Thai officials to slash number of foreign English teachers

[Caitrin]

Flawed as it may be due to previous teaching, the end state in relation to the starting point is a normal way to assess.

I do, I remember they way they tried and failed to teach us French and German by combination of explanation in English and prescribed forms. It was not until I immersed myself in a new language, threw out the dictionary and learned how to ask questions that I became fluent in a second language. By the time I wanted, or perhaps needed, to know why, I knew how to both ask and understood the reply in the second language. I appreciate what you are saying regarding how this actually transpires within the classroom and the largest obstacle here in Thailand is the large class size. I do not give much explanation to 15 year olds, sometimes they want it but all I can see is how little good all the previous explanation actually did for them, I do not want to waste our precious immersion time on that. And, explanation in their native language is a part of language translation as being able to question and receive explanation is possibly the most important marker of achievement in fluency.

You're in the perfect situation to learn, all you need is a sympathetic friend to tell you what is what.

You make some valid points, I agree that a mixture of approaches is what is needed but I believe that a course should provide that in English wherever possible. A good course begins by teaching the language necessary to understand the instructions for the rest of the course. When we walk into a new class who have already begun learning English we could neglect to check that language and just go ahead and start teaching what ever we think they need to learn, that is where problems begin.

Well, all learners can learn through immersion, it is the only method that allows ALL learners to achieve, if we had to chose just one then it would have to be immersion.

But you are correct. immersion works best when truly immersed, of course some students are motivated enough to restrict themselves to speaking English and so get a good deal of practice outside of the classroom, but that is unusual. For the rest, there is so little chance to immerse yourself in English in Thailand; there is very little English TV, few signs are in English and few areas have many English speaking people. I believe that it will take a nationwide initiative concentrated on changing this before we see much of an improvement in the future, and it should start by immersing the youngest through TV, following the example of Europe's success stories.

1) Well, yes, hence my point about "period of instruction." That has an "end state" but it isn't the actual end state of learning in its entirety. So really we're saying the same thing.

2) I see significant difference between my French education and how I teach my students in a combination of L1 and L2. I don't recall my French classes ever being fun. I don't recall them ever being about pop culture or current events or anything I was interested in. I don't recall my French teachers offering explanations in interesting and entertaining ways. In fact, I don't recall being encouraged to ask questions. I certainly do not recall my French teachers speaking to me in a combination of L1 and L2 in the hallways or at school events or when seeing me outside of school. These are all things I do for my students. I also do all grammar explanation in both L1 and L2, I start with L2 (my L1, obviously) and write and circle and draw and what not. Then I repeat the explanation in L1 (my L2) with the same writing, circling, drawing, gesturing, etc. This is not something I recall my French teachers ever doing. What I recall instead is lists and lists and lists of conjugations, lots of rote memorisation, and lots of translation and back again work with little verbal engagement in L1 or L2. This is in no way similar to how I conduct my lessons or my general attitude.

15 year olds are awesome, and frankly, teenagers get a really bad rap from adults. Adults, you're the ones who pretty much suck and are largely hypocritical, so why demand respect from teenagers you haven't earned? Not like it's the teenagers who keep on ruining the world. If you don't believe 15 year olds deserve explanations, and more importantly, they don't trust you enough to ask for explanations, then you need to take a long hard look at whether or not you're treating them as important people with their own thoughts, opinions, dreams, etc. And while it's true that an eventual goal will be to give students the tools to ask for explanations in L2 and receive and understand those explanations in L2, I still feel you do a great disservice to explanations in L1. Maybe we just disagree methodologically, but if we do, we do. Imagine how boring the world would be if we all agreed, but I believe there is not only no harm, but great benefit to helping students conceptualise grammar points of L2 in L1 when combined with practical application of said grammar in "immersion" activities, or even better yet, real immersion environments.

3) Actually, I believe that I've gotten as far as I can relying on the kindness of friends. You seem to think that's all it will take, but I know that's not the case. In order for me to be at a level fluent enough to go through Japanese education courses and earn a Japanese teaching license, I require a far higher command of spoken and written Japanese which includes a lot of grammar forms that I've proven mere proximity to without explanation cannot be attained. Just as I argue here that English students eventually will require, even in immersion environments, the same sort of grammar explanations, be it in L1 or L2, that native speakers learn in mechanics overviews, so too will I need to have a trained, qualified Japanese instructor be able to answer my complex grammar questions with a detailed answer in both Japanese and English. Native speaker friends are not substitutes for qualified instructors, just as any native speaker with a bachelors' is not a substitute for a qualified English instructor.

