Yingwen Laoshi
- 2007-04-20
Yes, ManChuQueue, there are many blind kings in China. But, the question begs to be asked: Who APPOINTS those blind kings. Those who are foolish enough to inflict havoc on their people by appointing blind kings must surely take ultimate responsibility for the inevitable chaos that ensues.
I dont argue that students should not be able to prosecute their teachers if they believe that the final product is seriously faulty. I believe that in such circumstances the first investigation of blame should be directed at the school who knowingly and WILLINGLY employed the teacher.
Here's a statement for you:-
"A teacher is not responsible for his students!"
What!... I can hear thousands of dedicated teachers all over the world cry out: "What blasphemy! What is Yingwen talking about? How can someone who claims to be a teacher, say such a thing...It's heresy!" So I'll repeat it once more for emphasis, but this time with a qualifier:-
"Generally teachers are NOT responsible for their students: they are responsible toward their EMPLOYERS. In turn EMPLOYERS are responsible for the students."
For instance if a third tier college in China employed you as a foreign teacher in their college to teach English to English-major sophomores, and you worked out that what they really needed was plenty of opportunity to build up their confidence and conversational skills in the form of role-play activities, discussions, and presentations etc. but your employer INSISTED that you go into every class and sing songs, play hangman, show movies and tell jokes to the students, what would you do?
Obviously, if you wanted to carry on teaching at the school, you would have two basic choices:-
1. Follow the instructions of your employers who have authority over you and pay you your salary.
or,
2. Do what you believe to be better for your students, and give them the lessons that you personally believe will REALLY help them improve their English skills.
So again, what would you DO?
If you choose number two your students would clearly benefit more, and at the same time you would probably feel more satisfied, feeling that you were doing your job well.
But, would you be?
I mean would you be doing your job well?
Well you may have forgotten one important "little" detail:-
As the school is your employer, who is paying your wages, you SHOULD listen to what it says...
Right?
I mean, your students are not paying your salary, are they...?
If our employers told us to turn cartwheels (some of them actually ask that in a figurative sense), and stand on our heads while playing the bugle out of our backsides, or dress up like Bozo the clown for every class, and wrote it into the contract, should we do those things?
In a previous post, you mentioned the final product being the most important thing. Yet, can we separate the rest of the process from the final product? For instance if you bought a shirt from a shop and later found a stain on it, you might find that the fault could have originated at one of many different points during the process of manufacture. Before it arrived at the shop it might have got stained somehow while being delivered. Instead, maybe a machinist may have spilt something on it as she was sewing the shirt, or it could have received the stain prior to that before the cloth left the factory that it was manufactured in. All these different processes can affect the final product.
If we apply the above analogy to schools we should begin to understand that there are a lot of factors and processes involved before a school is able to dispense the final product through the teacher, of a good education package. First of all a school needs to have sufficient resources in place, including a good curriculum. It needs to be a legal entity, and it must be able to legally employ foreign teachers. It also should have leaders, managers, education leaders, and administrators etc. who are qualified to do their jobs, and certainly in the case of education leaders, be qualified in education. Next the school should make sure that it tries it's best to choose the best qualified teachers that they can find in order to be able to adequately fulfill the promises it makes to it's customers. Once the best teachers are selected, the school should abide by it's contract with the teacher and provide the teacher with reasonably comfortable living accommodation, and a salary that matches whatever duties are required. If training is needed or promised it should be provided, and the teacher should be given proper objectives, support, resources, and textbooks etc. Need I go on?
The point is that there are 101 things (probably more) that can have such an effect on the teacher that the student may feel cheated because the final product is not up to scratch. If a student thought that they had a legal case because the "product" was faulty, then shouldn't the institution that took their money on the promise of providing a good product, so being ultimately responsible for the student's education, be the first to be investigated, before the teacher is hauled over the coals? Shouldn't all the stages of the process that go towards the final product be inspected?
