Korean Jobs for Our English Teachers

Korean Jobs for Our English Teachers: A Way to Eat the Cake and Have It Too
(This first appeared in the Midweek Review of the Island on Wednesday 9th June, 2010)
“Is the new Minister of Education getting off on the wrong foot?” I wondered when I first heard the news a few days ago that he had agreed to send some 2000 English teachers to work in South Korea. Reading the news item in the papers I felt that this was being touted as a significant achievement on his part, and even as a promise of similar achievements in the future. Although I wanted to express my worse than negative opinion about the matter in an article like this as a concerned citizen reasonably well informed regarding the local ELT scene, I desisted from actually doing so in the hopeful belief that persons with the necessary political influence closer to the decision-making circles would intervene before the proposal was implemented.

It is well known that the country is in critical need of teachers of English, especially for its rural districts, teachers with a high level of language proficiency, and professional acumen; it’s a problem of quality as well as quantity. We don’t have enough English teachers for our own needs; and the majority of the teachers we already have must be put through further education and training before they may be expected to do their job with a degree of success. In this context, offering to help another country in an area where we ourselves, willingly or unwillingly, depend on foreign assistance, is nothing short of a joke, something comparable to “a man too poor to clothe himself making dresses for his dogs”, to translate a local idiom.

To my knowledge, there has been no sign of the proposed move being challenged as it should among responsible people. The only protesting voice I heard was that of the All Ceylon Union of English Teachers (ACUET) as reported in The Island of Thursday 4th June 2010. The Union has appealed to the President on the basis of obvious reasons to put an end to the idea. Anyone with an iota of concern for the promotion of English language proficiency among our students, and a degree of appreciation of the presidential drive towards that goal would wholeheartedly agree with the ACUET’s position in this regard.

I had reached this point in my essay when I read the Sunday Island editorial today (6th June) on “Exporting English Teachers”. The Island editor hits the nail on the head as he always does regarding any matter of national importance. I share his utter disapproval of the scheme, and join him in asking “… in a situation where we could not guarantee the provision of quality English teachers to meet our own needs, to what degree could we satisfactorily meet South Korea’s needs of this kind?”

Yet, in my opinion, a totally negative reaction to a plan that many teachers and their families would consider as offering a golden opportunity to improve their economic status – could not be very popular among these key players in the field; they might feel aggrieved that they are being robbed of such an opportunity, and get demoralized. But, on the other hand, there probably is a way to turn the scheme into something positive for the country, both economically and educationally.

Suppose, in spite of everything, the authorities find themselves committed to carrying through some prior agreement with South Korea, or irresistibly attracted to the scheme because of some potential advantage for the country, and are thus unable to allow wiser counsel to prevail in this instance. Then probably, they could think of something like what I have just hinted at, a way to transform a potentially negative thing into a positive one. Let me elaborate.

If those responsible handle the scheme in a thoroughly professional way, free from all political interference, nepotism, patronage, etc. as a means to reward dedicated teachers who have performed well, with special recognition for having served in difficult areas, it will cancel out the likely deleterious fallout of such a scheme. Teachers who are to be sent presumably on a government-delegated basis should be signed for a stipulated, non-extendable period of contract; fresh batches of teachers may be similarly delegated for foreign employment in the future when those who have completed their periods of contract return.

The process of selecting teachers for such foreign employment will be naturally a complicated affair, but not prohibitively so. Not any and every teacher should be allowed to apply. Prospective applicants must produce an eligibility certificate issued by relevant local ELT authorities who are satisfied with their qualifications, competence, and proven performance (in terms of exam results achieved, supervisors’ testimonials, awards won, etc) with bonus points for difficult area service. The candidates must successfully take a written test that gauges their knowledge of English, followed by an oral examination with Korean and Sri Lankan ELT experts. The selection of teachers to be sent abroad should be done on this stringent basis.

Recruitment for service abroad after such an exacting selection process will be then considered as conferring on the selected teachers high professional recognition, which will be a milestone in their career, and will stand them in good stead when they apply for professional advancement in the future.

Such a scheme will be a godsend for the many conscientious teachers who already serve the nation in an exemplary manner in spite of the fact that, at present, there is little proper supervision of teachers, and even less recognition, and rewarding of good performance where it exists. This will generally encourage others to work well, too.

Selecting teachers indiscriminately on other than strictly professional grounds will run the risk of sending persons who are neither knowledgeable nor competent, which will only earn a bad name for the country; that kind of anomaly will spread disaffection among the more deserving teachers who get overlooked in the process. Besides, the Koreans will not be remiss in regularly supervising the foreign teachers they bring into their country at great expense, and in demanding value for their money. If they find that they are being cheated by a set of ill qualified, incompetent Sri Lankan teachers they will not hesitate to terminate their contract with us, and look elsewhere for recruiting the personnel they need. They are rich enough to choose the best for their children, be it teachers of English or anything else.

If Sri Lanka must send teachers of English to Korea, this should be accomplished in such a way that the crisis situation that exists in our own country’s English teaching arena is not aggravated. In fact, through proper management, the scheme could be exploited not only to attract qualified young people to the profession to fill in the vacancies left by teachers selected to serve abroad, but also to enhance their performance by offering a term of foreign employment as an incentive.