Re Language Training Centers' Trashing

Bullring, yes, I am in China. My family is Chinese. My appartment is Chinese. I guess that's all this topic deserves here, doesn't it? Cheers and beers to eslteachersboard

Re Language Training Centers' Trashing

Observer, cheers and beers to clearing the air on the topic and mainland

Re Language Training Centers' Trashing

Observer's arguement hasn't go much to go on with and her response to some of my words seems off as well. So, let's quote, shall we?

My words; "A language training center provides a higher potential of learning the language than the Chinese public sector does."
Observer's reply;
What all establishments, every training centre? I cannot believe that. And isn't 'potential' related to the end result - often getting an easy entrance into another country? You've said this yourself about GAC.

First of all, i have not said that ALL TRAINING CENTERS, have i? Now, how hard can it be to make yourself believe that A LANGUAGE TRAINING CENTER may offer a professional recruiting of staff and students, a professional students' placement testing, western/professional academic material and teaching techniques as well as a professional progress report based on a student's achievement? Then, how hard can it be to make yourself believe that A LANGUAGE TRAINING CENTER may also provide its staff with a professional development in a sense of workshops etc too? On the other hand, i can't make myself believe that ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL on mainland offers much of that mentioned above. Can you believe that???
As for the GACs and even EFs, I have worked for a few of these centers, and so I have the inside knowledge and experience of what they are all about with regards to their business and academic management. Unarguably, they are mismanaged and corrupt, however, they most deffinitely have the potential to prepare the students much better than any local public school. Are you, at all, familiar with their programs and academic management techniques that are in their handbooks?

Yet another Observer's quote below;

Many universities also do placement testing, and interactivity is down to the individual teacher's style rather than any prescribed approach. There are medicore universities and public schools as well as training centres. In a mixed education economy this is only to be expected and does not just apply to China.

To my knowledge, there are so many mainland universities that do the "placement testing" themselves. Their own "local experts" determine what student goes to what program and/or to what classroom. This is, and has been done, in a "local fashion" with the local uni recruiters and some other kinds of "local professionals" making sure that the right applicants get to the right programs and classrooms. Haven't we seen such uni reps driving some fully loaded western vehicles? I can't possibly guess how much the Beijing Uni reps accepted for a government worker's mother of the daughter that could only speak some low elementary Englsih, although signed for a program that'd send her to UK to accomplish her MBA in Business.
With regards to the "interactivity" in the uni classrooms, it surely isn't "prescribed". How could it be when there really is no real standard set and then no material or a local pro to rely on. For some good reasons, every year FTs come and go and the ones that stay do what they think they should do (to stay on).
So, in this "mixed education economy", as you say, there's little to rely on and that probably 'cause it's so "MIXED" that few can see the light.

On the end, it's clear what should be better, although it often is not. It's not because it has been destroyed by the local system that probably wanted it destroyed. Just imagine if training centers straightened out their act and then overtook the public schools in popularity on mainland. What impact would that have on the local education, its officials, schools reps, and the new generation and local economy?

Re Language Training Centers' Trashing

"A language training center provides a higher potential of learning the language than the Chinese public sector does."

What all establishments, every training centre? I cannot believe that. And isn't 'potential' related to the end result - often getting an easy entrance into another country? You've said this yourself about GAC.

Many universities also do placement testing, and interactivity is down to the individual teacher's style rather than any prescribed approach. There are medicore universities and public schools as well as training centres. In a mixed education economy this is only to be expected and does not just apply to China.

"Most importantly, a language training center's academic material for the language taught is uncomparably easier to come, and come in an actual foreing language, in a training center than in many public sector schools on mainland, where academic supervisors and teachers face varieties of restrictions."

I can't see how you come to this generalised conclusion. Reading many of the posts here, many teachers have commented on the paucity of decent materials in training centres or being expected to teach from woefully inadequate and in-house prepared materials. You yourself have commented on the inadequate management and types of teaching materials that are in use in the training centres where you have only worked.

I think you'll find the description, possibly coined by Turnoi, was "white monkeys in a muppet show" but they may dance as well!

We all know there are systemic failures in China's education system but reminding us of them does nothing to solve the problem. You tried to establish your own training centre and failed, so we can understand your bitterness about not getting a slice of the pie.

China: Language Training Centers' Trashing

A language training center provides a higher potential of learning the language than the Chinese public sector does. Moreover, its small sized classes, that often have placement tests for the candidates, offer more efficient and interactive lessons with teachers better able to look after students needs and to correct their weaknesses and/or bad habits. Then, courses in training centers aim for upgrading students from levels to levels as they improve. Most importantly, a language training center's academic material for the language taught is uncomparably easier to come, and come in an actual foreing language, in a training center than in many public sector schools on mainland, where academic supervisors and teachers face varieties of restrictions.

So, why would some on these forums relentlessly trash the Chinese language training centers, while praising the public sector's large sized classrooms with offten meaningless foreign teachers' courses? Of course, in the public sector students get to practice with foreigner teachers whatever they've learnt from their Chinese teachers, and some may even improve, but are we to believe that the local public sector has it all figured out how to take care of students who wish to learn another language? The forums talk of "dancing monkeys" as for foreign teachers in a language training center surely fits better the large sized public school's classroom, doesn't it?

Let's face it! Locals have purposely put FTs in the second row and that especially in the public school classrooms, where it is so important to prepare for exams rather than for life and where the preasure of passing students is extremely high as local teachers' jobs may be, and often are, on the line too.

As for the few that keep on trashing the training centers rather than the local system that's factually the real offender for the centers not being able to live up to their expectations, you are either unaware or bias with all due respect. Licenses to language training centers owners on mainland are awarded according to who knows who and who has how much money, but any better qualified and experienced, especially the foreign ones aren't allowed a cut out of this giant pie, the mainland market. Suspecting that there's a great degree of control over all sorts of education would not be unreasonable, would it? Then, suspecting that foreigners are unwelcome to get a cut from this market would not be paranoid, would it?

On the end, every country has its own rights to do things, business, education etc their own ways, however, it begs the question of rights for all, the country's own inclusive. Then, trashing when either unaware or bias is just so filthy. Yes, EFs are crap 'cause of the foreign corrupt franchisors and yes Webs are crap 'cause of the local corrupt franchisors ironically "international", although don't forget that there's a much larger potential in language training education than in the Chinese public sector which will most likely never get out of the sight of the rulers.

Cheers and beers as well as hopeful edition of this one

[Edited by Administrator (admin) Sat, 14 May 2011, 03:16 AM]