Concentrating on penalizing the teacher rather than the student is like trying to cure a symptom rather than the cause of the disease. The state of EFL in China runs deep. If FTs started getting prosecuted in China the industry may fold very quickly because who would want to come and teach here, then? There's little motive at the moment for many because of the poor salaries. Chinese schools can hardly fill the demand NOW. If we really care about the well-being of our students and the future of EFL, we would support moves to make the schools more accountable for their standards. This would include proper curriculums, employment of fully qualified staff in ALL departments (not just teachers but more importantly school and education leaders), eradicating greed and the desire for position that blinds school leaders to the needs of the students, providing better resources and salaries and giving clearer objectives to teachers. There should also be serious changes in the way that EFL is taught in China by Chinese teachers too. The classes of foreign teachers should have equal importance to the students regular classes, and FTs should be able to have a fair say in how EFL is taught. Once all these conditions are fully established, THEN if the final product is not up to scratch there, might be more of a justification for suing individual teachers.
KJ
- 2007-04-19
I think you're right Manchu that not enough weight of responsibility has been shifted to the teachers; however, I must disagree with your sentiment that some of us are overly supportive of teachers without focusing our attention on the students, where, as I definitely agree, it should be focused. I think you'll find by perusing the archives here that Fish and I, as well Yingwen and a few others, have expressed an affinity for the student that is similar to yours.
But this oversight on your part does not diminish the validity of your argument nor the clarity and keen awareness expressed by your posts. In fact, I find that much of what you have written resonates deeply within the core of my own belief system.
Perhaps there is nothing that you have written that is more telling in terms of your own awareness than the following:
"We, you and I, are privileged to be accorded an opportunity to teach English to the indigenous people of the oldest continuous society on earth, in a nation that is the most populous on earth, that is home to the largest number of ethnic groups (56) on earth and has contributed more knowledge to the people on earth than any other. We have a responsibility to China. I do not take that responsibility lightly. I hope that you do not. And you. And you. And you."
I couldn't agree more and could only add that the fascinations that I face daily as I walk this path in my life have filled me with a sense of wonder and awe and gratitude to be a part of something that has evolved over thousands of years and that continues to evolve dramatically and meaningfully. Truthfully, I find myself more and more able to understand the needs and desires of my students, as they too are a part of this process of change and newness. Perhaps I should have added that to my previous post as reasons I should be kept on as a teacher for a little longer.
I guess it is that absence of concern for the students and the future they are trying to carve out that I would rate as the biggest blunder by so many teachers here. And I think you're right that too often we allow ourselves to be sentimentally moved by the "plight" of our fellow teachers when, in reality, they are as foundational to the problem as the system itself.
I believe though that the problem is so multi-faceted that it is like a house of cards waiting for the slightest puff before it collapses. So, on this we agree also. Actually, I've expressed here in the past that the whole thing MUST collapse before it can be properly rebuilt.
So where do we agree to disagree? Maybe it's that I would just as soon see the "back pack teachers," the culturally insensitve, and the just plain incompetents sent home and forgotten about rather than make them face their inappropriate and ill thought out behavior in the here and now. I've still got some more thinking to do about this. And in that regard, I hope this thread doesn't dissolve too quickly, like so many others have, without us being able to stamp out some sort of solution that at least seems worthwhile even if we know it will not be implemented anytime in the near future.
Thank you Manchu for keeping me thinking.............
ManchuQueue
- 2007-04-18
KJ...
A hugely informative, thought provoking and enjoyable post. Thanks.
CHINA AND ENGLISH
"In the land of the blind; the one-eyed man is king!"
[In regione caecorum rex est luscus.]
Desiderius Erasmus, Adagia (III, IV, 96)
Dutch author, philosopher, & scholar (1466 - 1536)
TRANSLATION: Anyone fluent in English can secure a job teaching English in China.
Demand far exceeds the supply. Too many students - not enough teachers. Qualified teachers?, who cares?!
"I have a hard time accepting that said teachers should be held to blame - or, at any rate, not held to blame in a way that will damage their reputations and/or moral."
Yes, I think we all agree with this......however, you are assuming that if these teachers had been properly prepared than they would have done a quality job. I am not finding fault with good intentioned persons, when, through no fault of their own, they suddenly discover they are lacking qualifications to teach. Again, yes, much blame can be laid at the feet of the ESL/TESOL schools. These schools need a governing body. I am not talking about the federal, state and private institutions of higher learning, (Universities and Colleges throughout the world) rather the entrepreneurial variety that is promoted based only for profit by the owner. Government involvement. Yes, as you rightfully lamented, it seems we may have to resort to becoming a beseecher of the Government.
