Teaching in Hwawon: Korean Education and Post-Colonialism

More and more I am beginning to see the tremendous amount of work that is expected of me while teaching in Hwawon that was not explained during the initial hiring process. During the orientation process any question pertaining to the job were frequently countered with the phrase “it depends...”. It depends on the school location, your co-teachers relationship, your principle's fondness of you, and students' level of English... even the consistency of your bowel movements play a roll in how quickly you become comfortable in Korea. In short “it depends” simply meant that every situation was different and that no satisfactory answer could be provided. Looking back I see how such an ambiguous answer preemptively eased tensions about the unknown future that lies ahead. Despite the uncertainties teaching in a foreign country, Korea is real life example of when the idiom “going with the flow” takes on a whole new meaning. With the numerous directions you are drawn as a foreign teacher, it makes me wonder whether a trained parrot or monkey might not be more suited to meet the performance demands.

For starters instead of teaching just middle school English I am teaching all three levels of English in Elementary, Middle, and High School. Because all these levels are different I am responsible for creating lesson plans for each. To accomplish this effectively requires far more teaching experience than I received in from a short one week preparatory training seminar. In University we call that a “Masters of Education” and even graduates of that program struggle to meet the demands of a teaching regiment.

I was also told that there would be a co-teacher present to provide translation as I taught. In my experience this has not always been the case as some teachers look at English class as a break from their regular duties and often sneak out early or doze off when it suits them. On my first day at work I taught two elementary school classes back-to-back with no co-teacher present during the lesson. It required a great deal of improvisation on my part and I had to resort to using physical gestures or drawing on the board to communicate what I wanted the kids to do. Much of the material I had planned had to be scrapped for a game of “duck duck goose” and “paper rock scissors” which some kids caught onto quickly and seemed to enjoy. From that experience my fears of a bumpy start were underestimated in contrast to the train wreck that actually happened.

In addition to the added work load of teaching all three levels with limited support, I am also required to lead a two hour teacher workshop with all the English teachers on Thursday afternoons. What I have been told is that the purpose of this time is to review classroom strategies but there is no real set agenda and it is up to the foreign teacher to structure the discussion. For the Korean teachers who are already burdened with many administration duties, the teacher workshops are just another job requirement wedged into their already taxing schedule.

Having only been notified a day in advance by Mr. Cho that I needed to prepare some materials (short notice tends to be the norm here rather than the rare circumstance), my first teacher workshop was received with less than favourable reception. In total four teachers were present at the workshop including myself. We started with introductions and I learned that two teachers in attendance had 20+ years of working experience. I listened as the men shared with me their lives and interests outside of school. They talked at length about their passion for nature and had helpful suggestions of various sights in Korea that might be of interest to me. Being only 26 myself and in contrast significantly short of life experience, I wondered whether I was in any position to provide consultation on language education.

Following Mr. Cho's advice, I prepare some materials about the Teach English in English (TEE) program scheduled to be implemented across South Korea by March 2012. In short this new policy would ensure that all high school students are taught English in an immersion environment. The requirement to teach in the TEE program is either a TESOL (Teach English for Speakers of Other Languages) certification or a masters degree in a Western university. Essentially this puts foreigners at a huge advantage over Korean nationals to obtain these teaching positions. For any Korean national studying abroad they can waive their required military service if they return and teach English in public school.

If the TEE program sounds ambitious one need only look at the statistics of current Korean English teachers whose language abilities fail to meet the program requirements. A survey in 2005 by the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) showed that mere 16.1 percent of teachers “had proficient command of English without any difficulties” - moderate and poor speakers are grouped into that sum of 83.9%. A 2006 survey of 51 English teachers who completed the English Speaking Proficiency Test (ESPT) found that 66 percent had “a general ability to communicate in English but mistakes in grammar and pronunciation often occur”. I've been unable to locate any information outlining the steps the government is taking to accommodate the need for advanced language skills. None of my colleagues could confirm whether the Korean government was at all willing to facilitate the additional training or subsidizing private training that would be needed to bridge the gap in language skills for current Korean English teachers, although I have read else where that some teachers were being offered a subsidy of 450,000 won every three months which is clearly not the practice everywhere. Without bringing along the Hanguel speaking teachers, the requirements for the TEE program would result in the mass recruitment of under-qualified foreign English teachers who would have difficulty co-operate with other teachers due to the inherent language barriers. This lack of an inclusive strategy stands to alienate the many teachers that lack the necessary speaking skills. As one can imagine the TEE program is not the most popular subject among current high school teachers as their job security hangs in the balance.

