Korea cuts 2,500 native-English teachers at public schools

The title of the post makes it sound like 2,500 PS NETs have recently been cut.  I was shocked upon reading it. 

The post should be titled Korea has cut 2,500 public school NETs since 2011.

I agree. The way that people post news is really silly on Waygook. They aways try to sensationalize it. I am tired of it. I wish people would word things well because it sounds as if the government decided to cut the jobs that exist, not that they are no longer funding future contracts. Sounds like this happened overnight.

That seems to be the way news is always posted... everywhere.

Yeah, and to be fair, the title in the original article is practically the same: Korea cuts 2,500 native-English teachers in public schools

Cool. It means there will be more hagwon jobs and, perhaps, more money to be made.

I wouldn't count on it. Even as public school jobs have been cut, hagwon enrollment has continued to decline.

Great maybe these fluent Korean English teachers can teach the students great phrases like this one found in my school above the English room..   Besides the spelling and grammar, confusing feet with feel, that's a far cry from fluent.

Perhaps that has to do with the declining birth rate...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/11054817/South-Koreans-will-be-extinct-by-2750.html
 

Saw this today:

In 1970, there were 31.2 babies born per thousand people.

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2014/08/26/south-korea-birthrate-hits-lowest-on-record/

Just 8.6 babies per 1,000 South Koreans were born last year.

Great maybe these fluent Korean English teachers can teach the students great phrases like this one found in my school above the English room..   Besides the spelling and grammar, confusing feet with feel, that's a far cry from fluent.

You are just misunderstanding it.  It is like the idiom "to walk a mile in their shoes", or "to write Shakespeare, you must live Shakespeare".

It has been condensed into "feet it".  Even Ezra Pound would be impressed with the poetic elegance of that sentence.

Brilliant really.

When I get axed the "english only zone" is going with me

I've said it for years... life would be so much better for me here if most of you just went home.

More work
Higher pay
Better jobs
And if I were still single, a lot more sex!

Well, with the supply of new 'teachers' coming in Korea can do what it wants. It's funny how it seems that Korea has some of you by the basketballs.


The pay is stagnant, the respect is diminishing, and Korea thinks it's ready to teach English.......  Should be a fun few years ahead of us.

Great maybe these fluent Korean English teachers can teach the students great phrases like this one found in my school above the English room..   Besides the spelling and grammar, confusing feet with feel, that's a far cry from fluent.

Well, that just made my day a hell of a lot better - many thanks!

The graph starts in 2011 at the peak of NETs. If you go back a decade you will see the net gain in NETs over a longer period to be positive.

This has little to do with the declining birthrate and more to do with budgets than anything. Total expenditure for elementary education has increased despite the declining birthrates.

We are simply the easiest targets. There are people who want us gone for a variety of reasons and we have no power. Very few worth listening to argue from the educational value perspective.  They say Koreans can teach fine to try and calm our supporters. Just like those who want us gone won't listen to why we are valuable and instead talk cheaper alternatives, those who support us won't agree why we are useless and argue education is worth the investment.
Koreans can teach fine, but they can teach better with us, and students can learn fine without us, but they can learn better with us. Apart from the morons out there who argue we are useless, we do positively influence education.

The real questions about NETs are how much do we influence English language learning and does this make economic sense?
Since 2011 government budgets for education have been stretched to include things like meals, babysitting, after school activities, counselling, special education, physical education, increased security etc. Not to mention more expenses at earlier levels and later levels. Money left for core academic subjects has simply decreased. When you think about all of these things, a cutback in NETs does seem fair.

Since 2011 government budgets for education have been stretched to include things like meals, babysitting, after school activities, counselling, special education, physical education, increased security etc. Not to mention more expenses at earlier levels and later levels. Money left for core academic subjects has simply decreased. When you think about all of these things, a cutback in NETs does seem fair.

I don't follow. They stretched the budgets to include some good stuff with some unnecessary bits and therefore we should say that it's fair to cut back on NETs? Switch the meals to be free only for people who can't afford it and suddenly you'll find budget, for instance...

Since 2011 government budgets for education have been stretched to include things like meals, babysitting, after school activities, counselling, special education, physical education, increased security etc. Not to mention more expenses at earlier levels and later levels. Money left for core academic subjects has simply decreased. When you think about all of these things, a cutback in NETs does seem fair.

I don't follow. They stretched the budgets to include some good stuff with some unnecessary bits and therefore we should say that it's fair to cut back on NETs? Switch the meals to be free only for people who can't afford it and suddenly you'll find budget, for instance...

I agree. A blanket policy of free lunches just doesn't make fiscal sense. Though those is need should absolutely get assistance.

Since 2011 government budgets for education have been stretched to include things like meals, babysitting, after school activities, counselling, special education, physical education, increased security etc. Not to mention more expenses at earlier levels and later levels. Money left for core academic subjects has simply decreased. When you think about all of these things, a cutback in NETs does seem fair.

I don't follow. They stretched the budgets to include some good stuff with some unnecessary bits and therefore we should say that it's fair to cut back on NETs? Switch the meals to be free only for people who can't afford it and suddenly you'll find budget, for instance...

I agree. A blanket policy of free lunches just doesn't make fiscal sense. Though those is need should absolutely get assistance.

My Co-Teacher told me that they do this because making the poor not pay would stigmatize and humiliate them in front of their peers. 

And it's not that hard to have it not done in front of anyone; like you just have it all paid for exclusively through bank transfers by parents. Then, no one is asking why the one kid isn't bringing daily lunch money.

But as if no one could find any other way to stigmatize poor people. 

