English As It Is Spoken

By Lee Dong-wook

According to a recent article by Ms. Kim Jeom-ok titled ``Hagwon Culture in Korea,'' the poor quality of public education produced the current phenomenon that 77 percent of Korean students go for parallel education. She also argued that parallel education has successfully ``fulfilled the gap created by the poor quality of public education.''

Reading the first part of her article, I thought she would conclude her article with a constructive suggestion on how to improve the public education and help people not to be ``forced to eat poor food at home and then go out in search of better food.''

But beginning the second half of her article, she moved her focus onto the English language, and started blaming unqualified language instructors. Saying it is ``academically suicidal to send our kids to quacks,'' she concluded that we should invite ELT (English language teaching) experts from all over the world rather than a dozen countries by casting a wider net.

I do partly agree with her that we shall invite ELT experts for good language instruction to prevent such an ``academically suicidal'' situation for Korean children. But at the same time, I had to think for a while why we send our children for parallel education.

I believe we do this to save them from the irony we ourselves have built. The irony comes from the fact that teachers in public education do not compete enough for better education. In order to avoid the competition, they make their own iron rice bowls in many ways. As a result, for example, even a Nobel Prize winner in physics cannot have a teaching job in a Korean elementary school unless he or she goes through a four-year long licensing course

To solve the problems of parallel education, innovation should come from the top on how to make a truly functioning public educational system. Just as a factory employee generates goods and services suitable for consumers, those teachers in the public educational system should focus on how to deliver better services (teaching their students) for their end consumers (parents).

Irony always builds within irony, though. People do not want to pay more taxes or more tuition, especially in a time of economic recession like now when more support is needed for schools and quality teachers for better care of students and their education.

If everyone is reluctant to the idea of more taxation or more tuition, we can think of some drastic changes. As an alternative to the current quagmire in the Korean public education system and the English education system in Korea, I would like to suggest a Hong Kong model where the two streams of schools exist side-by-side ― English and Chinese.

If we are to apply the Hong Kong model to Korea, we can have a two-track school system ― one in Korean and the other in English ― teaching every subject required for accreditation or graduation in each language starting from kindergarten to university. This change may solve many of the educational ironies facing Korean parents.

Although some may complain that we will lose too many things by such a drastic change or some may argue that this country is not a former British colony, the scar of the current irony runs too deep to be solved by some ad hoc approach or maintaining the status quo.

Rather than being satisfied with setting up just a few more English-speaking schools, we can change the whole educational system and solve many of the Korean ironies ― ``wild-goose father'' syndrome, booming cramming schools, etc.

As a footnote to Kim's article, I would like to say that sometimes ELT teachers might be better in teaching the English language, but I want my children to learn English as it is spoken from its native speakers, not about the English language.

That is why I prefer teachers from a native English-speaking environment. Even if so, I still do not understand why it is so ``academically suicidal'' to have my children learn English from the native speakers of the English language. Some ``quacks'' according to Kim might have been poorly educated or never trained about ELT, but they can use the right words in an articulate way in the right context.

And thanks God, those ``quacks'' are not as quacky as they sound and most of them have qualifications worthy of the E-2 English teaching visa in Korea under the immigration laws. And Korean immigration laws and regulations are detailed enough to sort out the black sheep from the herd.

The writer is a member of New York bar. He can be reached at 88lawyer@gmail.com