In defense of private institute English teaching

Let me make this clear in the beginning: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I have a lot (no really, a lot) of criticisms of the private teaching market, which in Taiwan usually consist of cram schools/buxibans. I wouldn't call working for them a good work situation generally, and if you do so, you lose a lot of the perks of being a teacher. No one-month-salary annual bonuses, no paid summers off, no access to the pension program, few salaried positions available, and very little job security when most of us are on zero-hour contracts. It is possible to get a job as a nobody with no experience, qualification, training or even relevant volunteer experience, and be thrown into work without adequate training.

The work doesn't pay nearly as well as people seem to think it does - better than more traditional teaching in Taiwan (but not necessarily elsewhere) at both public schools and universities, and better than the average twentysomething office worker, but not nearly on par with credentialed mid-career professionals in other fields. Work hours tend to be long and scattered, and you teach a lot because you need to in order to earn enough money. That gives you much less time to put care into planning lessons, let alone doing research, action research, writing, reading, giving or attending workshops or doing all of the other things I associate with a professional teaching career. Everyone encourages their teachers to seek professional development and certification, but nobody is willing to sponsor it.

And, ethically, a lot of the cram schools here, and around the world, treat their teachers like migrant laborers or are just straight-up racist or the worst kind of neoliberal "we can take what we want from you and offer you as little as possible in return" employers.

I can't say I'm "happy" with the way this industry is run nor with what those who work in it get for their efforts.

However, after spending a month among other experienced English teachers from different contexts around the world, I do have a few things I can say in defense of working in a language institute.

One more caveat before I begin: these advantages only seem to accrue to those who have accumulated experience and often credentials, and in Taiwan are often easier to come by if you stay long enough to get permanent residency. They do not necessarily apply to all new teachers.

First of all, it's easier to get uninterrupted vacation time, although that time is almost always unpaid. Many of my classmates had to fly back (I suspect at their own expense) for work-related duties at their schools partway through the program and miss a week of classes - nobody would ever ask me to do that. If I say I need a block of time off, I get it as long as I request it reasonably far enough in advance, with no "but you have to come back for these specific three days to do this specific thing" in the middle of your six weeks off" nonsense. Other than being expected to show up for class, nobody calls me up and says "you must be here for this, this and that" or "you have to do these things". I essentially have no single boss or manager.

It also means I get as much vacation time as I want, which is very useful on a Master's program and was also useful in the aftermath of my mother's illness and passing, and my dad's heart surgery less than a year later. In late 2014 I told my employers and private students that my absence would be indefinite, and that was fine. I had work to return to five months later when my family issues were more stable. When I needed to take off again just a few months later for my dad's surgery, that was fine too. When I finished the Delta, I told them to hold off on all new classes until I was done, and they did. When I decided to do this Master's program, I said I'd need a few months off over the summer and that was fine. I had free reign to choose the dates and arrange things as I pleased. If I had the money and wanted to take a year off to just do whatever, I could, and I'd still have a good chance at having work offered to me when I was ready.

And unlike many teachers, this leave is not limited to school breaks. My mom's situation started getting really serious in late autumn 2014, long before any school break. You can't plan major family upheavals for summer vacation. They happen when they happen.

The fact that this time is unpaid actually works in my favor: when you have paid leave, of course the leave you get is limited. In Taiwan that could be as little as seven days (which I think is cruel, actually), in the US perhaps two weeks, in Europe five weeks. But ultimately, there is a limit. I have no limit, as long as I have the money to finance it.

On the other side, a lot of my classmates have paid leave and don't have to go in - they have months and months of free time with a salary coming in. Some of them are taking off to just hang out in Europe for awhile, which you can do when you're being paid an expat salary in the Middle East but your university is on break (although, again, you don't get to choose when that break is). It would be great to be able to afford that, but I ultimately can't. I could move to the Middle East - there would be work for me and the pay is stupendous - but I put up with the crappy parts of working in Taiwan like the low pay and scattered hours because I want to be in Taiwan.

A second advantage is the lack of administrative hassle. I have no real administrative duties - I don't have to show up for many meetings, I don't have to do reams of paperwork, I don't have to grade heaps of tests (my IELTS classes have tests, but class sizes are kept low so it's not an onerous task). I don't have to sit in on department meetings, nor do I have to spend time doing extra activities like running a drama club or English Corner (which I'd happily do if I were paid for the extra work, but of course we never are, so I won't do them). I may only get paid for the hours I teach - with the expectation that the pay for them covers lesson planning time, though I'm not convinced it does - but I don't have a lot I have to do outside of those hours beyond planning classes.

I also appreciate that, not working in a big institution, I am not pushed into a testing culture I don't support. I don't have to teach to a test - I help prepare some learners for IELTS, but that's not the same thing - and I don't have to teach towards a test that I think has deep validity issues. I don't need to test my private students at all, nor my business students: some form of direct test of the skills we work on (e.g. giving a presentation in a presentation skills class) serves as adequate assessment for final reports. Even my IELTS students' mock tests don't count for anything other than as a way to check their skills against the demands of the test they will ultimately take. It's just not an issue I have to contend with, so I am free to adopt other methods of assessment, and feedback comes not in the form of grades but real feedback in evaluation reports and conferences. It's actually a really lovely advantage to have and a low-stress, high-efficacy way to teach in a more holistic and meaningful way.

Of course, that's my situation - I'm sure at other cram schools there are tests, and the teachers may not care for those tests, trust the results or particularly care to give them.

Although this is not true in all private teaching contexts, I really appreciate that there's no administration breathing down my neck telling me I have to do certain things in class, not all of which I'd be likely to agree are necessary, nor telling me how I must teach. I have a classmate whose administration is insistent that there be no L1 in the classroom, even though current thinking is that limited use of L1 has a place there. This is despite inviting four-star names in the TEFL world to give workshops to teachers there, who reaffirm that L1 can be put to good use in the classroom. It's "not their policy" so teachers are instructed to ignore all of that.

Nobody would dare tell me how I must teach in a similar way. Back when I worked at a chain school in Taiwan they did to some extent, but as I've moved on to take classes at better schools, I am free to implement a teaching style that aligns with my principles as I see fit with nobody looking over my shoulder or breathing down my neck. I even have a good level of freedom over the coursebooks I use, and when they are assigned, total freedom over how I use them.

Another point worth mentioning is that, at least in Taiwan, I do make more money in the private system than I would in the formal education system (unless I were to work at an international school). The gap is not as big as you might imagine, as I don't get any of the perks - annual bonus, paid summers off, a pension program - but the take-home pay for my work is still somewhat higher. People associate cram schools with low pay, but honestly, the public schools and universities, while they offer stable pay, offer less than what I currently earn. The highest figures I've seen outside the international schools are in the NT$70,000/month range, and to be frank, I find that low. And compared to wages in other parts of the world (Japan, Korea, the Middle East) it is quite low indeed. Nobody stays in Taiwan for the great salaries.

And for that better pay, I also seem to always have more free time. I almost certainly teach more in-class hours, but the lack of administrative and other work required of me means that my peers in the formal education system seem to put in longer hours.

Of course, these advantages don't accrue to every teacher in the private language school game, and newer teachers especially are more likely to find themselves in schools that have a set curriculum and way of teaching, with all of the associated tests and administrative duties, and are likely to be trained to teach in that specific way (on the other hand. newer teachers are less likely to have teaching principles formed over a long period of experience and training that they are loathe to set aside).

It is worth noting, though, that not all cram schools are created equal. In Taiwan, not everyone is a third-rate chain school or one-off with a silly name like "Mickey Bear America Funtime English ABC School" or for adults, "Oxbridge Scholar's Engrish Acadamy". The two places I take classes with are both classified for business purposes as "buxibans", but they are run more professionally than one generally , as educational institutions that, while private, are managed by people who actually care about the education they are providing. There really are better places one can work for, it's not all chum.

In short, it's not all bad. People wonder why, after seeking out all of this training and development and being easily qualified to teach in a more formal setting, why I am still teaching for hourly pay. I am not entirely in the cram school system as I take classes where I please and have my own private students, but the structure of what I do isn't all that different.

I do it because of the freedom to teach how I like, the freedom from tests and administrative work, the freedom from limits on my time off, and freedom from a school bureaucracy telling me how to do things.

Perhaps someday I'll move on and work for a university or international school (I can't imagine working with learners younger than high-school age) or more formal educational institution, but if/when I do, along with the advantages (paid summers off! A more 'prestige' job description! Perhaps time to research and publish!), I'll also be acutely aware of what I'm losing.

The Delta vs. Masters Throwdown

I've only been at Exeter for a few weeks and haven't started the assignment writing part of my course yet, so I may come back and edit this at some point in the future. However, I do feel qualified to comment on what it's like doing a modular Cambridge Delta compared to doing a Master's degree in TESOL.

In the introductory section on the first day of my MEd program, I walked into the classroom remembering this completely preposterous exchange on Facebook: the admin of a CELTA-specific group grew inexplicably angry when I ventured that a Delta was likely just as challenging as a Master's, and a Delta holder will have learned just as much as a Master's graduate (although they may have learned some different things, and certainly in different ways).

"A Master's is a one-year or several-year high-level program. A Delta can be completed in 12 weeks. There is no way a Delta can compare to a Master's," the admin insisted.

