RANTING/VENTING MEGATHREAD 3.0

I can't even make a fun, meaningful goodbye class without the ol' CT trying to change everything about the lesson.

If I tell you that the entire purpose of the activity revolves around a specific premise, would it make sense to try to change most important part?? The lack of faith in students and lack of want to even TRY new things really pisses me right off.

My current CTs are way better than my old ones, but good lord the hand-holding is 10x worse.

Ugh, camps. If the POEs and MOEs aren't going to be better about enforcing camp regulations on schools, they should just due away with them altogether.

What are the camp regulations? Pretty sure each school just makes up what they want their camps to be like?

Mostly stuff that's supposed to be in place for both student safety and discipline, the first and most obvious being having a KT present at all times. There's a lot of debate in some NET circles on whether or not a KT is actually required during camps because some believe camps fall within the scope of afterschool classes -- FYI, they don't. Whether a NET believes he or she needs one there doesn't really matter, it needs to be enforced because there are so many kids who will test limits and boundaries with a NET that most would never do with a KT, and a lot of NETs (mostly the new with no Korean ability) are actually really ignorant of the things going on right in front them because a lot of the kids are really good at pretending to say one thing when they're actually saying something else. I've had extremely experienced KTs shocked at what I've secretly recorded students saying and doing while alone in the classroom with me (because, of course, they kept telling me that I was just misunderstanding the students because there's no way kids would ever think of stuff like that). That increases 10-fold during camp periods when the schools are mostly empty and the homeroom teachers are absent. A lot of kids think they can get away with anything during that period, especially when it's only the foreign teacher present, and a lot of schools will stonewall any of the NETs' attempts to apply any form of discpline because of reasons. Like, they tell NETs to handle it but they also block NETs' abilities to handle it. If you're going to effectively tie a NET's hands behind their backs like that, then you need to at least provide the support.

For public schools, they also need a stricter system to regulate how camp funds are being used. I know so many people that have a very small to non-existent budget because the schools or someone in the schools are misappropriating or embezzling the funds for other things. Camps are already pointless enough as they are, no need to make the NETs' jobs harder by not giving them the funds they need to at least make some materials for non-ppt activities and games that might give the camps at least some educational value.

Is the world going into a handbasket?

Trump is the U.S. president,...

Boris is Prime Minister of England (born in America, New York actually; married to a German, (though last year they separated, her being a human rights lawyer)...

Putin is only 66 years old but has ruled Russia for 19 years (please do not cite his puppet assistant of a few years when he led as Prime Minister instead of President to follow the constitution).

Boris...  the man committed to leaving the EU that Russia hates; the racially-charged orator.

Ugh.

The late Swedish academic Hans Rosling has identified a worrying trend: not only do many people across advanced economies have no idea that the world is becoming a much better place, but they actually even think the opposite.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190111-seven-reasons-why-the-world-is-improving

Trump was supposed to be Hitler and start WWIII and collapse the economy and ignite a race war. It hasn't happened.
Brexit is supposed to totally ruin the UK. Sure. Ok. Norway and Switzerland not being in the EU has led to the utter collapse of those societies.
What's Putin done? Some border skirmishes and he rules Russia as an authoritarian. Okay not the best, but that puts him in league with the Chinese, the Saudis, the Israelis, India, Pakistan, etc. And if the majority of the Russian people want an authoritarian system of government, is that wrong? Isn't that part of freedom? Some want to be on the order side rather than the liberal side. That's their choice.

Look at the EU- what an abjectly bad system of government. Just because the idea of the EU is good, doesn't mean the system it's created is good. And if the system is bad, it isn't going to work, no matter how noble the concept.

puts him in league with the Chinese, the Saudis, the Israelis, India, Pakistan, etc. And if the majority of the Russian people want an authoritarian system of government, is that wrong? Isn't that part of freedom? Some want to be on the order side rather than the liberal side. That's their choice.

having the majority =/= being right

and yeah it's great to be authoritarian if you have the power or if you are favored. ask the uighurs about how authoritarianism is working out for them... this is some grade A nonsense. can you imagine telling someone in the 40s "bbbbbut they 'elected' hitler, so it's okay" just because trump or putin or whoever isn't actually hitler doesn't make authoritarianism cool

can you imagine telling someone in the 40s "bbbbbut they 'elected' hitler, so it's okay" just because trump or putin or whoever isn't actually hitler doesn't make authoritarianism cool

Hitler was elected, that kind of goes into my point. An authoritarian system of government, sans elections, can certainly cause problems, but so can a democratically elected one. Now, democratically elected ones have more safeguards, but this notion that an authoritarian structure is inherently wrong is false. A well-run monarchy might be better than an unstable democracy. Would a "kinder, gentler" Stalin have been able to resist the Germans? How about Mao/Chiang  and the Japanese? A nice government can be just as awful because it neglects a fundamental aspect of governance- safety and security. Now authoritarian governments tend to wayyy overemphasize those and neglect other foundational elements of governance, but that doesn't mean that everything is all one way or the other.