4) Immersion is a tool. It is not a methodology which exists independently. It's not like you could choose immersion alone even if you wanted to do so. Even in my own example of an obviously real immersion environment, I have already demonstrated my need for other tools to get beyond a certain point. Indeed many of the textbooks I have used on my own are not immersion, because they have explanatory footnotes in English. My kanji dictionary is Japanese and English. Show me any supposed "immersion only" methodology, and I'll point out where other methods are employed alongside it, even if someone is trying to put forward the claim that "immersion" itself is a methodology, I'd find that highly suspect. You say if you had to "choose one," but I disagree that immersion can be "chosen" in such a way. Immersion activities or environments are always place alongside other tools. There is no "immersion and nothing else" formal class arrangement. It does not exist. You're trying to draw a false dichotomy.

[Shawn0001]

"Don’t force learners to speak – let them speak when they’re ready"

Forcing learners to speak is completely different from forcing them to listen to me speaking English.

"courses and materials were originally designed for students coming into an English speaking country"

Didn't the colonialists design courses to teach the natives? Weren't the first modern English courses designed in Germany to teach Germans following the war? Anyway, who cares, the courses we use today were designed yesterday, not 100 years ago, and there are courses designed for different circumstances.

"You are therefore shown that it is possible to teach without using the students' L1. If you got the impression that this was seen as the ideal then that was either a mistake on your part or the trainer's personal view- it is not Cambridge or British Council's policy."

It was made pretty clear, thanks, and it was written in the book, so no blaming the tutor, lol.

To quote one of Cambridge English's course writers, "Our aim is to work towards a policy of English only in language for classroom management and explanation." Philip Kerr

And one of the British Council, "Don’t be tempted to lapse into the students’ language to explain, regain control or reply to a question. Patiently reply in English." Clare Lavery

The basic instruction given to starting out teachers is to only use English, to simulate immersion, other techniques such as sandwiching come later, but the onus is on using English.

"The results show that while students in English immersion programs perform better in the short term, over the long term students in classrooms taught in two languages not only catch up to their English immersion counterparts, but they eventually surpass them, both academically and linguistically."

I am not surprised, but what is the situation in Thailand? We are struggling to get the students past beginner level, it is not that relevant to us if students hit a wall later with immersion that could be most easily crossed using a two language environment, as we are not getting that far. What is interesting is their research shows that immersion sees faster results at the beginning, which is what we are looking for.

"Most seem to disagree that it is the best way to teach but it's difficult to say it has "proven" to be less successful"

Most? Where did you get from? Most agree that it is more successful than all other techniques, your paper goes against the grain, it's interesting as it doesn't merely compound the milliard of papers demonstrating the success's using this technique, it does something to demonstrate the limits of classroom immersion simulation.

[Caitrin]

"You are therefore shown that it is possible to teach without using the students' L1. If you got the impression that this was seen as the ideal then that was either a mistake on your part or the trainer's personal view- it is not Cambridge or British Council's policy."

It was made pretty clear, thanks, and it was written in the book, so no blaming the tutor, lol.

To quote one of Cambridge English's course writers, "Our aim is to work towards a policy of English only in language for classroom management and explanation." Philip Kerr

And one of the British Council, "Don’t be tempted to lapse into the students’ language to explain, regain control or reply to a question. Patiently reply in English." Clare Lavery

The basic instruction given to starting out teachers is to only use English, to simulate immersion, other techniques such as sandwiching come later, but the onus is on using English.

"The results show that while students in English immersion programs perform better in the short term, over the long term students in classrooms taught in two languages not only catch up to their English immersion counterparts, but they eventually surpass them, both academically and linguistically."

I am not surprised, but what is the situation in Thailand? We are struggling to get the students past beginner level, it is not that relevant to us if students hit a wall later with immersion that could be most easily crossed using a two language environment, as we are not getting that far. What is interesting is their research shows that immersion sees faster results at the beginning, which is what we are looking for.

1) I tracked down the entire article from which you lifted that quote. I don't see any explanation by Kerr about if he is referring to L1 learners in an L2 country or an L2 teacher in an L1 environment. But let's assume he's universalising. He says his own aim and that of his colleagues is to work towards a policy of English only. The author of the article herself, in the above gloss says:

Continuing our look at the use of translation in the classroom, Philip Kerr, author of the award-winning Translation and Own-language Activities, provides a useful technique for any teacher wishing to move towards an ‘English only in language for classroom management’ policy.

Pretty important part you left out there, because it clearly states that this advice for teachers who wish to do so, not evidence that all teachers must do so. That's significant. I won't bother to look up Lavery, but I'd suspect it's a similar situation of not providing the full context.

2) You might be looking towards "only the beginning," but I'm looking at providing foundations that move slow but steady throughout life, and I have a group of students who I plan to keep up with for years, maybe even decades, expecting them to not just be students, but friends, and colleagues. I will not sacrifice long term foundations for short term gains, even if I believed that immersion only was possible, which I have already denied. Immersion classes are not true immersion environments, as I may just keep repeating, because everyone loves beating dead horses. Especially me.

