I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that some 60% of teachers oppose the incoming administration’s plans to conduct high school English classes in English from 2010.
Not when less than half of English teachers in Korea can conduct classes for a full hour in English. And not when over half of foreign teachers in Korean schools lack teaching qualifications.
And this is just the teachers affiliated with the relatively conservative Korean Federation of Teachers’ Associations who oppose the move. One can only imagine the kind of opposition KTU-affiliated teachers will put up.
Needless to say, LMB’s team is searching for ways to boost the quality of English teachers in Korea — they are reportedly studying plans to sack English teachers who can’t conduct classes in English, a move that if implemented would be sure to go over well with teachers groups. According to Yonhap, the transition team is also looking to implement a TEE (Teaching English in English) certification system.
According to the JoongAng Ilbo, though, another plan the team is pushing is to allow those fluent in English to serve their national service teaching English rather than going into the military.
I should point out, though, that an official with the presidential transition team has denied reports that the government plans to sack English teachers who can’t teach in English and offer military exemptions to English speakers. Who knows what’s up.
Discussing the English education plan in an interview with Pyeonghwa Broadcasting radio, the always entertaining Jin Jung-gwon had some harsh words for the transition team, calling them “free market Taleban,” “fundamentalists,” “like Bin Laden” and, well, “not of a normal state of mind.” Yes, Jin is a flaming socialist, but he’s an entertaining one, and when he’s right, he’s right. Such as when, while discussing talk of teaching classes other than English in English, he points out that students are having a tough enough time following classes in Korean, let alone in a foreign language like English.
That being said, if LMB does go through with teaching other classes in English, too, he might want to follow the Maeil Gyeongje’s advice and bookmark Finland. The nation that brought us Linux and Antti has apparently had some degree of success with developing English-language education. Interestingly, the Dong-A also sings Finland praises.
UPDATE: LMB’s transition team has announced it will not push for classes other than English to be taught in English.
Thank God.
The team also announced it is studying a number of ways to supplement its teachers supply, including sending teachers through a TESOL program, using Koreans studying abroad as teachers for their national service, and using housewives with superior English skills.
10 Comments
“According to the JoongAng Ilbo, though, another plan the team is pushing is to allow those fluent in English to serve their national service teaching English rather than going into the military.”
The sweet irony of having members of the anti-foreigner teachers union being replaced by Korean kids straight out of high school.
Correction…
seeing members
…many of which will probably kids who were born in the US or Canada, to boot.
Robert, there is not much use in linking to a blog that hasn’t been updated since ages, but just in case, you might remove one http from the link to my blog.
20년 전만 해도 국민의 영어 실력이 고민이었다. 하지만 영어 공교육을 강화하고 상당수 TV프로그램을 영어로 내보내는 등의 노력을 한 끝에 비영어권 국가 중에 영어가 잘 통하는 나라가 됐다.
From the Donga article:
At least one fact is correct in this snippet, and it is that Finland is not an English-speaking country. Some might even say that English is spoken relatively well. But no remarkable changes have taken neither in the EFL education of English nor TV broadcasting.
The Kulosaari Secondary School where the Maeil Gyeongje reporter seems to have visited is not an ordinary school but specialized in English-language education. As far as I know, this kind of arrangements are mainly for expatriate residents; Finland is not really a favorite destination for the international bureaucratic (EU etc) or business elite, so the authorities are doing their best in the school front to entice this kind of expertise here.
From Maeil Gyeongje:
A 3-month practise in an English-speaking country may be required in the Kulosaari school, but definitely not in general. (Teacher practise can be done abroad.)
And all the Koreans would need to do was to have less crappy Korean dramas in TV and have instead more crappy English-language dramas instead, and give boot to voice actors except children’s programs.
Exempting fluent English speakers from military service sounds like a great way to make the upper classes even happier. And wait’ll a bunch of 18 or 19 year old boys back from daddy-paid yuhak start teaching school girls…
“and using housewives with superior English skills.”
The Yahoo chatters looking for afternoon delight and ex-juicy girls????
There is a huge difference between TESOL/TEFL certificate holders and licensed teachers. The former qualification may be earned in as little as one month and even more rigorous programs like the Cambridge are focused on adult language acquisition. Licensed teachers, on the other hand, spent one semester in the classroom as a student teacher upon completion of 3-4 semesters of education coursework.
I say, slow but steady, ladies. Slow but steady.
Korea doesn’t need to go overboard like this.
Korea doesn’t need to spend billions on English. What Korea needs is to get rid of the overbearing cultural mindset on education and schools. This is a cultural problem.
As usual the tone of the Times piece was a bit condescending - not to mention as Songai correctly points out - the differences between a TESOL certificate and 4 years at university with a major in Teaching.
Good to see him talking up the CELTA though. Rigorous? More like making your brain bleed while you dig your eyes out with a spoon after your latest lesson plan turned to goo in a teaching practise!