"So, should these teachers be held accountable? My personal feeling on this is that the accountability itself should be shown in the lack of a contract extension, which, in itself, shifts the blame back to the employer in that said action obviates the fact that the teacher should not have been hired in the first place............."
Again, I could not agree with you more. It seems to me that you are arguing from the position that every teacher is a good teacher. No one, certainly not I, is suggesting that quality/good, even marginal teachers be sacked, disciplined or litigated. I would rather have YOU teaching at 60 to 70 per cent of capacity than an unqualified individual functioning at 100%. My prey is the instructor/teacher who knowingly (conceals his lack of qualifications and/or uses false credentials) is defrauding everyone - the school, the DOS, the student, the parents and perhaps, even themselves.
It seems to me that everyone is overly concerned with the right of the individual teacher (Western influence rearing its ugly head again) and is not visibly concerned about the rights of the student and/or the parents. We are attempting to micro-manage a nonmicro-manageable POSITION. Too defend an indefensible line of thought. Maybe, we are being overly analytical and too emotional on this issue. Obviously, and understandably, however, one also needs to have the ability to see this problem from the perspective of those most EFFECTED/AFFECTED by the incompetent teacher. The consumer!
Objectives and abilities of the student must play a role in the equation. The five w's may be applicable here (Journalism. who, what, when, where, and why: along with how, the essential questions about the subject of a news story that the lead is traditionally expected to answer). Do we use the same methods to teach a student with an IQ at the genius or near genius level as the average learner? What are the objectives of each student? Are expectations and qualifications for teachers now so high that no one is sufficiently educated to perform at the expected level? So on and so forth. The number of variables that come to play is staggering. Everyone can think of many reasons to not start litigation against a teacher. No one can be all things to all people. However,..........
WHEN DO WE STOP BEATING THE HORSE AND MAKE AN EFFORT TO SAVE HIM?
Must the carcass of the deceased animal lie in the sun until the stench of rotting flesh fills the nostrils of the wealthy and influential before the rights of the consumer are addressed? I hope not.
The Private Sector. You touched on this area. Totally unregulated. This is the starting point for cleaning up the ESL/TESOL industry. This is where the COUNCILORS strike, bringing the omnipotent power of the law to work for the consumer. After a few charlatans have been prosecuted and fined, yes,and driven from the ranks, I think a lot of issues concerning the ESL/TESOL will slowly fade from the from the beam of the floodlights.
The problems of the ESL community are many, varied and complex.
Reasons lawyers have not entered this ARENA previously are: because there is little money to be made. And, the structure is so weak that it will not support their weight. And, international law does not receive the backing of the government with whom they must court and rely upon to uphold their efforts. The BIG money is not yet there. Only when the offspring of the affluent members of a particular society are affected by the incompetence of the teachers will the lawyers seek to soothe the egregious effrontery against the children of their clients.
The attacker in any controversy has the easiest path to glory. Without exception the posters on this issue defend the teacher. Expectedly, only teachers are responding. What will be the attitude of the recipients of a substandard education? Nonetheless, to stand for something, to have a belief in something and then have the courage to express your beliefs and not stumble is very difficult. The attacker has the advantage, always. He's mobile. Moving at will. Attacking the weak points. Never standing for anything. He does not have to defend a position.
The proposal of lawsuits against teachers is not popular. Understandably. I hope it does not come to this. But, it will.
We, you and I, are privileged to be accorded an opportunity to teach English to the indigenous people of the oldest continuous society on earth, in a nation that is the most populous on earth, that is home to the largest number of ethnic groups (56) on earth and has contributed more knowledge to the people on earth than any other. We have a responsibility to China. I do not take that responsibility lightly. I hope that you do not. And you. And you. And you.
KJ
- 2007-04-18
This is a great thread, and should be perused with great interest by not only those whove been teaching abroad for an extended period of time and have been witness to the total lack of accountability in certain countries, but also by those who are considering teaching abroad in the future.