[Shawn0001]

Flawed as it may be due to previous teaching, the end state in relation to the starting point is a normal way to assess.

I do, I remember they way they tried and failed to teach us French and German by combination of explanation in English and prescribed forms. It was not until I immersed myself in a new language, threw out the dictionary and learned how to ask questions that I became fluent in a second language. By the time I wanted, or perhaps needed, to know why, I knew how to both ask and understood the reply in the second language. I appreciate what you are saying regarding how this actually transpires within the classroom and the largest obstacle here in Thailand is the large class size. I do not give much explanation to 15 year olds, sometimes they want it but all I can see is how little good all the previous explanation actually did for them, I do not want to waste our precious immersion time on that. And, explanation in their native language is a part of language translation as being able to question and receive explanation is possibly the most important marker of achievement in fluency.

You're in the perfect situation to learn, all you need is a sympathetic friend to tell you what is what.

You make some valid points, I agree that a mixture of approaches is what is needed but I believe that a course should provide that in English wherever possible. A good course begins by teaching the language necessary to understand the instructions for the rest of the course. When we walk into a new class who have already begun learning English we could neglect to check that language and just go ahead and start teaching what ever we think they need to learn, that is where problems begin.

Well, all learners can learn through immersion, it is the only method that allows ALL learners to achieve, if we had to chose just one then it would have to be immersion.

But you are correct. immersion works best when truly immersed, of course some students are motivated enough to restrict themselves to speaking English and so get a good deal of practice outside of the classroom, but that is unusual. For the rest, there is so little chance to immerse yourself in English in Thailand; there is very little English TV, few signs are in English and few areas have many English speaking people. I believe that it will take a nationwide initiative concentrated on changing this before we see much of an improvement in the future, and it should start by immersing the youngest through TV, following the example of Europe's success stories.

1) Well, yes, hence my point about "period of instruction." That has an "end state" but it isn't the actual end state of learning in its entirety. So really we're saying the same thing.

2) I see significant difference between my French education and how I teach my students in a combination of L1 and L2. I don't recall my French classes ever being fun. I don't recall them ever being about pop culture or current events or anything I was interested in. I don't recall my French teachers offering explanations in interesting and entertaining ways. In fact, I don't recall being encouraged to ask questions. I certainly do not recall my French teachers speaking to me in a combination of L1 and L2 in the hallways or at school events or when seeing me outside of school. These are all things I do for my students. I also do all grammar explanation in both L1 and L2, I start with L2 (my L1, obviously) and write and circle and draw and what not. Then I repeat the explanation in L1 (my L2) with the same writing, circling, drawing, gesturing, etc. This is not something I recall my French teachers ever doing. What I recall instead is lists and lists and lists of conjugations, lots of rote memorisation, and lots of translation and back again work with little verbal engagement in L1 or L2. This is in no way similar to how I conduct my lessons or my general attitude.

15 year olds are awesome, and frankly, teenagers get a really bad rap from adults. Adults, you're the ones who pretty much suck and are largely hypocritical, so why demand respect from teenagers you haven't earned? Not like it's the teenagers who keep on ruining the world. If you don't believe 15 year olds deserve explanations, and more importantly, they don't trust you enough to ask for explanations, then you need to take a long hard look at whether or not you're treating them as important people with their own thoughts, opinions, dreams, etc. And while it's true that an eventual goal will be to give students the tools to ask for explanations in L2 and receive and understand those explanations in L2, I still feel you do a great disservice to explanations in L1. Maybe we just disagree methodologically, but if we do, we do. Imagine how boring the world would be if we all agreed, but I believe there is not only no harm, but great benefit to helping students conceptualise grammar points of L2 in L1 when combined with practical application of said grammar in "immersion" activities, or even better yet, real immersion environments.

3) Actually, I believe that I've gotten as far as I can relying on the kindness of friends. You seem to think that's all it will take, but I know that's not the case. In order for me to be at a level fluent enough to go through Japanese education courses and earn a Japanese teaching license, I require a far higher command of spoken and written Japanese which includes a lot of grammar forms that I've proven mere proximity to without explanation cannot be attained. Just as I argue here that English students eventually will require, even in immersion environments, the same sort of grammar explanations, be it in L1 or L2, that native speakers learn in mechanics overviews, so too will I need to have a trained, qualified Japanese instructor be able to answer my complex grammar questions with a detailed answer in both Japanese and English. Native speaker friends are not substitutes for qualified instructors, just as any native speaker with a bachelors' is not a substitute for a qualified English instructor.