Would you rather live under Assad or Saddam or revert to the state of nature that consumed Iraq and Syria? Before Mao, China was repeatedly invaded and fractured. The British Empire abolished slavery long before the American republic did so. Kings and dukes and the Church prevented racial and ethnic strife because all that mattered was loyalty to the sovereign. Get rid of their authority and you unleash centuries of religious and national warfare on an unprecedented scale as unifying factors are discarded.

Furthermore, many emerging democracies have a period of more authoritarian rule or uniparty rule before they become full-fledged democracies. This is often necessary to build stability and develop to the point where real democracy can emerge and prevent internal civil strife.

Anyways, the point was more of a theoretical one. The Russians LIKE a more orderly, autocratic government. Are we to deny them that simply because other autocracies have bungled things? That seems as justifiable as imposition of other systems like republics and democracies because democracies have given rise to Hitler.

The Russians LIKE a more orderly, autocratic government.

Wrong... It's like going back to 1960s Korea, or Taiwan, and saying that they liked being ruled under their respective dictatorships.  Sure NOW a lot of older people may look back and say that it was good, only because the current conditions are pretty nice. But, trust me, at the time the vast majority hated it, and if the economy didn't turn out as it did now, they would still  hate it.

can you imagine telling someone in the 40s "bbbbbut they 'elected' hitler, so it's okay" just because trump or putin or whoever isn't actually hitler doesn't make authoritarianism cool

Hitler was elected, that kind of goes into my point. An authoritarian system of government, sans elections, can certainly cause problems, but so can a democratically elected one. Now, democratically elected ones have more safeguards, but this notion that an authoritarian structure is inherently wrong is false.

"wrong." historically, autocratic regimes have caused far more "problems" than democratic ones (not to say that democracies, especially the US, haven't caused problems as well).

A well-run monarchy might be better than an unstable democracy. Would a "kinder, gentler" Stalin have been able to resist the Germans? How about Mao/Chiang  and the Japanese? A nice government can be just as awful because it neglects a fundamental aspect of governance- safety and security. Now authoritarian governments tend to wayyy overemphasize those and neglect other foundational elements of governance, but that doesn't mean that everything is all one way or the other.

this is all irrelevant. we are talking about government structures not the personality of individual leaders. a weaker churchill might've surrendered, but it has nothing to do with democratic vs autocratic forms of government.

Would you rather live under Assad or Saddam or revert to the state of nature that consumed Iraq and Syria? Before Mao, China was repeatedly invaded and fractured. The British Empire abolished slavery long before the American republic did so. Kings and dukes and the Church prevented racial and ethnic strife because all that mattered was loyalty to the sovereign. Get rid of their authority and you unleash centuries of religious and national warfare on an unprecedented scale as unifying factors are discarded

the first question presents as false dichotomy. the obvious answer is neither. the rest is examples of minor achievements in justice made by autocratic governments. obviously, the church and the british empire were involved in tons of other "activities" that the american republic was not.

Furthermore, many emerging democracies have a period of more authoritarian rule or uniparty rule before they become full-fledged democracies. This is often necessary to build stability and develop to the point where real democracy can emerge and prevent internal civil strife.

we aren't talking about autocracies becoming democracies (which is good and v. cool). we are talking about democracies sliding back into autocracy. at least, if people like you are to be listened to because "autocracy isn't that bad." the fact remains that the spread of democracy has created the world we now live in (check out LI's link). i don't want to revert to mao's china or any other autocratic government you've mentioned. i like my civil liberties and i'd rather they be expanded and not ~deleted~.

Anyways, the point was more of a theoretical one. The Russians LIKE a more orderly, autocratic government. Are we to deny them that simply because other autocracies have bungled things? That seems as justifiable as imposition of other systems like republics and democracies because democracies have given rise to Hitler.

yes. and yes, democracies have given rise to hitler... as well as the world we live in (which is getting better, not worse)

Do you mean the native English teachers or just foreigners in general comprising many careers? It sounds like they are into their little clique and don't mix well with new comers.

Native English teachers, mostly, because those are the majority of foreigners in my town, but we do get contract workers, too, and the ones that choose to hang around the same haunts are basically the same.