Although I had not yet started a Master's then, I was basing this suggestion on anecdotes from friends and colleagues who have done both, many if not all of whom feel Delta was actually harder. I was also considering the Ofqual rankings, which award Delta the same level (7) as a Master's. Surely they wouldn't do so for no reason. I was also considering my Delta experience, which consisted of deep and intensive exposure to the academic and practical corpus of research into teaching and learning English, from the fairly unacademic, somewhat beginner 'How to...' series all the way up to dense analyses in Applied Linguistics. Most of our work was self-directed, with the expectation that we would, after Module 1, create thoughtful and worthwhile output rather than a regurgitation of our reading.

For this insolence, I was banned from the group, but whatever. I was mostly amused by the other person's complete certainty that the Delta was the cakewalk and the Master's was the rigorous training program. I am not certain the holder of this deep and anger-inducing opinion held either degree.

That's a part of why I'm writing this - there are a lot of opinions out there, mostly by people who have taken one course or the other (but not both), or who have done neither. I'm not sure I'm better qualified than those people quite yet, but I have some experience and an 'Edit' button for future thoughts, so I figure it's worth having a go. Don't take this as my final opinion on the matter: my thoughts on this are very much a work in progress.

I also want to take some time to discuss which one is the better choice if you want to teach English in Taiwan.

The short version of my opinion is that, in fact, those who compare the Delta unfavorably to a Master's: my original supposition that they are roughly equal in difficulty and content learned seems to be holding up. The Master's program feels easier now, but I suspect that will change. What will certainly remain constant is that the way of transmitting knowledge and its intended application is very different indeed between the two types of program.

The Delta is hard. It took me three years; it's not at all true that "it can be completed in just 12 weeks". First of all, for those who do take that option, that 12 weeks is more intensive than anything you'll encounter on a Master's with the possible exception of the final stretch of thesis writing. Spread out to create a workload more similar to that of a Master's - say, completing the modular courses in quick succession rather than taking one per year as I did - a Delta will take at least a year, and likely more given the breaks between when the modules are offered. If you take Module One in September and finish in December, the next module is likely to be starting in March of the next year, finishing in June. You may have to wait until September again to take the third one, finishing again in September. Your workload will be similar during those times as that of a Master's.

That sounds an awful lot like the amount of time it takes to complete a Master's in the UK (generally one year), and nearing the amount of time it takes to complete one in the US. There is no basis for dismissing Delta on those grounds. In fact, if you contrast that to my current program, it will take me three years (exactly the amount of time it took to do a Delta), with a much more spread-out workload and likely less crying into a pillow overall (though ask me about that again in 2019).

Even if one does take the 12-week course, you are not done in 12 weeks. In that time, you crash-study for the Module 1 exam, which you generally take when the intensive program ends. Your Module 2 is complete. You receive a crash course in how to do Module 3, but you don't actually do it: that is completed after the intensive course ends and can take up to another full semester. Two semesters' worth of work, one of which is highly intensive? Again, that sounds similar to a Master's program.

As for the content, so far it's much the same. If anything, I feel sympathy for my non-Delta-holding classmates who are currently taking Language Awareness. I remember having to learn that, and what I learned is not that different from what's being taught in the core module, although I tended to focus more on pure mechanics (e.g. the actual phonology system of English including use of the phonemic chart, manner of articulation and the like rather than ideas of what phonology is and how one might teach it). The basics of testing, approaches to teaching and issues in teaching  are also much the same, and it seems as though principles of teaching and syllabus design will be similar, as well. The same names - Richards, Nunan, Krashen, Thornbury, Kumaravadivelu, Kachru, Vygotsky, Tomlinson to name a few - pop up in both.

So far, I have found the content in both to be of about equivalent difficulty, although I'm interested to see what writing my Master's assignments will be like. I may well change my mind.

That said, the aim and application of the content is radically different. Delta is practical - any theory you learn (and you do learn quite a bit) is meant to bolster your classroom practice more or less immediately. Master's programs vary, but the Exeter MEd TESOL leans more toward the cerebral end - learning theory because it develops your knowledge base as a teacher. That's a compliment: it's exactly what I wanted after the relentless practicality of Delta. Or, as we discussed on the first day, programs like this are a part of teacher development. They are not teacher training. Teacher training is about making teachers more immediately effective in the classroom, whereas teacher development is about cultivating the knowledge that informs what one teaches in the classroom. I've had teacher training - I did a Delta. Although professional development - like learning a language - is never really over, I don't need another program like that. I needed, and found, a program focusing on the theoretical underpinnings of what I did in that program.

A few examples of what I mean when I say Delta was training, whereas the Master's is development:

On Delta, we did have to do background reading but what really mattered was how we executed our ideas in class, or how well we built a syllabus as a result. For Module Two, the written assignments mattered, but what really made or broke a candidate was their assessed teaching. You could know all the theory in the world and it wouldn't matter if enough of your classes sucked (ahem, were deemed substandard in execution), whereas you could pass the written assignment with an imperfect grounding in theory and still do well if your classes were amazing as rated against the course specifications.

On the Master's, there are no practicums. Nobody is going to assess my teaching - I'll mostly be assessed based on my written work. On one hand that's a shame, as I find observation and feedback to be the most efficient route to improved teaching. On the other, I'm relieved because I've been through it already, and what happens in a one-hour class as per Delta specifications cannot fully capture the depth and breadth of what goes on in a real class over time. In either case, having walked over that bed of coals, it will be good to immerse myself more deeply in theory without necessarily having to stop when I reach a point that a grounding in it is sufficient for me to teach a given one-hour class. It's not a benefit that is as immediately apparent, but over time I do feel it will grow to inform my work in valuable ways.

The assessed lessons were far and away the hardest - yet most practical - part of the Delta. There are ways in which I am sure a Master's will be more challenging, however. The closest you get to writing a thesis on Delta is your Module Three assignment. However, the main paper is capped at 4500 words, with everything else going in appendices. Although my final product easily topped 100 pages, the main paper only took up 17 of them. I can't imagine a passing Master's thesis with that ratio.

I also suspect - and I am usually right about these things - that our assignments will be judged to a very high standard. Once my blissful month in England is over and I hit the books in Taipei, I suspect what seems very interesting but basically easy now will become much harder extremely quickly. The British educational system, especially at the Master's level, places a high value on self-directed reading and output. It only makes sense that the input sessions, then, would be the breeziest part of the course, but are not at all indicative of what will be expected of us once we start producing. I have a suspicion that, academically speaking, much more will be expected of our written work in terms of depth and breadth of research covered as well as ideas birthed from that process than Delta ever expected. The trade-off is that we will not be expected to demonstrate our ability to actually write a lesson plan or teach a class (we do, however, have to demonstrate our ability to create materials, conceptualize a teacher development or training course and critique as well as write a test).

That said, I can't deny that these past two weeks have felt more like a lovely vacation with some interesting TESOL classes, in a way that Delta never did. Delta was pure - and purifying - pain. An intensive Delta (or even CELTA) is several weeks of all-day input with further work on the weekends. You don't get a day off, ever. "Intensive" summer input sessions for a Master's are four, maybe five days a week where only occasionally does one have more than three hours' of class to attend, with some reading that is not onerous. Yesterday we went to the seaside town of Beer. Today we'll go to Powderham Castle and have cream tea. It's so very intensive.

I'm still surprised I never descended into functional alcoholism on Delta, whereas here at Exeter, if I drink too much it will be because of all the pub-crawling students in Britain do, not because the course is particularly stressful. We'll see how I feel about that when I actually start writing, however.

I am learning a lot, though. For example, what I had thought the term 'construct validity' meant turns out to be not at all what it means when considered in depth. We'll be going more deeply into the concepts of validity and reliability than I ever had to on Delta. Delta Module One had one section on issues in ELT, whereas this course offers a whole module on it (and the issues - such as culture clash in the classroom, the native speaker myth and others are pertinent and worthwhile). Delta only touched on materials development in that you had to create or adapt materials, with no background reading on how to do so necessary, whereas I'm now taking an entire module on exactly that.

Another benefit of actually studying TESOL at a university is that I am an educator by profession. Training in how to execute my work better is important, but an educator who doesn't herself seek higher education feels like an oxymoron of sorts. It will also loop back to training in that eventually I am likely to find myself teaching EAP classes to non-native-speaking graduate students. How can I claim to be qualified in teaching a graduate student how to absorb content and then write and present it if I have not done a graduate program myself?

It is also important to repeat something I pointed out in my last post: I have learned more from my classmates, most of whom are non-native speakers, and had more productive discussions with them in two weeks than I have in ten years of interacting with mostly average, often unqualified teachers in Taiwan who were mostly hired on the basis of their being native speakers rather than their having any training (or in some cases ability) in teaching. It's cruel but true. If you only focus on the practical, you begin to treat education as a purely practical channel. It then becomes about market forces - students become clients, teachers are hired based on optics more than ability, and the goal is a happy customer, which is not necessarily an educated customer despite education being the ostensible goal. I've heard more justifications for this practical approach than I care to consider, including defenses a lack of qualifications on the part of both teachers and school owners (not principals, not head educators - owners), with little emphasis on what is actually learned if that is not necessary to create happy clients. I appreciate getting away from all that.

