Is it a bad sign when most of the NETs are new?

korean public schools really just need an outside body to come in once or twice a year and evaluate the teachers, like OFSTED would in the UK. it feels like public school teachers here really don't have anyone to impress (apart from the fake open classes), as they change schools every four years anyway, are never evaluated and know they've pretty much got a job for life.

not to mention that the subject teachers seem to get swapped around seemingly at will- teachers getting put on english teaching duty for the year, despite never having taught ESL before (and often not even being able to speak english very well, either)

The problem with Ofsted is they only come once? a year and observe a few selected teachers. What should be happening is the head of dept should be observing all teachers in their dept twice a year and giving them proper feedback.  Plus there should be a mandatory peer observation schedule with feedback as part of a teacher's duties. This is what happened at the BC when i worked there and, while unpopular for obvious reasons, people knew it was effective. Quite a few teachers got put on PIPs (performance improvement procedures) as a result

The problem with Ofsted is they only come once? a year and observe a few selected teachers. What should be happening is the head of dept should be observing all teachers in their dept twice a year and giving them proper feedback.  Plus there should be a mandatory peer observation schedule with feedback as part of a teacher's duties. This is what happened at the BC when i worked there and, while unpopular for obvious reasons, people knew it was effective. Quite a few teachers got put on PIPs (performance improvement procedures) as a result

i only mentioned OFSTED because it's external. i just can't imagine anything internal like this being done properly in the schools. i mean, they kind of had this at a school i worked at before, but the "examiner" would just pop in for 1 minute and leave. the korean teachers says this happens to them but it was just a "formality" that they had to do, a checkbox ticked that someone had technically watched their class

i wonder if it's also cultural? that no teacher wants to criticise other teachers, making them lose face or something? when i first started i'd always ask for feedback but just get a "yes, it was good" despite knowing the class was completely and utterly shite. it was infuriating and impossible to improve

one of the main draws for me when applying to BC was getting decent feedback, as well as doing some more qualifications. just improving myself as an instructor generally, really. still wonder if i made the right choice turning the job down. ha

Bad feedback sucks, but it's right of passage every teacher should have to go through. You can't rely on the students to know how the teacher should be developing.

Bad feedback sucks, but it's right of passage every teacher should have to go through. You can't rely on the students to know how the teacher should be developing.

ha exactly. i mean, public schools give yearly feedback forms (rating their teacher) to all students, right down to elementary grade 1 and 2. how mental is that

i wonder if it's also cultural? that no teacher wants to criticise other teachers, making them lose face or something? when i first started i'd always ask for feedback but just get a "yes, it was good" despite knowing the class was completely and utterly shite. it was infuriating and impossible to improve

Peer reviews generally aren't done in private companies back home because of the loss of face issue. Someone at your pay level gives you a bad review, totally poisons the work environment. And very likely you'll give an equally bad review back. It's not a realistic way to review people. Reviews are usually only done by supervisors, or by a completely independent entity.

ha exactly. i mean, public schools give yearly feedback forms (rating their teacher) to all students, right down to elementary grade 1 and 2. how mental is that

Well, it has a place, but a small one--students usually have a good sense of whether a teacher is "on their side" and has their interests at heart.  But many of the instruments used are iffy at ascertaining that. 

The real student feedback comes in measuring their progress against pre-defined criteria.

There used to be a lot of discussion about how "teaching to the test" is bad, but I always felt that it depends on the test.  If the test is measuring the right things in the right way, I'm all for it.

Peer reviews generally aren't done in private companies back home because of the loss of face issue. Someone at your pay level gives you a bad review, totally poisons the work environment. And very likely you'll give an equally bad review back. It's not a realistic way to review people. Reviews are usually only done by supervisors, or by a completely independent entity.

Right. But you don't get heads of Dept assessing here either. And when I first came to Korea, I was completely under the impression I was just the assistant and I'd be learning from the Korean teacher. Hard to do without a single piece of feedback!