Teachers in South Korea have not exactly been treated well by the Federal government. Because many teachers live and prefer working in bigger cities like Mokpo, Gwangju, and Seoul, the government made it mandatory that all public teachers change schools once every four years to ensure that the rural areas of Korea do not suffer any discrepancies in the quality of their education. I am uncertain whether there are any provisions set to limit how far a teacher can be placed from their home but I can see why public school teachers are justifiably bitter. Many work years away from your family and friends and endure the inconvenience of commuting back and forth over long distances. I find myself puzzled at how a better compromise could not have been found such as extra pay to attract rural teachers or at least a travel allowance.

With the addition of the TEE program the government is tightening its grip on the pubic education system to further its agenda to mandate English “language skills”. The phrase "language skills" as it is contained in official statements is quite suspect as it denotes a capacity far greater than an understanding of vocabulary or grammatical structure but an ability to express oneself “without any difficulties” in another language. I find it difficult sometimes to speak express myself in English and I've been speaking it my whole life. The expectations made on student English "language skills" on a national level do not fit what is reasonable for any person learning a second language.

Much of the anxiety of English education centres around students ability to perform on the TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) which most Korean companies and education institutions place high emphasis on. This standardized test of English proficiency focuses on highly specialized business language that is not typically used in a general conversation and differs from the basic language skills taught in public schools. As a result, the students that get the most training in TOEIC vocabulary and test formats are those who come from wealth or middle class families that can afford additional training at private schools called "Hagwons". This has created a gap in the education and job opportunity available to low income families in Korea. Rather than attacking one of the root problems of the inequalities that have resulted from the emphasis on TOEIC, critics claim that the additional pressure placed on students by the proposed “English-only classes... would only deepen social polarization as more and more students would seek private tutoring to cope with class contents.” The move towards immersion solutions like TEE comes from a perceived failure of the public education system to meet the needs of families who are turning to private schools to enhance English training.

The perception today is that in order to participating in the global market, Korea must adopt the culture and language of the West. But I would argue that while English is a dominant force in the global market it does not need to be spoken by every person. In fact we may even see greater results if education catered the languages used in a particular disciple. While the TOEIC is suited for business majors in university, students in other disciplines like the sciences, humanities, or arts have no equivalent measure of competency nor would they have any use for business language. This notion that an education system can measure each student by the same stick needs to be replaced by something that is fosters independent learning. Students who have no interest in going to university or will not enter a field where it could be used should not be subjected to the prejudice of a standardized test like the TOEIC. In many ways keeping Hanguel will help to promote regional industries and innovation that will benefit the cross cultural exchanges made possible by globalization.

The irony that my presence at the teacher workshop was perhaps the most concrete example of this shift in pro-English policy which accommodates the needs of the West by forcing ordinary Koreans to make appropriate concessions. Korea has had a long history of linguistic imperialism. Languages such as Chinese and Japanese were forced upon Koreans in an attempt to absorb them into a growing empire. Hanguel (한글) was created during the Joseon Dynasty in the 15th century to solidify Korea's sovereignty from China and allow for common people to have a form of writing they could use for daily transactions. Up until that point writing and reading were a privilege reserved for aristocrats who could afford the education needed to learn the difficult hanja Chinese characters. In 1910 Korea was placed under the subjugation of a colonial force by their neighbors to the East, Japan. For 35 years a "cultural genocide" took place in Korea that resulted in the altering of "public monuments, including several well-known temples, palaces, scripts, memorials, and statues. Songs and poems originally dedicated to Korean Emperors were re-written to adore the Japanese Emperor." Furthermore, the Japanese operated "Citizen Schools" to spread the propaganda of empire to the youth throughout Korea as it taught Japanese history and language with "a heavy emphasis on moral and political indoctrination". Under Japanese colonial occupation the use of Hanguel was strictly "forbidden in all schools and business." The liberation of Korea in 1945 following WWII and the efforts to reunify the nation were short lived as the country fell into a war between 1950-1953 fueled by Western ideological tensions. And today English signifies yet another intrusion of a colonial force brought against the Korean cultural identity... only this time it is being supported by their own people under the guise of global economic system.

The topic chosen for my first teacher workshop as one can imagine is still a tender wound. In retrospect the sensible thing would have been to avoid it all together. But I wanted my Korean co-teachers to know that I understood what they were going through and the policy that reflects ideology more than it does education. Perhaps what I intended to say only sounded patronizing to a group of men who more than anyone feel the bitterness that the failed education system has produced. I wanted them to be as angry as I was... to do something about the situation through protest. Who was I to give advice, I represented this colonial power. What they saw was an unqualified foreigner teacher bleeding the pockets of Korean tax payers. Despite the differences between this group of unlikely colleagues, we are never justified in excluding the Other. It is the Other that reminds us what it is to"be with" that is the condition of our existence in the world.