Delta never advocated such an approach, but the idea that learning should only ever be immediately practical (being specifically trained for some kind of job, without actually knowing much beyond that in any deeper way) eventually brings one to that logical conclusion.

I'm happy that I did Delta first, though. If I had done the MEd first, I'd be getting a lot of developmental input with not as much guidance as I'd like on how to actually use it. I might have started to question why I was doing it at all. What I needed when I did Delta was exactly what it provided: practical and efficient training to be better in the classroom. Having that, it's time to dive deeper - something Delta doesn't offer. If I'd never done the MEd, I'd be fighting a nagging feeling of hollowness, that there is so much more to how we teach that I never touched upon because it was not immediately necessary, regardless of whether it might be someday.

I have to say I also appreciate the access to academic journals that I get as a real live student, rather than a sort of in-limbo person in training. Delta was difficult, in part, because I needed academic references but didn't always have access to them. The Distance Delta attempts to remedy that, but ultimately the online library is insufficient.

A final note on Master's programs that is worth mentioning: more than one person I've talked to regarding more than one program has mentioned that many of them are full of a certain cohort. The students are mostly young women and mostly inexperienced - mostly candidates who might struggle doing a Delta, if they are accepted on a module at all. They mostly have to get the basics down of TESOL theory and practice. Yes, they are mostly from China, but that shouldn't be a point against them (I only bring it up because it's a recurring theme in conversations I've had with those familiar with MA TESOL programs in several institutions, including some quite prestigious ones).

This is not at all specific to Exeter - in fact, the person who first mentioned it to me did so in the context of a completely different university - and certainly does not apply to the summer intensive program I am currently doing. That is to say, if that's the common denominator you are teaching to, someone who comes in with a Delta and a wealth of experience might feel that the work is not sufficiently challenging. In fact, the person I talked to told me straight-up that I would be disappointed with the academic rigor such a program and it's a major reason why I applied to this program specifically.

I'll end with a short exploration of which path is right for someone who wants to make their career in Taiwan. I wish I had an easy answer, and could just shout "Master's!" or "Delta!" and have that be it, but as with most worthwhile issues, it's more complicated than that.

If your goal is to simply be an excellent teacher, and you have a good work situation in which teaching well is generously remunerated and which doesn't require a Master's, get a Delta (it should go without saying that I recommend you get a CELTA regardless). The Delta is training, and you will be well-trained. You'll have exactly the amount of theory you need to do your job effectively, but not much more. Get a Delta if you want to go into teacher training as well, if you don't have a teaching license of PGCE - you can train teachers without one, but you are not likely to be a great trainer.

Keep in mind, though, that the Delta is not recognized by the Taiwanese government because they have some who-knows-what-dunce in charge of foreign language education policy. You get Delta to better yourself, and it's a good filter for separating good employers from bad when interviewing (pro tip: a good employer will recognize the value of a Delta and reward you accordingly. A bad one will not know or care what a Delta is and why it matters - if you have a Delta, don't ever take a job with a school that doesn't care about it unless you're desperate).

If, however, your goal is to explore employment opportunities outside of the deeply exploitative cram school industry (although good cram schools do exist - I teach classes through two of them), get the Master's. That is your entree into university teaching, may help you get into international school work and should be sufficient for public school teaching if you have permanent residency or a marriage visa (for everyone else, a teaching license is specifically required). A Master's degree is recognized, and therefore matters more for this type of advancement. If you do, though, I'd recommend getting a CELTA or Trinity TESOL certification as well, simply for the practical component. I know Master's degree holders who have done that and said it was worthwhile, as their graduate programs never actually taught them how to teach in the way that a series of practicums with targeted input sessions can.

If you've had good training, with a solid teacher trainer who took the time to observe you and help you grow as a teacher as you gained experience, get the Master's. Do this especially if you are interested in the theories and ideas that inform your beliefs and priciples as a teacher.

Do not, however, mistake being trained in one school's specific - and potentially not-research based - 'house curriculum style' for actual training. If you have unbiased, outside feedback saying that you are already effective in the classroom - perhaps you have a CELTA or equivalent and did a lot with it, or received good but informal training - get the Master's.

If you think you might leave Taiwan someday, and you want to teach but are worried about how to get a good job doing it in another country, get the Master's, or a teaching license if you want to work with children. It's an unfair but true fact that outside of Europe - if you can get a teaching job there, which as an American is nearly impossible - and possibly the Middle East, the Delta just won't be widely recognized enough to help you.

If that's never happened and you'd be going from "online TEFL certification and being thrown in a classroom without guidance" to "Master's student", get the Delta (or at least get it first).

If you think you'd like to do both, get the Delta first. It will not only give you the practical framework  that helps make sense of the theory in real contexts, but many programs will give you credit for it which will reduce your overall workload and fees on the Master's.

If you need something you can start from Taiwan, and want to start as soon as possible, get the Delta. You might have trouble finding a Module Two tutor, but everything else can be done with minimal problems from Taiwan. That's not true for a Master's. Although some Taiwanese universities do offer graduate programs in TESOL, I am not convinced of the quality or international portability of any of them. It is similarly hard to put together the time and money to do a full-time program abroad and then come back, but options like the program I'm currently at at Exeter are available. 

If you not only want to expand your career horizons but dive into both training-by-fire and deep theory, get both.

After all, nobody except the twin devils of money or time ever said you had to choose.

Taiwan doesn't value professional educators, or, why I'm still pissed at the government

Yes, I know that sounds like a giant duh headline, something we all know. But bear with me, please. 

Earlier today, I got a message from a student thanking me for helping bring his IELTS score to the level he'd need to go abroad, a fairly dramatic improvement for what was a short class (this is not typical; it usually happens when a student has the language level needed but needs guidance as to how the test works and how the productive skills sections are assessed). Another student let me know recently that she also got the score she needs, and will be attending a top school in the UK. These are young people who are Taiwan's brightest lights and future leaders - in the two examples above, they'll be going to some of the best schools in the world and studying in a science faculty.

It felt great, but it also hit me: this is why I'm angry about the new dual citizenship qualifications in Taiwan on such a personal level.

I have worked hard to be the sort of teacher who can bring about that kind of improvement, or at least identify where longer-term study needs to be focused. I've put myself through CELTA (not a big deal certification-wise but it was a huge commitment to leave Taiwan for a month to get it done, as no course is offered here), Delta (which is a much bigger deal and a real professional qualification), received other useful training - there is a reason why I can't be specific - and I'm about to start a Master's program in the field. After that, I might go on to a PhD, or I might get a teaching license if I want to work in an international school. I might do both. 

This is in addition to getting results in the classroom while still building rapport with students, and a decade of experience doing it.

Nobody can say that I haven't done my time professionally. I've neither over-relied on experience without a training foundation nor leaned too much on credentials. In any other field, including education focusing on any other subject, few would dare to imply that what I do is not professional.

And yet, this is exactly the message the government is sending with dual nationality regulations that seem designed to keep English teachers out, to differentiate them from everyone else as some sort of lesser labor.

I won't deny that a lot of English teaching jobs are like this. Many are just fancy daycare, where the purpose is to provide a place for kids to go after school so Mom and Dad can work insane amounts of overtime. A lot of teachers really are not qualified, either - and I don't just mean through lack of credentialing, I mean through lack of meaningful training or improvement. I would like to see this change, while still providing a place in the industry for new potential talent to find work (and I'd like to turn the majority of the industry into something worthwhile and respected enough that true talent is more likely to stick around).

The problem is that the new laws, essentially, say that we all work at fancy daycare. That none of the work many of us put into professional development - essentially what makes us real professionals - matters. That not only could we be replaced by 22-year-old Whiteguy McBackpacker, but that if we were, performance would be essentially the same. That working for a university teaching 65-person "conversational English classes" (if you're wondering how one teaches conversational English to 65 people at once, the answer is that one doesn't) is more valuable than working one-on-one or with small group classes to bring about real improvement that has real world effects. Effects like, oh, I don't know, ensuring a business presentation goes well enough that it plays a tiny part in keeping the economy humming. That one of Taiwan's potentially great future scientists gets to go to Oxford. In ensuring a speech delivered abroad makes Taiwan more visible to the world. 

They lay bare what Taiwan (the government, but also many people) think about English teachers: that we're useful but our job is not meaningful, that those of us with professional qualifications don't have serious qualifications, that it doesn't matter, any unqualified person could do our job, because all English teaching work is essentially unskilled, undifferentiated labor. That they think we don't do real work at a real professional level. They make it clear that the government, and many people, really do believe one native speaker is as good as another, and any native speaker is better than a local (this is, of course, not true).

This is why I've asked you to bear with me: most people make this argument in terms of wages or jobs. They say improving yourself through training and meaningful experience won't get you a raise, and most jobs aren't worth it. They're right that most jobs in Taiwan aren't worth the effort, but not all jobs are created equal. People saying this generally have not worked to get to a higher level themselves, and are thus not aware that there is a whole level of better jobs available if you just make an effort to be a professional. My argument is different: I might complain that wages are stagnant and there are deep issues in TEFL in Taiwan that need to be addressed, but I do essentially believe that if you work towards professionalism in ELT, the industry will reward you somewhat. You will find better-paid jobs with better employers. To some extent, ELT takes seriously those who take it seriously. My issue is with the government essentially turning a blind eye to this, paving the way for so many everyday citizens to do so, as well.

