regular transfers as we might end up marrying in country, staying, finding a non teaching job, etc. You need a large hunk of cash to get your own place. At the same time you might decide to give up "the dream" and move home.

Anyway, my understanding of the law was you can transfer home as much as you can demonstrate you've legally earned (ie pay stubs). I showed them all my pay stubs. Well in excess of what I was transferring home. I was told this was impossible, you're only allowed x amount per year. Phone calls ensued and I transferred all my money home. This was a bank near city hall where they presumably deal with foreigners.

Korea runs roughly by the Jerry Seinfeld reservation skit about you can take a reservation but you can't hold a reservation. Koreans can make rules but they don't really know they have to follow the rules.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

@kushibo
Well, sure, hiring someone is always going to be a crapshoot, to some extent. In any profession, an applicant can have all the qualifications on paper, nail the interview, and still turn out to be a complete ass in a day-to-day work environment. But that doesn't mean that interviewing applicants, and checking into (or, hell, even just READING) their qualifications, doesn't weed out plenty of other jackasses.

Six months ago, I was looking for a job in Canada for the first time since I began teaching in Korea several years ago, and it was a nerve-wracking experience. For the first time in years, the oneness was on ME to convince THEM to hire me. My "interviews" for my jobs in Korea were really more like introductions, in which I usually felt like the job was easily mine if I wanted it.

I've gotten glimpses at the other end of the process, too. I've listened to a head NSET at a hagwon conduct phone interviews in which he basically begged the applicants to take the job. I've heard my supervisor at my last public school complain about the principal's attitude toward finding my replacement: the principal was flipping through applicants' photos, eliminating or choosing resumes based purely on the photo (this included deliberately throwing out the resumes of any and all applicants who were ethnically Korean).

My point being, sure, pressuring employers to abandon irresponsible and discriminatory hiring practices wouldn't weed out ALL of the dumbass NSETs. But isn't it a more logical and effective first step than, say, requiring teachers (who've already been hired) to attend "culture classes"? If you've got a problem with mice getting into your house through a hole in the wall, you can lay down all the traps you want, but the first order of business is to plug the hole.

March 29, 2010 6:31 AM

kushibo said...

Peter wrote:
But that doesn't mean that interviewing applicants, and checking into (or, hell, even just READING) their qualifications, doesn't weed out plenty of other jackasses.

I am in total agreement there. Some places do not interview, and other places don't know how to interview, and a lot of jackasses are just plain good at getting through the interview.

I guess where I'm coming from — and the rant I linked stems from that — is that many teachers (including the good ones) put the onus mostly or solely on the schools/institutes that hire the bad teachers. Similarly, many of the schools and institutes place the onus wholly on the teachers.

Basically, both positions are wrong.

kushibo said...

By the way, although thumbing through CVs and looking at the pictures plays a bigger role than it should in some organizations' hiring practices, I would like to point out that that this has long been used in Korean companies hiring Korean workers as well. 인상을 보는 것. This is, indeed, a major impetus for plastic surgery in Korea.

3gyupsal said...

If you want a job in Korea, during the interview just change the topic to how much you hate Apollo Ohno, and also affirm clearly that Dokdo is Korea's island and everyone in the world should care about it. Maybe send a picture of your bare back with a picture of Dokdo on it in the east sea. Talk about how you can't wait to try all of the different Kimchi varieties in Korea. Tell the interviewer that you are masturbating to a picture of Kim Yun Ah. No, don't do the last one, but make sure that the interviewer knows that you believe in Kim Yun-ah's superiority.

Unknown said...

hehe...unqualified, hagwons wouldnt pay enough for qualified people (not that we arent qualified, there ARE plenty of qualified and experienced and professional teachers here),.

the way i see it about the mandatory culture course, is the idea that to "understand" here is to obey or follow, more than to comprehend. They want to make the foriegners understand their bosses and not make so many troubles.

hell, ive been here for years, speak the langauge, and i avoid these middle ages men like the plague.
would they teach that?

Unknown said...

i do want to add on I remember when I worked in this little hagwon once, some KT said to me "we need a specialist" , ie. someone who knows how to teach Korean kids.

What does that mean?

someone who will not offend them but will give them the ability to speak enough of a foriegn language to pass their tests, impress bald, pot bellied middle managers, and look cool enough without having to get their feet wet in the outside world and the nasty people will live there, ie the whole non-korean world..