Of course China ranks way up there in terms of a near absence of accountability. And, as has been pointed out in previous posts here, that lack of accountability applies not only to teachers but to employers as well. For the sake of brevity, though, I just want to add a few thoughts regarding teacher accountability.
Its true that many inexperienced teachers have come to China with the goal of gaining valuable experience and improving their ability to be hired as ESL teachers at home. Unfortunately, theyve had little training in terms of teaching EFL. Furthermore, a large percentage of these teachers seem to have little interest in discovering what it is about teaching EFL that is intrinsically different than teaching ESL. But even though that lack of interest is often evidenced in the classroom, I have a hard time accepting that said teachers should be held to blame - or, at any rate, not held to blame in a way that will damage their reputations and/or moral. The root cause, I would suggest, can be found in the shoddy training theyve received as ESL/EFL teachers, and in the lack of feedback once theyve reached their particular destinations. Furthermore, the often outdated and non-authentic teaching materials they are presented with should be considered a mitigating factor as well.
So, should these teachers be held accountable? My personal feeling on this is that the accountability itself should be shown in the lack of a contract extension, which, in itself, shifts the blame back to the employer in that said action obviates the fact that the teacher should not have been hired in the first place. In an ideal world, though, inexperienced teachers would take the initiative to improve their skills through workshops, research, and, of course, picking the brains of those who are more experienced. But again, this points back to the training theyve received (or not received). Do they have research skills? Do they recognize that language teaching and learning is still evolving despite the fact that its been happening for a few thousand years? Even experienced teachers have trouble with this concept.
Which brings me to the next category experienced teachers who havent a clue that their methodologies are outdated or simply dont apply in an EFL landscape. And of course teachers that may be well qualified to teach in other disciplines, but who really should never have been given the opportunity to set foot inside an EFL classroom. I recently met a teacher at a university whose discipline was Business. Now hes teaching EFL. Doesnt know a be verb from a schmee verb! Has no concept of sequencing in terms of language learning and, worse than all that, speaks to his students as if hes speaking to hearing impaired native speakers. His contract wont be renewed; however, hell probably find another job no doubt in the private sector where accountability is a rare bird indeed, and pardon that digression because I think this discussion should focus on the public school sector where accountability is the real issue; not on the private sector where a host of other problems have emerged.
There are experienced EFL teachers here who are simply burned out. I could be one of them. If I were an employer, I wouldnt hire me after one or two more years even though I try to stay abreast of current methodologies and my own approach tries to take into account the cultural and historical background of my students. Why wouldnt I hire me then? Lack of energy. Lack of enthusiasm. It sometimes shows in my classroom and thats a real problem. But should I be held accountable? Yes and no. Yes because as soon as the students see it as a real problem it will show in their evaluations. No because I still seem to reach them the majority of the time even though I know Im not giving it my all.
So, other than the aforementioned shoddy ESL/EFL schools and employers who have not properly evaluated or chosen their employees, who should be held accountable? In my opinion it should be those teachers who obviously just dont give a damn and/or simply do not care enough about the quality of their teaching to be more than the white faced clown. How is that determined? Well, in this case, the question is the answer; moreover, I think the policy of a probationary period as it exists at many universities is a good one.
There must be a weeding out process that is a given; furthermore, Chinas educators must be willing to give up some of their power and involve more qualified, native speaking teachers in the hiring process. Also, as in American ESL environs, less experienced teachers should be mandated to attend work shops, seminars and the like to increase their awareness of how to properly conduct an EFL class.
Finally, though I am loathe to admit it, the government itself must get more involved if they truly want to positively affect the EFL landscape in China. Perhaps part of that involvement could be the setting up of a sort of watch dog organization chaired by native speakers with a wealth of experience. And certainly that involvement should come with the awareness that EFL in China is a business and the corruption within that business must be addressed before any real progress can be made.
So, lest I go way beyond my hope for brevity, let me close with a quote from Dick Cavett that I stuck in here once before:
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it.
Dick Cavett
And, although it totally does not apply, just for laughs:
If your parents never had children, chances are you won't either.
Dick Cavett