They are incredibly cliquey here, but in the most obnoxious, unrealistic ways possible. They base their judgments on really stupid high school shit, like whether or not you drink alcohol, and I can't even get into the stuff they've said and done without getting super pissed off about it, so I'm going to leave that alone. I'll just say that a lot of them are the creepiest fuckers you'll ever meet, and that you can't_can't_can't trust anything they say. They lie so ****** much about others, especially those they're threatened by, and I honestly don't know how a few of them haven't had their heads hammered down into their chests, yet.

Newcomers are welcome as long as you drink and conform to their dynamics. The others get ostracized and shit on.

I've taught in classrooms which had TVs nearly as big as a small car
I've taught in classrooms which had 3-D TVs and glasses
I've taught in classrooms with PA systems and surround sound speakers
I've taught in classrooms with dozens of English focused board games
I've taught in classrooms with hundreds of English story books

... I've never taught in a class which had a single Korean-English dictionary.

I've taught in classrooms which had TVs nearly as big as a small car
I've taught in classrooms which had 3-D TVs and glasses
I've taught in classrooms with PA systems and surround sound speakers
I've taught in classrooms with dozens of English focused board games
I've taught in classrooms with hundreds of English story books

... I've never taught in a class which had a single Korean-English dictionary.

Careful Aristocrat, you'll have the "no translation allowed" esl police after you!

But yes I agree that it's very odd.  My classroom has a cabinet full of English story books that have never been touched.  The cabinet is actually locked and nobody can find the key haha.

I teach in elementary and have been to two different schools, and neither had an alphabet.

to be fair, you don't really need an english dictionary at elementary schools. they'd take 10 minutes looking up something, and the class is only 40 minutes

i used to teach IELTS in australia, and many of the korean/japanese students would have those electronic dictionaries. the dictionaries would always give a weird, antiquated translations though, so it was always a chore when reading their essays, trying to figure out what the hell they are trying to say

There are five in my middle school classroom, but they never get used unless the students are forced, and you really, really have to force them.

I have no idea why. They're like personal cheat guides.

There are five in my middle school classroom, but they never get used unless the students are forced, and you really, really have to force them.

I have no idea why. They're like personal cheat guides.

I have six in my middle school room, and I tend to use/offer them for after school classes and camps. My writing-focused after school class uses them without prompting (they're shy, and they prefer it to asking the teacher sometimes). During camp, I allow the dictionaries for cheat guides in certain games, especially if I'm disqualifying things based on spelling. Students tend to reach for dictionaries more if they're already on the desks, too.

Dictionaries might be helpful in class (i.e. if a student doesn't know a word on a worksheet, or needs a word for making a poster or something), but I've never seen a full set in a classroom.

to be fair, you don't really need an english dictionary at elementary schools. they'd take 10 minutes looking up something, and the class is only 40 minutes

i used to teach IELTS in australia, and many of the korean/japanese students would have those electronic dictionaries. the dictionaries would always give a weird, antiquated translations though, so it was always a chore when reading their essays, trying to figure out what the hell they are trying to say

It's more a question of teaching them to take initiative. Whenever most students don't understand a word or sentence, they'll either give up or just ask the teacher or a friend.  Once they're told what the word means, they completely forget the English word. English simply becomes a code to immediately translate into Korean instead of a language of it's own.  A dictionary, not an electronic one, creates the habit of trying to figure out what one doesn't know. The effort required to look up the word and gradually comprehend the sentence makes the brain think more critically and increases the likelihood that the word will be remembered.

Today, I designed an Escape Room activity for camp. The students thoroughly enjoyed it, even though only one team successfully completed it and even then, it was with
PLENTY of hints from my CT . Basically, each time they found an item they were given a clue which gave the location of the next item.

The clues were somewhat challenging, but nothing they hadn't learned before or couldn't handle.

The problem my CT and I noticed was that the students simply didn't finish reading the clues, before trying to figure out what the sentence actually meant, they'd stop reading, usually mid-sentence, once they thought they knew and simply scratch wherever they could. Once they didn't find the item, not one of them attempted to slowly reread or comprehend the entire clue... it was a perfect illustration of impatience and a lack of focus.
What I also noticed was that not one of the students took charge of their team and once scratching wherever they could, regardless of what the hint said, yielded nothing, they'd all start arguing.

Patience, the ability to focus and leadership skills are very rare to find over here.

i probably bother looking up a french word i didn't know, in french class (even though the teacher kept telling us), so i do udnerstand that

but, yes, kids are more or less spoon-fed everything here. if you think it's bad in elementary, my wife's biggest complain about kindergarten (she's a kindy teacher) is that they aren't allowed to do ANYTHING for themselves. the are treated like complete babies