Replies to This Discussion | 이 토론에 대한 답글들

Permalink Reply by Mike Park on January 26, 2011 at 9:20pm

The closest thing I can think of is that there is a saying (proverb) in Korea which states that building a great education system (or educating people) is the grand plan which spans 100 years. A grand plan for 10 years in planting/growing trees; and a grant plan for 1 year is working the fields to harvest crops.

 

       교육은 국가의 백년대계이고, 십년대계는 나무를 심는 것이며, 일년대계는 농사를 짓는 것이다.

 

With this said (not quite the answer to your "nation builders" question), one local Korean newspaper has seriously questioned who's feeding Obama (with potentially false) information - implying that Korea's education system in not so internationally competitive and has many shortcomings.

 

The local paper article continues to imply that Kathleen Stevens certainly did not give him this information about Korea because her views about Korea's education system are (1) more accurate (different) and (2) not so highly viewed. Now, if you live (or send your kids to school) in Korea, you'll agree and know what she's talking about.

 

At any rate, it's interesting to see such reports in local Korean newspapers which report that Omaba had mentioned Korea 7 times in his State of the Union Address.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven S. Bammel on January 26, 2011 at 10:22pm

I almost fell out of my chair with surprise upon hearing Obama refer to Korea over and over again in that speech... I'm not complaining or anything, but gee...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vince rubino on January 27, 2011 at 1:59pm

I suspect the reason Korea was mentioned over and over again has to do with pushing through the Han-Mi FTA. Perhaps it also may have to do with his less visible but far more critical agenda of nuclear non-proliferation (Korea as number one global stakeholder and ally in this effort).   Another possible reason is that he needed to provide a US-friendly competitor to benchmark for the main theme of his speech - resurgence of American competitiveness.

 

It was amazing he mentioned Korea so much! 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by vince rubino on March 29, 2011 at 4:41pm

Point well taken, Daniel. 

I think from the Obama point of view of non-proliferation, it's about weapons and not nuclear power. However, maybe you are suggesting ROK citizens are selling bomb materials to Iran and NK?  That would be not only be scary, but especially in regards to NK... incredibly dangerous and hopefully illegal.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hanna Park on January 27, 2011 at 4:56am

I thought it was interesting that S. Korean teachers would be mentioned in the State of the Union Address. 

I had never heard such a term ( nation builders) before and thought it unusual that the earlier Korean news repeated discussions of  미국-한국 FTA ( Korea-USA FTA) followed by this speech.

 

I may be a unique case but as a child attending Korean schools in and out of programs I always wondered why the teachers kept on trying to pay more attention to me either trying to make me class president or 서기 ( someone who writes class meeting summaries next to the 반장 class president) and always asking my Mom to come to school. I would always respond : " she is busy". 

 

Years later when I was talking about this to a Korean friend, he stated one time he was taking a book back to his teacher who had lent it to him to read and accidentally saw an envelope fall out of it. Being young and naive he opened the envelope and saw there was cash. He brought it back home much to his mother's dismay.

 

I think in the oldern days teachers absolutely were respected "nation builders" but my little instances of a not so understandable school events had never made me think of my teachers as "nation builders".  

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lara Tosh on January 27, 2011 at 8:45am

After having spent a year as a Teacher In-service Trainer here (during which I mentored & coached just over 1000 Korean public high & middle school teachers in the areas of classroom management and in "how to deal with parents & adminstrators"), I'm confident in asserting that:

If any such proverb exists, it's been long dead in the water.

Teachers here are NOT treated with respect by their adminsitration or the parents of their students. At the high school level, one can add "their students" to that list. 

Of course, respect must be earned.  It appears that in the Korean system, there is no basic respect given for one's credentials as a teacher -and it snowballs from there.  In most cases, the teacher is blamed for whatever the parents find undesirable about their child with respect to grades, study habits and behaviour.  The administration wants the parents to be "happy" (and blames teachers if they're not) -while spending the least amount of money possible.