I find intrinsic meaning and professionalism in my work and don't need the Taiwanese government or people to take it seriously for me to do so. That's important; I need that if I'm even going to carry on. I do truly believe my work is meaningful. I won't even hedge that with a sentence header expressing a personal opinion. My work is meaningful.

It seems clear to me that Taiwan would be a stronger country if everyone who was committed to this nation - from blue-collar workers to the folks mopping up kids' pee at Hess to me to a tech worker somewhere - had a path to citizenship. I do not mean to imply that I deserve one but others don't. The purpose here is to point out a problematic attitude held by the government and many people here.

Of course, this issue is not limited to Taiwan, and finding intrinsic meaning in what I do is important.

But it still stings, y'know?

My real beef with the new labor laws

I've been thinking a lot these days about what it is I don't like about the new labor regulations in Taiwan. I'm not sure why - they don't actually impact me as I don't have a single full-time job: I've been freelance since I got my APRC. Being generally interested in labor issues, however, might be a part of it. As is the fact that the new laws do impact many of my friends.

The most common complaints I hear from sources I care about are that work they want is being taken away from them, and that flexibility they want is being taken away (companies whining that now they have to compensate their employees more generously for the extremely long work hours expected of them do not draw my sympathy, I quite literally DGAF. You've been paying your people too little for crazy hours for awhile now, Taiwanese employers. Suck it.)

I'm not sure at all that these are the root problems that are causing me to view the new law with so much cynicism, though. That said, they're worth exploring.

I have a friend who poured a lot of passion and effort into a particular class, notably in developing a syllabus for that class within a larger curriculum. She had it taken away, because it was (apparently) the only way for her employer to ensure she did not work overtime that she'd have to be paid extra for (because goodness gracious, they couldn't just pay a valuable teacher more, could they? Oh no!). She genuinely wanted that work, and it was snatched from her. I have another friend who didn't necessarily want to work 6 days a week, but appreciated the financial boost she got from the longer hours. That was taken away, because the thought of just paying her more was apparently unconscionable? Or something? I have students who have subordinates who used to arrange their work schedules to work 6-day weeks for much of the month, but then take at least one extended weekend in that month so the hours worked out over a longer period, and they got a longer rest. That is no longer permissible under the new law. I'm not sure why not, but my students assure me it is not. I am not an expert.

I'm sympathetic to all of these complaints - especially the last one - but it seems increasingly obvious to me that they're symptoms of deeper problems the new labor law ignores rather than the root problems themselves.

What's being ignored here, and what the new law does nothing to fix, is the power imbalance between employer and employee. The "Boss Class" doesn't like the new law for obvious reasons: it's not so easy to squeeze their peons for more work for as little compensation as they can get away with giving. Good. But why don't labor activists like it? Because it does nothing to improve employee bargaining power or choice. It does nothing to address the basic truth of modern capitalism: the employee always, always - even in a labor-scarce market - has less power than a company. I could go into why I feel this is, but suffice it to say that labor does not gain sufficient power vis-a-vis employers in a world where shortages do not appear to be creating better remuneration and working conditions for teachers, or one in which jobs are not so interchangeable, and there might not be a similarly good job to jump to if the one you have (or the other one on offer) doesn't offer enough incentives to get you in the door, not because there is a job scarcity but because what you'd be doing would be somewhat unique. I mean, I'm a teacher, just ask me how teacher shortages in the US haven't led to better working conditions for American teachers. Even when the market favored labor in the years before the 2008 crash, lots of job openings didn't mean lots of offers in a world where one job opening would attract hundreds of applicants simply because the Internet made it easier to advertise jobs on massive websites and for applicants to send out heaps of resumes. A person can't necessarily live without a job, but a company can live with a position unfilled, and can get by with less-than-ideal employees until they find the right person, because the company will almost by definition have more resources than an individual.

As a result, I can't even think of a time in my adult life when the market has truly helped working conditions and pay improve. I'm not young anymore, that's actually quite a long time to see - in my observation at least, I don't claim to be an economist - essentially no progress.

In a better system, employer and employee would be on more even footing to negotiate not only pay and benefits, but preferred working hours and conditions. The employer could lay out their needs, and the employee could lay out what they hope to achieve, or get, out of the job. Employees who want to work longer hours and make more money could choose to do so, and those who wanted to work less, or be more flexible, but also potentially earn less, could choose that, too. Solutions might not be perfect, but they'd be workable for all involved because everyone was on a somewhat level playing field (and of course this is most obviously true in positions with hourly pay or clear paid overtime) when negotiating the terms of work. Of course, that's not how it works: your employer tells you if you're going to be working more or less, and how much money you want vis-a-vis free time is not considered. Often, keeping the laws relaxed so working hours can be quite variable don't necessarily lead to the employee getting more say - for every person who chooses longer hours, there are a few who are forced to work them. For every employee who chooses fewer, there are a few who are put on reduced schedules (but still told to be available for hours they will never work, so they can't even seek other employment) because that benefits the company.

So what you have are new laws that still allow the employer, without your input, to decide how much you work - those who want to work more can't if the company doesn't want to pay them the new overtime amounts, and those who want to work less might still be called in when they'd rather be off, or not get to choose when they are off. My friend who had a class she wanted taken from her was not given a choice to keep that class and lose another one. My friend who appreciates the money but not necessarily the exhaustion of a 6-day week wasn't given a choice as to whether she worked one or not - not before when she had to work 6 days, and not after when that was reduced to 5. In both cases her preference mattered little, and with any new job it would be the same. My students' subordinates were not given the choice to have a flexible schedule (it's mere circumstance that my particular students happen to be flexible and generous with their employees; not all employers are.)

It also does little to change the problem of every job essentially being a terrible deal - low pay, long hours, little in the way of additional benefits - in a world where you can't just not choose any job, you likely need to pick one. I have a student with this issue: she doesn't like her job, nor does she like any of the jobs on offer. But she has to take one, she can't just be unemployed. It's not possible to insist you deserve more than $22,000NT per month  (which I think everyone does - you can't live independently on $22k. It does not cover basic cost of living and therefore is inadequate) when there are no jobs offering more. English teachers can't insist on a job where they get paid Lunar New Year (which we ought to get under the law, but don't) if no job offers paid Lunar New Year (you might get compensation after you leave, if you complain, but that means little if what you actually want is a paid holiday without having to quit and threaten to call the government to eventually get that money). You can't change much where you actually work if speaking up means you could get "laid off", and the next job won't be any better.

The new laws really don't do anything to address that basic problem. I'm not sure what could, frankly, in a world where the company will always be bigger, and have more money and resources, than an employee or job seeker, no matter how "good" the market supposedly is.

I am really sick of those Nazi re-enactment kids

There is a reason this was OK but the high school students' Nazi re-enactment was not
From here

...and yet here I am writing about them. 

Make no mistake, however, I am sick of them. I just don't want to hear about it anymore, and I won't write about them again.

I'm not going to get into the "but their freedom of speech!" retort because it's intellectually shallow. These kids have freedom of speech - they have not faced and will not face criminal charges for this. Freedom of speech never gave anyone the right to freedom from criticism or backlash from the public regarding what they've expressed.

I'm also not going to get into "why is it so taboo?" It's not taboo. Movies and even war re-enactors re-enact painful scenes from history, including the horrors of Nazism, fairly frequently. If the subject matter is handled sensitively then there's generally not a problem with it. The issue here is that it did not meet that standard. This is true for historical re-enactments of all sorts for a variety of purposes.

Remember how we all watched a re-enactment of executions under the White Terror during President Tsai's inauguration? Remember how, while people remarked on it, there wasn't this kind of critical backlash? Because the re-enactment had value: learning value, historical value, emotional value. Nobody (well, nobody with any sense) thinks that such re-enactments should be forbidden or are all in bad taste, no matter what. It's how the events are handled when acted out, and why the re-enactment is staged in the first place, that matters. (Edited to add: not everyone thinks that the re-enactments in the inaugural play were handled well - I too have some criticism of them, but overall do feel they had historical value if, perhaps, it was not portrayed as accurately as it could be).

Also on the trash heap: "well they don't know that much about WWII. The evils of Nazism haven't been ingrained in them the way they have in us". Sure, but there's no excuse for that. Just as we Westerners could stand a more comprehensive approach to Asian history - from the horrors of Mao to the White Terror to Pol Pot, Japanese imperialism and beyond - this should be better taught in Asian schools. In fact, even in Asia these subjects don't always seem to be fully understood: why is it that Chiang Kai-shek and Chairman Mao bobblehead toys can be purchased in half the gift shops of Taiwan? What is the purpose of making two brutal dictators adorable?

And yet another one for the dumptruck: "people do lots of worse things, Americans can be just as insensitive!" Yup. Thinking of all the idealistic young Westerners a generation ago who wore Mao suits to be "cool" (or worse, because they actually bought what Mao was selling) or make tasteless jokes about some of the more awful events and people of Asian history also makes me shake my head. But "they do it too" is not an excuse.

What bothers me, really, then, is the complete lack of value - historical, pedagogical, emotional - in this particular re-enactment.

