As the Director of Studies who "who only recently left, to the detriment of the school" (think you for that by the way)!! I feel that I have a few relevant things to add to this interesting debate. before I start I think its only fair to point out that I am only giving my personal opinion not that of the school (I left about 2 months ago - these are different issues that I am happy to go over in depth another time), and that I couldn't possibly comment on processes introduced after I left.

As Sparrow was quick to highlight the lack of "empathy" and "honesty", I think that this would be a good place to start. I feel that Sparrow is only telling half a story here. I was the person who employed him, and was the person who honestly told him that he would be given a 6 month second contract, as his teaching was "borderline", and I am pretty sure I was completely honest with him. Maybe he was right about the empathy part, because I found it hard to empathise with someone who I fought a long time to get a following contract for a new teacher, so he could show the school further development, only for him to resign about 3 weeks later as he found another position (obviously had been looking around while asking for a new contract he had no real intention of fulfilling).

as to the inexperience of the administration staff, I could only point out that it is a stone cold fact that every member of the administration staff had spent more time administering a school than he had teaching - so glass houses and stones etc. Now I would agree with him that I always felt that the Teaching Assistants deserved more financially, and better treatment overall as this would improve retention. However I think that we would also have to realise that they were paid reasonably, and like Mcdonalds etc. this was just one of those high turnover jobs. yet, there was a hardcore of dedicated, experienced and hard working TA's who did an incredible job. these were mostly university students of English or Education who wished to gain some experience in their field while earning extra money to get them through university. So yes, I would agree that treatment of TA's could have been better, but going rates in China were paid, and the "peanuts/monkeys" analogy is disingenious, and frankly offensive.

as to sparrow's analysis of the contract, I cannot accept his logic or grasp of facts in the slightest. His assertion that "teachers are paid for contact hours and required to sacrifice additional admin hours which are not paid for" is simply factually incorrect. While trying to protect commercial confidentiality, I can say that firstly Shane teachers are paid a competitive monthly salary based on a certain number of teaching hours or other tasks per month NOT for every class. While the school will pay extra if those hours are exceeded it does not deduct any money if insufficient contact hours were put on the teachers schedule. As regards to admin time, again Sparrow is being less than honest. A new contract was negotiated between the school and teachers. The teachers received a rise in salary to compensate for extra administration hours that was expected from them. The effectiveness of these admin hours can be debated, but whether they were paid or not cannot - they were. Also I would say that if you are paid a monthly salary, yet fail to fulfill part of the agreed duties of course there will be some punitive result.

Teachers were also informed what times they would be on standby, it was put on schedules and was written into the contract, which was signed by both parties with full understanding that it was a contractual duty. this is also true with holidays. So I would ask Sparrow three questions - firstly how many holidays do you think people in the real world with real jobs get in a year. Secondly, why did you sign the contract when it was clearly explained to you. Thirdly, why didn't you go to a public school, if holidays were so important to you? with regards to unpaid leave, it is true that we didn't give it to people who just felt like having a few extra days off but rather to allow teachers to finish contracts early to get cheaper flights, compassionate leave etc. The actual criteria for this area was clearly laid out in the school's procedures manual (I wrote it myself), and in my time was strictly adhered to. Just because we said no to some people does not mean that it was done on a whim or "favourites" were played.

When Sparrow asserts "The majority of the educational materials are older than most of the students that attend Shane and currently the school is trying to implement a new syllabus but doesn’t have the insight to realize it will require an entire over hall of the IT systems as they stand." I would almost entirely agree with this, except for the fact that the previous and current management team spent months looking at new materials to replace books that were honestly not fit for purpose (I personally wrote syllabi for 12 new books), though his point about the state of the IT in the school is well taken.

Wider, more relevant and interesting points were raised by Philip and Magister. with regards to TA's observing teachers, I can add how I saw it during my time as DOS. Yes, I asked Ta's to occasionally observe and give feedback on teachers classroom performance (as opposed to, and in addition to a formal observation procedure by the DOS, ADOS and Senior Teachers of the School). I did this for several reasons. Firstly - we had a problem of teachers who were "playing to the gallery" i.e. they would really turn it on when they were being observed but go back to some unacceptable practices afterwards. Secondly, feedback was asked for when concerns were raised about teachers performance. I must point out that Chinese managers would simply collate the information and pass it on to the DOS or ADOS, because maybe their interpersonal skills were not up to the standard of talking to teachers directly without unintentionally offending them or offering viable solutions. These two foreign managers would then decide if any of the points raised were valid, and if any further action was needed. These judgements were based on a combined teaching experience of around 20 years, and I can honestly say that we decided that the points raised were invalid and "panic" as many times as we decided that action needed to be taken. I would partly accept that some TA's were not experienced enough to give feedback, but I would also add the idea that some of Sparrow's TA's had been in more classes than himself, and had worked/were working with teachers who were vastly more experienced/able than himself. I would also add the analogy "I don't know anything about tennis, but I know a good shot when I see one". Some TA's maybe didn't do a high level of training, like the 80 hour certificate Sparrow had, but they had spent hundreds of hours of being in a classroom with CELTA, PGCE or Trinity trained teachers and knew what a good class looked like.

Shane english School, Kunming is never going to be Eton or Harvard, but honestly it will look after teachers, pay what was agreed on time, and keep visas up to date. It is a secure and good place to come and work, in a potentially dangerous job market. Despite leaving, I would still highly recommend it.