Not to mention every single SMOE training day I went on was utterly awful

Well, it has a place, but a small one--students usually have a good sense of whether a teacher is "on their side" and has their interests at heart.  But many of the instruments used are iffy at ascertaining that. 

The real student feedback comes in measuring their progress against pre-defined criteria.

There used to be a lot of discussion about how "teaching to the test" is bad, but I always felt that it depends on the test.  If the test is measuring the right things in the right way, I'm all for it.

Well I would get to see what students wrote. I really don't feel "teacher bad because no give candy" or "more movies teacher!" or "teacher funny. Big nose" assessments are very useful.

But it still seems to boil down to the focus on English having to be constantly fun and entertaining than educational, at least at public schools (especially elementary)

Peer reviews generally aren't done in private companies back home because of the loss of face issue. Someone at your pay level gives you a bad review, totally poisons the work environment. And very likely you'll give an equally bad review back. It's not a realistic way to review people. Reviews are usually only done by supervisors, or by a completely independent entity.
Right. But you don't get heads of Dept assessing here either. And when I first came to Korea, I was completely under the impression I was just the assistant and I'd be learning from the Korean teacher. Hard to do without a single piece of feedback!

Not to mention every single SMOE training day I went on was utterly awful

Observations from your boss should be quality control with a grading system + developmental. Ones from your colleagues should be developmental only. There should also be training sessions on how to give constructive feedback without causing offence.

Right. But you don't get heads of Dept assessing here either. And when I first came to Korea, I was completely under the impression I was just the assistant and I'd be learning from the Korean teacher. Hard to do without a single piece of feedback!

That's the thing, head of departments are just like any other teacher but gets paid a little extra, and theoretically any teacher can be chosen to be head of a departments. Reviews are a political minefield. Remember there are those flimsy head of departments too like the hwaeshik bujang. Sometimes nobody wants to be head of some department, and so the task goes to a young teacher. All teachers are considered basically equal unless you are the vice-principal, or principal. So peer reviews really can't be objectively done between teachers. However, sometimes when full-time teachers review contract teachers that's when the gloves might come off, if you're pretty confident they'll never become full-time at your particular school (in the case for private schools). The closest thing I've seen in Korean schools of a reasonable, objective, review is when a teacher reviews a student-teacher.

I really like that EPIK has its mentor/mentee program but it's nowhere near where it should be. 

- First year teachers should have access to mentors' classes througout the year, not just one time.  Deskwarming?  Why not be able to pop out for the afternoon to see a class?

- Second year teachers should not automatically become mentors.  My classes were still probably terrible at that point.

- There could be a small team of long term teachers (+ five years?) who have themselves been evaluated, doing the mentoring and doing it regularly throughout the year.  One week per semester where they see two mentee classes per day?  Something like that.

I feel like the mentor/mentee meetings in my experience have been the usual "tick the box, it's done" paperwork for schools when it could be a lot more than that.

While I like that idea a lot but, it might not work for everyone, right away.
My schools want things done a specific way, and ANY deviation from that way, is considered really bad, even if it's good for the students; and I get no freedom to do what I want.
However, my co-t has been pretty helpful and has been helping me improve within the way the school wants things done.

I think it would be especially great if you aren't in a situation similar to mine but, could be good for the future for those who are.

i think a lot of problems would be solved if the books they used were any good. so many schools want you to follow the book, but if the book is complete shit then what's the point?

I had some textbooks that were ok, but I refused to use the activities from them. I would use the key phrases and listening if I must, but none of the other stuff.

I've always wondered why there isn't a set textbook for all native teachers to use.  Aren't we kind of wasted on using the Korean English textbooks?

I'm always flogging this dead horse but I genuinely believe there should be no native teachers in elementary schools.  If the aim is getting the Korean population to speak English then isn't this a monumental waste of resources?  KETs are more than capable of laying the groundwork of English learning alone.  I get the argument of pronunciation problems but to me that isn't a strong enough argument for allocating native teachers to elementary.

If the only aim is to pass a multiple choice English test then every single NET might as well just go home!

If the aim is more about exposing students to other cultures then forget everything above and stick NETs everywhere, who cares haha.