The dramatically staged executions during the inauguration performance had historical value and emotional weight. Through them, we can be reminded of the horrors of the past - it pushes us to remember the history of agonies Taiwan has battled through and in some way pushes Taiwan to come to terms with its own history (something that is avoided more than it should be). Through the re-enactment, the horror of what took place in that era is laid bare, and it provides a useful lens through which to examine Taiwan's progress, current status and future. It was not a perfect dramatic performance, and there are reasons to criticize it - and the depiction of Han settlers driving out the original aboriginal inhabitants of the land - but nobody would say that no re-actment should have taken place. If it made you upset, good. It should.

There is similar value in films dealing with history, whether fictional, semi-fictional and documentary, and value in historical societies re-enacting battles and other scenes from potent events from the past: through them we can understand what it was like for the people involved, in some small way, and hopefully learn from it.

This, though? This was a group of teenagers choosing a decidedly un-fun subject and having, well, fun with it. It was not handled sensitively and, as a teacher, I fail to see what learning outcomes this might better bring about. What exactly did these students learn about Nazism by putting on snazzy uniforms and marching around? What of the weight and pain of history did this impart? What greater understanding did they gain? How did they learn to examine the issue critically, look at various sources and discuss the ideas within, or apply the lessons to the timeline of history, the world as it is today and the future?

There are certainly ways to teach Nazism in schools in Taiwan and elsewhere. The subject is not taboo - or should not be - and there may even be room for historical re-enactments if they serve a purpose.

However, one of the first things I learned in my teacher training is that every activity included in one's lesson should be carefully and critically evaluated for how well it will enable the class to meet its aims: how it will enable the learners to learn what you want them to come away with. Not only are we asked to look at each activity and decide if it is the best possible choice to propel the class toward successful learning, or if another choice might be more targeted, more efficient, more engaging or more relevant, but also if each activity is properly scaffolded and ordered to bring the class, in stages, through to a greater understanding of the subject (whatever level of understanding you have specified in your aims).

I am not a perfect teacher. Sometimes I get lazy - I try not to do it often - and perhaps I grab an activity because I'm short on time when another, more involved one might have been more fruitful. Sometimes I reflect on a class and think "that wasn't scaffolded as well as it could have been, I shouldn't have had to give such a long explanation of this or that issue". Sometimes I think "well, we met our aims, but I'm not sure that the level of understanding is as deep as I'd like it to be." I think all responsible, professional teachers think this way.

Certainly, syllabuses and curriculums are littered with pointless school projects that amount to wheel-spinning or extra whiz-bang showiness but do little, or nothing, to actually promote absorption of and understanding of the subject matter. Certainly - and not only in Taiwan - is critical thinking training often sacrificed for these surface-level school projects that are usually money and time sucks (or they are sacrificed at the altar of 'this is on the big exam so memorize what's in your book, we don't have time to think too deeply about it, you just need to answer some questions').

I can honestly say if I were tasked with teaching Nazism to a history class, this sort of re-enactment would have no place in it. Not because it is tasteless, though it is that, but because it lacks value. If, however, in some lesson a re-enactment, handled appropriately, did have value I would incorporate it.

I could give you a very long list of things that might be better included: from debates to class experiments (such as the brown eye/blue eye experiment) to readings (not only textbook readings but books such as The Wave, The Book Thief and perhaps even Stargirl which is seemingly unrelated but in fact carries that us-against-them mentality so intrinsic to the Nazis into the modern world in a different way). I am not afraid to face slightly unnerving lesson plans - if you are not unnerved by Nazism then you didn't learn it properly - and would not even be opposed to a class experiment where some children had to hide, others had to find them, and the hiders were punished if they were found whereas the finders were greatly rewarded - and to see if the finders were willing to capture the hiders for their reward, knowing the hiders would be punished. Then to bring them all back and talk about how that felt and why, and how it might manifest in the world today.

I might include something like the lesson told in a Facebook post that's going around:

When I was in 7th grade, our teacher put on a video and told us to take notes. Ten minutes in, she threw the lights on and shouted at Steven [Lastname], telling him he wasn't taking notes and he should have been. But the thing was, Steve was taking notes. I saw it. We all saw it. The teacher asked if anyone wanted to stand up for Steve. A few of us choked out some words of defense but were immediately squashed. Quickly, we were all very silent. Steve was sent to the principal's office. The teacher came back in the room and said something like "See how easy that was?" We were reading "Anne Frank."


But this? What does marching around really teach? Does mere imitation really have any value? Thea answer is no, and that goes for any re-enactment. Was the Wushe Incident re-enactment of any greater pedagogical value? I'd say no. Had the students chosen to re-enact events in a different way, with teacher guidance leading them to better understand those events through the resulting play, would that have been more valuable? Certainly.

It's tasteless, yes. It shows a deep and painful lack of understanding of important events in world history, yes. It also shows a lack of understanding of why the backlash was what it was - last I heard, the principle of the school was resigning but the students themselves did not really seem to understand what they'd done wrong or why they were being criticized so heavily.

All of that is true, but it's the complete lack of educational utility of the whole thing that really gets me.

All that said, I really am sick of this story and I'm going to stop talking about it now, or writing about it in the future.

Why I Freelance

This post is as much for the ELT people as for the Taiwan folks (I'm betting the Taiwan readers, especially the other English teachers, will not need a lengthy blog post about this topic - they'll know immediately where I'm coming from).

I've been asked a few times why I freelance, when ostensibly I am a supporter of labor - not just that, but organized labor, labor that treats its own capital (that is, the work it can provide) the way corporations treat theirs - in an organized way to get the best benefit from it. I strongly support professional development and paid training, paid leave, parental leave benefits, and retirement benefits/pensions for workers as a part of a basic salary package. I also support national health insurance, but don't think that needs to be tied to employment. I am exactly the sort of person who wants the benefits working for an organization - being a formal employee - would bring. I'm the sort who would join a union and be active in it.

While I enjoy the benefits of freelancing - control over my schedule, no real "boss" per se, the confidence that comes with knowing I can create an income on my own without having an organization offer me employee status - I don't automatically gravitate to a lifestyle of billable-hour income and no benefits. A fixed salary and paid leave sure sound nice, especially on an academic calendar.

So why, then, have I chosen not to be employed by anybody? Why don't I pick a full-time job and stick with it? I've said several times on this blog that my two main employers are both pretty good - why not pick one and be their employee, rather than keeping both somewhat at arm's length?

And the reason is simple - my two employers (as in, not private students but organizations that give me group classes) are good, by industry standards. The industry as a whole, however, is not. I won't even qualify that with an "in Taiwan" because it's more of a global problem.

No job exists in Taiwan that is tempting enough for me to want to work it full-time. No job offers adequate pay along with the benefits I'd expect from a full-time employer. Why would I commit myself to one organization full-time when, honestly, here is a list of things I would not receive:

- Paid leave (although this is technically something we are legally entitled to, there is no realistic way to claim it and keep your job) if one is paid an hourly rate

- Additional job security including guaranteed hours

- Any sort of pension or retirement plan or benefit

- Better pay

- In many cases, a salary instead of hourly-rate work

- If salaried, a suitably high salary with reasonable hours. I'm not lazy, I work hard, but I want good money for that sort of commitment, and no amount of money will make me agree to work over 40 hours a week (and no salary I've seen on offer for English teachers adequately compensates 40 hours' worth of work)

- Paid professional development

So what is the benefit to becoming a full-time employee if it means committing myself, and getting nothing in return that I don't already give myself by freelancing?

What this boils down to is a problem of jobs not being good enough, which is an industry problem. I rather like both of my employers - they're the best I've found in the industry, to be frank. I have no complaint with them. They are generally staffed by good people. But, the story is the same: hourly pay, no paid vacation (which, again, is technically illegal in Taiwan but try getting them to give it to you and also keep your job, or good relations at your job), no guarantee of hours, no extra security or other benefits. Perhaps slight preference in hours offered, that's it. The salaried jobs that exist are for desk work, which I got into teaching partly to avoid. These are probably among the best jobs available in Taiwan, but what they offer still doesn't beat freelancing.

Pretty often, I hear "if people are taking the jobs, then that's all the employers need to offer" - okay, so what happens when experienced, qualified teachers stop taking the jobs, because they're unsatisfactory, and go it on their own? At that point, does it become clear that if you can't attract talent, the jobs on offer aren't good enough?

Yes, university work exists (one reason I'm planning to do a Master's program is to explore this option, potentially) but the salaries aren't high for what ends up being a very high workload and poorly-organized classes - e.g. "speaking and conversation" classes with 65 students, which of course is a non-starter. You tend not to get benefits you'd otherwise associate with them, such as good paid CPD or a research budget.

Public school work exists, but is not a great option for those of us who want to teach adults. The pay isn't that high in those jobs, either (it is much higher in international schools but that's not helpful if one wants to focus on adults). There are some salaried government teaching jobs, but salaries for them are subject to the whims of the Ministry of Education (which at one point revised salaries down when they needed to go up) and have their own drawbacks.

None of these options are better than freelancing, either.

And doesn't it say that something is wrong with the job market when taking work with a few people and building up private classes is a better option as an experienced, trained educator than taking a traditional job, however much you might want one?