Since 2011 government budgets for education have been stretched to include things like meals, babysitting, after school activities, counselling, special education, physical education, increased security etc. Not to mention more expenses at earlier levels and later levels. Money left for core academic subjects has simply decreased. When you think about all of these things, a cutback in NETs does seem fair.

I don't follow. They stretched the budgets to include some good stuff with some unnecessary bits and therefore we should say that it's fair to cut back on NETs? Switch the meals to be free only for people who can't afford it and suddenly you'll find budget, for instance...

It's not fair to argue we are less important than food? Jeez you didn't think that out from a family economics perspective.

Funny you pick the most (perhaps only) controversial expansion I mentioned to target. Yes that is a huge drain, but they all add up. When I said seems fair, I had my eyes on the other things. I also don't support free lunch for all as more important to education than English teacher.
However when they tried to take away free lunch, a mayor lost his job along with several education super superintendents. Obviously it's popular. I'd argue more popular than us. A free lunch that used to be 50,000 a month is just that. English education is a lot more complex and the benefits much less tangible.
It boils down to family budgets and such. Just because you aren't in the bottom 70% doesn't mean you want to dish out 50,000 won per kid a month to feed lunch over having a NET in in some of their public school classes. With that 50,000 you can send them to after school classes and camps where they will get several hours more English education a week, some even with a NET perhaps. Or you can put the money towards a private academy...your choice. Paying for lunch or starving a kid....not much of a choice.

And it's not that hard to have it not done in front of anyone; like you just have it all paid for exclusively through bank transfers by parents. Then, no one is asking why the one kid isn't bringing daily lunch money.

But as if no one could find any other way to stigmatize poor people. 

Yeah, it was this way when I went to school in the UK. My family wasn't too rich so I got free lunches. But no one would have known that. And I didn't even realise it for a while. I just went to eat lunch like everyone else. 

It's not fair to argue we are less important than food? Jeez you didn't think that out from a family economics perspective.

Funny you pick the most (perhaps only) controversial expansion I mentioned to target. Yes that is a huge drain, but they all add up. When I said seems fair, I had my eyes on the other things. I also don't support free lunch for all as more important to education than English teacher.

So let me get this straight:
1) You say I didn't think things out because I suggested only giving free lunches to people who can't afford lunch and that we are more important than free lunches for everyone.

but at the same time...
2) You agree with me 100% that free lunches for all is less important than having us.

Also, I said uneccesary bits. I said "for example" to indicate that this was one example. I find the "extra security" to be dubious, considering that in many cases that ended up just being a guy that stands at the front entrance. And I don't think babysitting services are essential either. Or at least less essential than education...

With that 50,000 you can send them to after school classes and camps where they will get several hours more English education a week, some even with a NET perhaps. Or you can put the money towards a private academy...your choice. Paying for lunch or starving a kid....not much of a choice.

But there is no starving kid. That's what you're not getting. I suggested giving assistance to those that need assisting. If the kid is starving... they're going to get assistance.

...foreigners now have to compete with Korean teachers who are not only fluent in English but also willing to work harder for less money.

Oh really?

Yeah, the thing that really gets me about this is that they seem to equate being fluent in English to having the ability to properly teach it. Every Korean teacher that I've met teaches English entirely in Korean with a few English words thrown in. They then wonder why all of the money invested in English education is doing absolutely nothing.

People try to use the argument that it's because Korean and English are so different, but I call bulls*** on that - I've met so many from China and the Middle East who speak English at a fantastic level. It's not how similar the languages are as it is the quality of instruction.

Chinese grammar is a nice blend between English and Korean grammar. I can't speak for all of the Middle East, but the grammar structure in Arabic is near identical to English.

It's not fair to argue we are less important than food? Jeez you didn't think that out from a family economics perspective.

Funny you pick the most (perhaps only) controversial expansion I mentioned to target. Yes that is a huge drain, but they all add up. When I said seems fair, I had my eyes on the other things. I also don't support free lunch for all as more important to education than English teacher.

So let me get this straight:
1) You say I didn't think things out because I suggested only giving free lunches to people who can't afford lunch and that we are more important than free lunches for everyone.

but at the same time...
2) You agree with me 100% that free lunches for all is less important than having us.

Also, I said uneccesary bits. I said "for example" to indicate that this was one example. I find the "extra security" to be dubious, considering that in many cases that ended up just being a guy that stands at the front entrance. And I don't think babysitting services are essential either. Or at least less essential than education...

With that 50,000 you can send them to after school classes and camps where they will get several hours more English education a week, some even with a NET perhaps. Or you can put the money towards a private academy...your choice. Paying for lunch or starving a kid....not much of a choice.

But there is no starving kid. That's what you're not getting. I suggested giving assistance to those that need assisting. If the kid is starving... they're going to get assistance.

NETs in public school aren't the only things people care about. Education budget is bloated so it's easy to pilfer from if you'd rather spend the money on other things. My point is, need it or not, saving 50,000 a month is pretty sweet. I don't think it's educational reasons they prefer free lunches for the middle class over better English education potential. I'm also rational enough to understand that not all education budget should strictly be for improving education. Whether parents use the savings directly for education or not, less bills to pay means less family stress.

And my school's gate greeter could beat your school's gate greeter in a staring contest. Besides he helps manage the delivery people, stops freeloaders from coming in to park, lurk, or sell things and knows how to use the surveillance cameras, lock the doors and when it's necessary to call the cops. He also helps with a little grounds keeping and children and parents feel safer and happy to see him. The rest of us were clueless and required meetings or worked piecemeal until he came along. I can't say he is there for educational purposes, but I think feeling safe and secure (whether true or imagined) would have a positive benefit for the learning environment. I can't say that my job is more important than his just like I can't say my job is more important than free lunches for the middle classes. That's up for voters. Call it education or not, it's under education budget.