I've always wondered why there isn't a set textbook for all native teachers to use.  Aren't we kind of wasted on using the Korean English textbooks?

I'm always flogging this dead horse but I genuinely believe there should be no native teachers in elementary schools.  If the aim is getting the Korean population to speak English then isn't this a monumental waste of resources?  KETs are more than capable of laying the groundwork of English learning alone.  I get the argument of pronunciation problems but to me that isn't a strong enough argument for allocating native teachers to elementary.

If the only aim is to pass a multiple choice English test then every single NET might as well just go home!

If the aim is more about exposing students to other cultures then forget everything above and stick NETs everywhere, who cares haha.

One of the main, original, reasons for placing NETs in public schools was to dissuade parents from sending their kids to hagwons. But because of the competitive nature of Korean parents, that didn't really help. Anyways, just by being there available for some kid to test out his English is pretty important imo. K-English teachers barely speak a word of English that isn't related to the book, and many are deathly afraid to speak it in front of their students.

One of the main, original, reasons for placing NETs in public schools was to dissuade parents from sending their kids to hagwons.

Ah I didn't know that but it does make a lot of sense, yeah.

I've always wondered why there isn't a set textbook for all native teachers to use.  Aren't we kind of wasted on using the Korean English textbooks?

I'm always flogging this dead horse but I genuinely believe there should be no native teachers in elementary schools.  If the aim is getting the Korean population to speak English then isn't this a monumental waste of resources?  KETs are more than capable of laying the groundwork of English learning alone.  I get the argument of pronunciation problems but to me that isn't a strong enough argument for allocating native teachers to elementary.

If the only aim is to pass a multiple choice English test then every single NET might as well just go home!

If the aim is more about exposing students to other cultures then forget everything above and stick NETs everywhere, who cares haha.

It's generally pointless teaching English if students aren't divided by level. Having kids that don't know their ABCs and fluent kids in the same class? Pointless

I had reviews twice a year, every year, while I taught in Korea. Every time there were folks from the local office of education as well as NET's from around. I was also an observer for every other NET at least twice a year, usually 3 or 4 times.

Their and my opinions were always part of the debriefing both written and verbal.

I didn't care. I did my job. Year after year I was asked to stay...until I left.

But then again, I probably had a lot more to leave for than the rest of you.

I have a better life than you hahahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahaha... ................... .........

I have a better life than you hahahahahahahahaaha hahahahahahahaha... ................... .........

This is sad.

Would anyone who has a great life post that?

This is sad.

Would anyone who has a great life post that?

Hey. You.

Yeah you.

Hey!

Come here. Yeah, over here.

Listen carefully.

Did I ever tell you how cool I am?

I wouldn't worry

At my local MOE, the Korean CTs complained to the MOE that many of the new NETs were inexperienced (well, no sh*t, a teaching license isn't required). Either way, more experienced NETs are preferred in my MOE. 

EXPERIENCE is the key.  Teaching licence has nothing to do with it.  Even certified teachers here aren't teachers like back home or the Korean teachers.  We are technically ESL teachers and this is something different.  (Many certified teachers I met got frustrated by this pretty quickly and either adapted themselves or moved on.)  Experience does matter a lot however.  Those of us who have been here and cut our chops.  It is good to see that being recognized more than 10 years ago.  I remember when being a pretty slim attractive blond haired blue eyed female under 25 was the most sought after teacher.  Looks like Koreans have smartened up and wanted experience.  Better for older teachers now.

I'd say tell all your co teachers to seek out experienced teachers.  They have to call the POE and the EPIK organization also and demand this.  EPIK I hear can have strange hiring criteria including rejecting people who have already taught here before.  I even heard several years ago one person who did interviewing for EPIK (via this site) that he rejected anyone over 40.  I assume such stupid arbitrary standards don't exist anymore or as much as before. 

But EPIK's hiring criteria is still a mystery.  So, Korean teachers should be contacting EPIK directly themselves and their teachers union wanting them to hire more experienced teachers.