In theory, this post is about teaching in Taiwan, but I feel like it could be about almost anywhere. In what country do (trained, professional) private language academy teachers earn very good wages (commensurate with their professional status), get paid CPD and job security - guaranteed pay or hours or other benefits? In what country are university ESL/EAP teachers not only well-paid but also have other professional opportunities and room for growth? Outside of Asia pay seems to be ridiculously low, and within Asia no country pays its truly professional English language educators well in the private sector. In universities, pay in Korea and Japan is better, but there doesn't seem to be much room for growth - you get the job you get and you may never be promoted the way a local teacher might.

Is anywhere better? Or am I going to be a freelancer forever?

Teaching English in Taiwan isn't "well-paid", even compared to local salaries

I have the feeling this is going to be one of those posts I write once, and then link to from here on out every time the topic comes up in some stupid online debate. But I'm sick of writing it, so I'll write it one last time here and then can copy+paste forevermore.

First, a few things to make clear: yes, I acknowledge that the take-home pay of English teachers is considerably higher than that of many locals when you take hours worked into account, especially at the lower end of the qualifications-and-experience pool.  The same is true if you compare a foreign teacher to a local one, especially a local English teacher - which is, of course, unfair and native-speakerist. I'm not denying that.

Second, I'm coming at this as a professional, so that is of course going to color how I see wages in the TEFL field (I've started refusing to call it an "industry" because it is a field of education. Some private English schools do good work, some are parasites, but I won't descend to the lowest common denominator).

Finally, I realize that these factors are vary widely by country and region. I'm coming at this from the standpoint of a professional who expects a salary floor, a fundamental base idea of what pay should be, no matter where I go - just as any professional would.

And, finally, of course, I do realize we are much better off than your average Southeast Asian worker in Taiwan. That goes without saying, and their fight for a better life should not be ignored, either.

All that aside, English teaching in Taiwan really, truly doesn't pay that well, even compared to local salaries, and I'd like to explore the reasons why:


We don't get the benefits Taiwanese workers (often) do, including labor protections or even employers who follow the law

Here are some things I don't get that most Taiwanese workers do (and I'm a professional, I can only imagine it is worse for others):

- Paid Chinese New Year vacation - which is actually a legal requirement, even for hourly workers, but good freakin' luck getting it. Not even my comparatively good employers offer that.

- An annual bonus that is at or near 1-2 months' salary - I do get a bonus from one of my employers and it's appreciated. Truly. But your average Taiwanese can expect an extra month, or two, of salary. I haven't known many English teachers who got that outside of the universities and perhaps the public schools. 

- Paid leave - I'm willing to make this trade-off because I get more leave than your average worker, but still less than your average public school or university teacher. That said, it would be nice to have leave factored into a salary package.

- A stable income - one thing I do want is a fair salary with acceptable working conditions ("we own you" cannot be a prerequisite for mediocre pay). In Taiwan either you can earn more in take-home pay by the hour but get no benefits, or you can earn a crap salary and be your supervisor's butt monkey. Neither is appealing. I realize Taiwanese also have this problem, but compared to most of our home countries, this is a problem.


Plus two more that I do get, but most English teachers don't:

- Labor insurance - I had to fight for this, but I got it. I have heard varying reports on the legality of schools not offering lao bao, from "that's illegal, they MUST offer it" to "the employee can choose not to enroll but the school cannot refuse to enroll them". Either way, you should be getting lao bao, and you probably aren't. 

- The ability to change fields/industries - if they can get hired, a local can switch to another job in another field. Without 2 years' experience in that field or a Master's, a foreigner can't. Either we teach English until we get permanent residence, or we come in with those credentials already, or we teach whether we want to or not unless a loophole can be found. This doesn't seem directly related to pay, but it is: it's hard to find ways to increase your earnings if you are stuck in a field you may not want to be in, which doesn't actually pay all that well.


For professionals, the comparison is jarring

A lot of people who say "but we are paid so much better" are comparing those 22-year-olds above (and ignoring all the benefits their young Taiwanese counterpart enjoys that they don't). That's fine, if you are also someone who in any other circumstance would be earning an entry-level salary.

I, however, am not comparing myself to a twentysomething local who hasn't risen very high at work yet, because I'm not a twentysomething and I have risen. Looking at what I earn in relation to an entry-level Taiwanese worker is not a valid comparison.

I'm comparing myself to the thirty- and forty-something professionals I know in Taiwan - and I know quite a few as I've taught Business English for many years - and I have to say, my salary does not stack up. They can afford to buy apartments and drive nice cars as well as take good vacations. I could perhaps afford one of those (the car would not be my choice, of course). Right now, because foreigners can't easily get mortgages unless they are married to locals, I choose the nice vacations. But compared to the people I actually spend time with, I am not that well paid and have very little salary security. My engineer, finance/fund manager, sales rep, accountant and doctor friends and students do better than I do - not that I've asked my students their salaries, but because it's not that hard to figure out when they tell me about their lives.

Once you make that comparison, things don't look so great. 


Something like 90% of the teaching jobs in Taiwan are a joke

For someone looking to make real money and live a proper thirtysomething life - and I'm no materialist, I just mean you can eat real food and be confident that you can pay your rent without living in a crap-box - only the thinnest sliver of the TEFL pie in Taiwan is worth looking at. I've unsubscribed from most job boards with Taiwan jobs, not only because I'm not looking but also because, in the years I've been on them, I've seen exactly one job I would apply for. Maybe two or three if I were looking and needed to land something decent. Those are not good odds.

Better jobs do exist, but they don't come along frequently and they tend not to advertise much, because they don't have to. ITI-TAITRA (at least before the Ministry of Education lowered their pay scale), CES Taipei and its sister school UKEAS, LADO Management Consultants, Cambridge Taipei (I have heard), British Council and maybe a few other places (not sure about LTTC, for example - anyone?) pay pretty well, all things considered. Then there are the public school, university and (very good) international school jobs if you are qualified. Every once in awhile a more typical buxiban will pay above the standard rate, but they don't seem - from my outside perspective - like great places to work. My former "management consulting" firm, in scare quotes for a reason, also pays above the standard rate but I would never, ever recommend them to anyone with a shred of sense.

At these better jobs you are more likely to start at around $750-$800/hour (but you'll need the qualifications to get the higher rate) and go up from there - $1000 or even $1500 isn't unheard-of. Salaried positions are all over the place in terms of pay, but $70,000/month with perhaps a housing allowance isn't unheard-of either, though it could be lower.

That is a very, very tiny sliver of the market to choose from.

The rest, honestly? My first impulse was to call them "trash" but I'm sure someone will get mad, and I can see why people wouldn't want their job to be called "trash", but honestly...

Not great.


University pay? Also a joke (depending on the hours you are expected to put in)

Sure, you get an annual bonus and paid vacations, but your average university job seems to pay between NT$50-$70,000/month. That's...not good. Back when it was easy to get such jobs for a few hours a week it was a pretty sweet deal, and I think fair considering how much extra prep work one has to put into a good university course. Now that they pay those rates but expect full-time work, including meetings and all manner of extra work like judging those stupid speech contests, it's just not a great option.


There are no local opportunities for good professional development

Want a CELTA? In Taiwan? You're in luck - you get to pay for airfare, accommodation and food, the course itself and miss out on four weeks of pay because it isn't offered in Taiwan (yet). Lucky ducky you!!!!

You get to pay that yourself, because no school, not even the good ones, will sponsor you. Fun times!! Woo!!

Want a Delta? You can either do the same damn thing but for even more money and time, or you can do it online. Good luck finding a tutor for Module 2. I know like 10 people who could do it. Most are busy and one is leaving the country soon. 

Have fun parting with all of your hard-earned cash and then some!

(It's worth it, but still, have fun paying all that money out of pocket on your joke wages)


So much depends on your skin color

A lot of the estimates of teacher pay in Taiwan are based on the idea of a white native speaker teacher. However, I have friends who are Indian, Black or of Asian heritage who are quite clear that they are consistently offered lower salaries and fewer raises. Many are made to feel lucky to have a job at all, and many get completely inappropriate complaints that clearly stem from racism, which hurts their performance reviews and results in lower pay overall. It is important to take this into account and not just estimate the salary for Jimbo McBlueeyes.


Estimates of pay are all over the place, but I'd gather the lower ones are more accurate

I've heard "NT$65-100,000/month", I've had someone tell me they made about $51,000/month and someone say they had trouble cracking $45,000. The starting pay for 22-year-old Jimbo McBlueeyes is usually NT$600/hour, but I've seen lower. (I make more - a lot more - but I'm the exception. If you are good at what you do and get a Delta you too can fight with me for that tiny little sliver of the market. Fun times for all.)

If you make $600/hour and work 20 hours/week, you'll make about $48,000 before taxes depending on the month - remember how many hours you work in a week may not be up to you, and does not include all of the work you actually do. If you work 25 hours a week you'll make about $60,000 before taxes. Get a tiny raise (I've seen 5 and 10 NT raises! I almost quit over one!), make a tiny bit more. Five years later maybe after 5 10 NT raises you're making $650 - whoopty freakin' doo - and you get $52-65,000 before taxes, unless you get some certifications and go after that thin sliver of job market mentioned above, or get lucky with a better offer (it happens - I know someone at American Eagle who makes $750/hour).