In any culture there are teachers who are in it for the vacation time.

As a liscensed professional from Canada (high school physics & senior integrated sciences), I would DEFINITELY NOT choose to participate as a teacher in the Korean education system (public or private) -mainly because of how teachers are treated by all stakeholders.

I, too, wonder where Obama is getting his info.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon G. Gillett on January 27, 2011 at 9:28am

I wonder about former teachers who decry their former profession and whether they enjoy saying that they used to teach, yet are qualified. I agree that teachers aren't treated well, but there's not a lot to complain about. Teachers in Korea earn twice the national average GDP, in Korea. In the UK it is less than one. I imagine the USA is the same.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lara Tosh on January 27, 2011 at 9:53am

What do you wonder? 

Any of the teachers I know who supposedly no longer teach, actually still DO teach (they just may have chosen to leave the mainstream system).  For example, many go on to work with people in an alternative teaching or even counselling or consulting/coaching capacity. 

I've noticed that with any sort of professional training that a person participates in, whatever you gain & develop from that (if it's a "fit" for you), never leaves you (because you incorporate it into your "method of operation") -and it trickles down into whatever you do from that point forward ...in most cases, I think many would agree that one's skills & talents are transferrable (infuse whatever one does).

They weren't former teachers that I was working with (in-service training was what I did for the Korean Ministry of Ed):  all were at varying stages in their careers ...and none ever said that the pay sucked^.~

I suspect, like any of us, nobody likes to be blamed for things that go on inside others' brains ^.~

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon G. Gillett on January 27, 2011 at 10:36am

I wonder, as I said, whether they enjoy saying that they used to teach. You said you would "DEFINITELY NOT" choose to participate as a teacher. I assumed from that you are a former teacher.

 

So I wonder if you enjoy saying that you formerly taught. I would also like to know if you still regard yourself as a licensed professional. The license you held qualified you in your nation (or state, province) but not elsewhere.

 

I am studying for a doctorate in education because I think education is important. Moreover, I teach in Korea on an E1 visa, which is a professor's visa. I would rather support than hinder Korean educators.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lara Tosh on January 27, 2011 at 11:08am

combination of: mistaken assumption + missed context (the Korean public & private education system) + very limited "only in a mainstream classroom" view of "teaching" ^.~

From my experience, earning one's liscence + maintaining one's practice & professional growth + a genuine interest in helping one's students achieve understanding  = qualified to teach.  As for various certifying bodies' criteria, there is usually variation in terms of the number of years one must spend in training, the extent of one's practicum(s), etc. 

My liscense is still valid. 

HOWEVER, by the time one enters & spends time in the profession, there are some pretty strong "comonalities" amongst teachers regardless of their enculturaion (see the above three things that qualify a person).

I formerly taught in a public education system.  I formerly taught in the Korean education system (HS).  I neither enjoy nor "not enjoy" making either of those statements.  They are simply statements of fact & stir up nothing inside for me (beyond some pretty fun stories) ^.^

For me: learning, clarity, congruence & conscious awareness are important.  Through working with my past students &  clients (past & present -several of which are public school teachers), I recognized pretty early on that the way I connect most powerfully with (and am best able to support)  others is as a counsellor / coach ^.^

Congratts on your choice to earn your Ph.D. -May you go on to support & inspire!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon G. Gillett on January 27, 2011 at 11:27am

A few small points, for learning, clarity, congruence, my conscience and your awareness:

license/licence, not liscense

commonalities, not comonalities

congratts - I don't know.

 

As for having clients as students, I think you're making a category error. Students have teachers. Clients don't have those.

 

I would still rather support and help Korean educators than criticize them.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lara Tosh on January 27, 2011 at 12:03pm

^.^ this is fun!

...past students have become clients ^.^

 

...and we apparently categorize differently^.~

 

re: support vs criticism -who was criticizing Korean educators?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous | 이전
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next | 다음 ›
• Page