All that is to say, it sure seems to me that for the vast majority of teachers, the lower end of the pay estimates are more accurate and you have to fall into some good luck to earn more. Those estimates are, to be frank, not that great. And remember, once you do hit a more professional level, your Taiwanese counterparts are often now making well over $100,000/month depending on the profession. You go from making more than your local peers to making far less.

I'll finish this section up with an anecdote: when I applied for permanent residence, the immigration officer who looked at my paperwork actually commented that I make very good money, and most foreigners' income tax documents she sees show much lower pay. That could be due to the buxibans cheating, but it's probably also in part due to pay being lower than people would generally like to admit. 


I'm not sure estimates of Taiwanese pay are that accurate either

Everyone says the average wage in Taiwan is around NT$30,000/month, and I do know people who are offered that joke of a salary or less. But, if so many people are making that, and logically speaking so many are then making less, how is it that people can buy apartments and cars, take vacations to Japan etc.? I realize part of it is generational wealth, part of it is being able to save everything if you live with your parents. But some of it, at least some, is almost certainly due to the rampant cheating on taxes that most Taiwanese companies do. If your employer cooks the books, your salary is likely reported as lower than it is - or maybe you have your own thing going and you under-report or don't report certain incomes - which makes the national average seem lower than it is.


Cost of Living, Moving and Traveling

The first one affects Taiwanese too: the cost of living has gone up, but pay hasn't in the last decade. I came here a decade ago (almost exactly). The pay then for English teachers was more or less exactly what it is now, but it does cost more to live (don't believe the government line about inflation being stable or even negative - they lumped in a huge decrease in fuel costs along with rises in everything else and called it even. If you are wondering why the official line is that inflation is not a problem when your rent, food, sundry and transport costs have gone up, that's why).

The second is that, honestly, teaching English here especially in the most common jobs pays better, especially compared to cost of living, than waitressing or what have you back home. Sure. But you are still basically spending thousands of dollars to uproot your life, move to a new place, settle in, get an apartment etc. all for what amounts to a wage that isn't that much higher than if you'd just stayed in your own country with your inexperienced self. People say you can make good money - no, if you do it, you do it because you want to go abroad, not for the money. The money, as I've shown, is not great.

Finally, as much as schools would like to crow that your visits home are not their problem - which is to a certain extent true - it would be smart to ruminate on the fact that if you want foreign English teachers, you've really got to understand that they have ties in their home countries and like any normal human being they want to maintain those ties. It would be wise to factor in the idea that people might want to see their parents every couple of years or be able to be there for grandparents in their old age. For older professionals, being their for your parents' old age is also a key factor. Schools are not obligated to consider this, but if they want to attract more talented people, it would be wise to consider it when putting together their salary offers. Visits home cost money, and if you have good reason to visit home every year or every two years, that can eat a huge chunk out of your savings.

It's yet another iteration of the universal truth that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. If you happen to get someone better, they won't stay long because they want more than peanuts. It goes for Taiwanese workers as well as foreign teachers.

Considering these costs in light of what teaching jobs actually pay, from a financial perspective teaching is not actually a great choice. You do it because you want to.

That doesn't mean, however, that you don't deserve to earn a good wage for doing something you want to do.

Thoughts on Delta: a more general approach

First, I'm sorry for the boring title.

Secondly, I've been toying with the idea of starting an ELT blog, separate from Lao Ren Cha (but obviously with lots of links between the two). I haven't decided to commit to it just yet, and I'm curious about outside opinions - a good way to go, or just keep my ELT commentary to Lao Ren Cha, even though it's not quite the focus of this blog? The argument for a new blog is obvious - it would be more targeted. The argument against is that I have enough trouble finding the time to maintain this blog and I'm not sure I have time at all for another.

Anyway, here are some reflections on doing Delta in a more general sense, contrasted to my previous post on doing the Delta specifically in Taiwan.

The good:

I was impressed with the level and methods of assessment on Delta - basically all three modules taken together assess you in three distinct ways: a task-based exam (Module One), a portfolio (Module Two) and a paper (Module 3). In my opinion (and according to good testing practice) this gives you a full, accurate look at what a teacher is capable of in a variety of situations, from theory to teaching to syllabus design, and how much they've progressed. I liked that no one method was used, which also ensures that someone who is, say, not particularly good at tests, or papers, or what have you, still has a chance to shine in another module with some other assessment method. I especially liked this as, although I have always thought of myself as a good test-taker, I flamed out on the Module One exam and while I did pass, I didn't get the Merit or Distinction I had been gunning for, which I do think I was capable of earning. It was a relief to have other ways to prove myself in later modules.

I also learned a hell of a lot. It's fairly common to hear folks, most of whom have never attempted Delta, to slam it as empty credentialism, a money-making scheme for Cambridge. It's no surprise - they do the same thing for CELTA, and often claim "all you need to know" you can pick up from experience. I reject this notion on its face - yes, experience is valuable, but input from people more experienced and knowledgeable than you as you gain that experience is what makes it truly worthwhile. If you spend 5 years teaching, with no input or feedback beyond what's in your head, the experience is still great but it is simply not going to be worth as much as if you spend 5 years teaching, and throughout those years are observed, get feedback, are assessed, attend input sessions, gain a strong theoretical background via training (so you'll know why good strategies work, not just "weird tricks". Teaching isn't a diet fad) and attempt higher-level teaching accomplishments such as good syllabus design with guidance rather than with a slapdash "let's see what works" approach.

So, I'm just not on board with that side of the debate, and as I see it the proof is really in the papers: I know more after Delta - significantly more - than I did before. Period. Though a lot of CELTA was pretty common-sense (though not necessarily easy for everyone to implement in practice), a lot of the theory and practice in Delta is not always, or particularly, intuitive and by Module Two - at least if you are trying to write the best possible language skills/systems assignments (LSAs) - you are delving past the introductory textbooks and deep into some fairly technical research papers and journal articles. Sometimes you're just looking for citable confirmation of things you know to be true (also a valid thing!) but at other times you're coming across completely new ideas. For example, when I did my LSA on helping pre-intermediate learners use the definite article, I was already aware of the idea of "the-flooding", but what I didn't know was the extent to which it had been studied and documented. But when I did my final LSA on discourse (hedging for intermediate learners in a business e-mail writing class), I was quite surprised to learn that the concept of hedging was far broader than I'd originally thought, and it was challenging to narrow my focus enough to write a solid essay and plan a focused class on a sub-topic of same.

I appreciated that it is carefully delineated into sections with distinct learning goals that, while they don't have to be taken in order per se, build on each other.

Module One: If you do Module One first - which I recommend you do - you get the theoretical foundation you need to do well in the other two modules (which can then be taken in any order). The exam seems daunting when you begin, but by the end you'll look back on it as the easiest part of the Delta. If you take a step back and look at what the exam aims to accomplish, if you study well you'll gain:
- A fairly solid background in terminology (if concepts can only be fully understood through having language to describe them, which I do believe to be true, then this is worthwhile)
- An overview of systems - all of them, as you won't know which will appear on the exam
- An overview of basic concepts in testing and assessment
- The chance to look more deeply at the assumptions that underlie language teaching materials, and which materials are appropriate for learners at what point and different ways of approaching different learning targets
- An overview of, with the chance to interact and think about beliefs about teaching
- The ability to apply these concepts to feedback on actual learner work

Module Two: Module Two helps you dive into your actual classroom practice and re-examine your habits and norms, thinking more deeply about what you do in class, why, and how it affects learners, while giving you the chance to learn in fairly great detail about four (out of a possible eight) skills/systems areas. You choose two skills from reading, listening, speaking and writing - one choice must be receptive, the other productive - and two systems from discourse, phonology, lexis and grammar. Then you narrow down your focus to look at one area within your selected skill or system - for example, when I did an assignment on listening I chose connected speech in authentic listening - to learn and write about it in some depth before teaching a class on that topic (as a result your choices ought to reflect what your learners need at the time) and getting detailed feedback on it. The classes themselves are a bit fake-feeling, I mean, the learners are learning something useful but in real life teaching is never so carefully compartmentalized into 40-60 minute increments. If you look at it another way, though, that narrow time focus also allows you to examine, almost microscopically, your habits and practices and how they affect learners. When you go back to teaching "normally", you'll be more inclined to think deeply about what you are doing, why, and what learners are getting from it.

Module Three then takes a step back and has you working with syllabus design and course planning, including needs analysis and assessment - all things any well-trained teacher would do well to get outside their own head and their own coping strategies to learn about. You also have the chance to "specialize" - to choose one area of ELT to focus on - which looks good on a CV (all of the very best teaching jobs, at least in the private sector, like to see some form of specialization). What dedicated teacher wouldn't want a chance to learn about the principles of syllabus design, and then apply those principles to designing a syllabus for a real group of learners, getting feedback on your work as you go? What teacher wouldn't be well-served by reading more of what experts say on testing?

So, let's say you do Module One, and to improve your chances of getting full points on the systems task (it used to be Paper One Task Four but that may have changed), you do the work in About Language. You learn about phonology, the basics of grammar and the basics of lexis (semantics, morphology), and perhaps you bone up on these latter points though an introductory Linguistics textbook. To make sure you are best able to look at class materials, textbook materials and student work - and get maximum points in those areas - you get a crash course in discourse fundamentals via Beyond The Sentence. Later, when you do Module Two and it's time to choose a skill or system, you have a reasonably strong foundation from which to do so, and you can build on that by looking more in-depth at a more narrowly-focused topic. With that knowledge you dive into how to sequence individual classes, and what to plan in them, in Module Three, and your Module One background in testing and assessment helps you in that paper, as well.

Think about that - does it sound like "meaningless credentialism" to you? Then consider what all of the anti-training types are really saying - I don't want a fundamental knowledge of theory and systems! My coping strategies are good enough! It's not necessary for me to be observed on my teaching and I don't need any feedback! I don't need to know the basics of syllabus design or testing. It is not important for me to have read up on what people before me, who have a wealth of expertise, research findings and knowledge, have to say about teaching certain skills or systems. I do not need external feedback on my self-reflection at any point - everything I need I can come up with in my own head because I'm a super genius, or something, able to duplicate in moments the work of years of others' dedicated research, and fabricate brilliant new teaching ideas without any contact with other ideas or professionals! Or alternatively, teaching isn't a real profession, any idiot could do it and there is nothing more to it than throwing out some vocabulary and grammar and doing some drills, perhaps with a game. It is not necessary to think about it any more deeply than that. 

Does anyone with either attitude sound like someone you'd want on your team?

I also like that doing these three modules pushed me to do what I might not have otherwise done - or otherwise done as well, sans feedback - such as reading up on the practice of Business English teaching or gaining a fundamental knowledge of assessment. It gave me the chance to work with ideas I might not have otherwise gotten the chance to work with, such as syllabus design, as it's surprising how few schools require any sort of syllabus from teachers.

Finally, I like that I was able to do the whole thing at a distance, without leaving Taiwan, and more cheaply than a regular postgraduate degree. This can be done through The Distance Delta or Bell. They are more or less the same, the only difference being that The Distance Delta wants you to do an orientation abroad for Module Two, which is not required at Bell. The Distance Delta, however, gives you access to International House's online library, which Bell does not. I like that, while many countries and institutions don't necessarily recognize it as such, the Delta is recognized in Europe as equal in level to a Master's degree (they're both rated Level 7 by Ofqual), and when you finish you do come out feeling like you have a Master's worth of knowledge, or nearly so, along with something most Master's programs don't provide - in-class practicums with assessment and feedback. And when I do get a Master's, I like that it will likely entitle me to an exemption from some courses or modules.

In fact, you could say I appreciate that the way I did it is not the only way. You can do the modules separately as you are able, you can do them online, you can do them face-to-face (though it's hard at times to find a center that will deliver a single module face-to-face), you can do them part-time or full-time, you can do them in one go in an intensive course, or as part of a Master's in at least one case.

But of course, with all of that good stuff, there's also bad:

I hate to harp on price, because while a lot of people will accuse Delta of being nothing more than a moneymaker for Cambridge, I actually get the feeling it doesn't turn a huge profit. Remember your tuition has to cover tutors, assessors, overseers (the folks who consistently review the Delta requirements and tweak them as needed), office space, assessment development, writing and handbook updates, IT, certification creation and printing, administration, accounting and more. And a lot of the fees charged are so that the centers offering the courses can turn a profit, only some (if any?) of it actually goes back to Cambridge. For a few hundred pounds for Modules 1 and 3, and a few thousand for Module 2 (a chunk of which goes to your local tutor), I doubt this is the cash cow that some people think it is.

But, having taken all of that into consideration, honestly, Module Two especially is quite financially burdensome for English teachers. We are not rich, generally. We don't make heaps of money. I get that education costs money and somebody's gotta pay, and perhaps if you have a fantastic salary in South Korea (where pay is better than Taiwan relative to cost-of-living, though I've heard it has not gone up in correlation with the increased standard, and cost, of living there in recent years) it's no big deal, however, there is a point at which I question how fair it is to make good, justifiable CPD (continuing professional development) something that is a financial strain for a career teacher.

With this in mind, another issue isn't with Delta itself but with the industry. In any other professional industry not only would qualified people get priority in hiring, but CPD directly related to one's work would be sponsored in part by the company. British Council does offer this, but basically nobody else does.

Another flaw is with some of the assessment methods. I know I praised them above, but that doesn't make them perfect. For instance, while I understand why the exam is timed (you can't have people writing pages and pages of stuff just to try to squeeze more points out of inefficient or off-the-mark writing), the time given is just an eensy bit too short to be reasonable. An extra 15-30 minutes for each paper would set a limit on how much could possibly be written while offering a reasonable amount of time in which to do the test, which raises its validity. Right now, part of what you're tested on is how fast you can write, and that's not really the assessment criteria that counts. Creating a computer-based test where answers can be typed would also be a help in the modern world. And I'm not just saying this because I used up most of my Paper One time on the old Task 4 (a massive systems task) and didn't even get to Task 3 (yet I still passed) - even if I'd gotten the score I feel I was capable of, I would still be saying it. It's just not write to set a test and then set timing for it that is clearly, obviously, too short. (I have the same complaint about IELTS writing, by the way. Far too short a time to produce something good written by hand).

I have less of a problem with the Module Three paper and the Module Two portfolio, and I realize why there are limits set on what you turn in. My only (small) complaint is that what is expected is not always realistic, especially for the assessed classes. In reality, for a systems lesson, one hour is barely enough time to intro the topic, do an activity to set the target language, do meaning, form, pronunciation and use and then practice it with limited feedback. I would do all of that in an hour and a half, but if you move just a tad too quickly (yes, too quickly) you can get it done in an hour. It is not enough time to include extended practice. It is not enough time to answer more than one or two in-depth learner questions, and maybe not even that. It is not long enough to extend the practice as long as you might like or give as much feedback as you'd like. It is not enough time to explore any sort of teachable moment or extra 'noticing'. The result is that while you learn a lot about your teaching, you never quite teach a class like that again, because in the real world it's simply unrealistic. Plus, the feedback you get often includes notes like "it would have been good to include extended practice in collocations" or what have you, and you're all yeah I think so too, but that is not possible in a one-hour class, JEEZUS. You want to see that, GIVE ME MORE TIME.

What's more, when you choose a topic, you're not supposed to be thinking about the class you're eventually going to teach - you're meant to concentrate on the paper first and then plan a class related to it, using one or more of the teaching suggestions given in the paper. But the class you teach has to be important for the learners, fit in with what they already know and what they need (and the course in general), be pitched to their level and needs etc. - how can you choose a topic and write a paper without thinking about what you will eventually teach? (A lot of Delta veterans admit that it's not possible - you must start out considering your eventual learners, and then basically pretend you didn't).

My only qualm with Module Three is that it continues the tradition of giving you not quite enough time to do the best possible job - you design a 20-hour course, which is great except most courses are longer than that, and the word limit for each section is just a bit too short to include everything they seem to want, which again means you are assessed on the compactness of your writing (forget having any sense of style or attempting to make it pleasurable to read) rather than the ideas therein. And I say this as someone who got a Merit. Otherwise, while I actually cried during this module, after it was all over I'd say it was my favorite of the three. I suspect I'm in the minority on that, though!

Overall, I don't see many faults with the design and implementation of Delta, but there are a few concerns worth mentioning. The timing of the Module One course was just about right, and while Module 3 went by a bit more briskly than I would have liked, it was basically okay. But Module Two was way too fast - it seems to me it'd be smartest to give candidates two full weeks between all assessed lessons (so about 3 weeks total) and an extra week for the experimental lesson somewhere in the middle. But in practice, one LSA (assessed lesson + paper) has to be done in two weeks, and often, just due to the way one's work plan rolls out, it's in the time between LSAs 2 and 3, which is generally when you should be doing your experimental lesson. So you suddenly have way too much work to do and way too little time to do it in. More reasonably, courses might simply start two weeks earlier, allowing again for candidates to do their best work within a reasonable time frame rather than being assessed based on how well you work under pressure, rather than the quality of the work you do. I'm not just saying this to complain - I haven't received my results yet but I received Distinctions on at least two papers and a Merit on a class, and I didn't fail any LSAs - I genuinely feel it would be a better experience for everyone to do it this way.

In short, it would be great if Delta could give us adequate time and word count to do the best we are capable of, rather than making it so we are measured not just on the quality of our work but on how well we cram our work into somewhat unreasonable deadlines and parameters, which I feel does detract from overall validity.

My other qualms with Delta aren't really related to Delta itself - things like the difficulties many face in having a reliable, useable class for Module 3 or finding a local tutor for Module 2 (or having access to appropriate classes for it), and how unsupportive a lot of employers can be - not my employers, but I have seen this happen.

Finally, I'd just like the ELT industry to respect Delta more. There's no reason why governments can't recognize it as a valid teaching credential. Certainly not all Master's degrees (which are accepted in Taiwan regardless of their relevance to the field) nor a teaching license for children is as pointedly directed at teaching adults as the Delta. I'd like to see more sponsorship of it by employers - my employers were supportive but I did notice that neither one offered to help sponsor me. I felt like it was seen as something I could do (and pay for) independently, I don't know, for fun or something, and otherwise was not related to their employment of me, when in fact it's directly related to my development as a teacher. Naw, I'm not mad, I'd just like to see more of a British Council attitude to Delta in the industry overall.