4) Immersion is a tool. It is not a methodology which exists independently. It's not like you could choose immersion alone even if you wanted to do so. Even in my own example of an obviously real immersion environment, I have already demonstrated my need for other tools to get beyond a certain point. Indeed many of the textbooks I have used on my own are not immersion, because they have explanatory footnotes in English. My kanji dictionary is Japanese and English. Show me any supposed "immersion only" methodology, and I'll point out where other methods are employed alongside it, even if someone is trying to put forward the claim that "immersion" itself is a methodology, I'd find that highly suspect. You say if you had to "choose one," but I disagree that immersion can be "chosen" in such a way. Immersion activities or environments are always place alongside other tools. There is no "immersion and nothing else" formal class arrangement. It does not exist. You're trying to draw a false dichotomy.

I understand what you are saying, it really is much more about the specific methods and keeping students interested than exactly how it is delivered. But just on a basic level, and keeping in relevance to the situation in Thailand, I think the more English in the classroom the better, at least that is what the Thai teachers need to be told.

I do not feel that I am disrespecting students by not allowing them to have an explanation in Thai, they're motivated by the frustration that this can bring, it encourages them to try in English when they might not otherwise. The worst environment you can be in as an English teacher is with an assistant who answers every single one of their questions in their native language, I prefer to teach alone and only respond in English, it works for me.

The comment about needing a friend was taken from my tutor when I did my TEFL diploma, they were his words and just I liked them, in the past I have been that friend and I have also had that friend to help me, friends are always key to learning a new language in a new country, I didn't doubt that you had friends. Perhaps a friend who knows grammar well enough to provide you the explanations you need and who also does not mind interrupting conversations to talk about grammar again and again is actually quite difficult to find.

I think total immersion only really exists sometimes in Kindergarten, and even at that age they are looking for ways around it. What I am talking about is simulating the immersion environment with an aim to only using English or using English as much as possible, there will always be other methods used, such as a dictionary.

[fang37]

Has the effort in getting Thais proficient in English been successful?

[Caitrin]

Shawn, I'd agree more with your most recent post more than any of your previous ones.

That said, I would say that frustration with wanting to be able to understand why in the framework which makes sense to you (which would be L1) can lead to a student shutting down. If such frustration is seen by a teacher and ignored and this is recognised by the student, now not only is the student shutting down, but the student will see the teacher, assume the teacher does not care, and then the teacher becomes at best a non-entity, and at worst, an enemy. I've both experienced as a student and watched it happen with coworkers. If a student is struggling with a conceptualisation, especially if it has been demonstrated many times in many ways and explained in English already, this is a perfect time to let the student know you care and work with them, and that may indeed require, and indeed often does require, helping to connect their understanding of their own grammar to the grammar you are trying to teach. This isn't translation, it certainly isn't transliteration, because you're not saying there's a 1 to 1 connection. There never is. Ignoring an obvious desire to learn which would require such an explanation is showing disrespect for your students. They'll remember, and you'll never be able to teach them anything, because you will have lost their respect or lost your chance at earning their respect.

As for the "friend who knows grammar is enough" position, I'm afraid we'll have to disagree. Just as I put forward the claim I am a professional who deserves to be paid for what I do because not everyone can do what I can do, I will happily pay a professional language instructor to help me fill in the important gaps I have. That's why they worked hard to become instructors. That's why not everyone can do what they can do. And that's why they deserve to be paid, but likewise, I expect to have an environment and method of instruction conducive to actually succeeding. I don't trust my social circle to provide that.

[Shawn0001]

1) I tracked down the entire article from which you lifted that quote. I don't see any explanation by Kerr about if he is referring to L1 learners in an L2 country or an L2 teacher in an L1 environment. But let's assume he's universalising. He says his own aim and that of his colleagues is to work towards a policy of English only. The author of the article herself, in the above gloss says:

Continuing our look at the use of translation in the classroom, Philip Kerr, author of the award-winning Translation and Own-language Activities, provides a useful technique for any teacher wishing to move towards an ‘English only in language for classroom management’ policy.

Pretty important part you left out there, because it clearly states that this advice for teachers who wish to do so, not evidence that all teachers must do so. That's significant. I won't bother to look up Lavery, but I'd suspect it's a similar situation of not providing the full context.

2) You might be looking towards "only the beginning," but I'm looking at providing foundations that move slow but steady throughout life, and I have a group of students who I plan to keep up with for years, maybe even decades, expecting them to not just be students, but friends, and colleagues. I will not sacrifice long term foundations for short term gains, even if I believed that immersion only was possible, which I have already denied. Immersion classes are not true immersion environments, as I may just keep repeating, because everyone loves beating dead horses. Especially me.

1) The man advocates immersion in the classroom, no one has claimed that 'all teachers must do so', you just made that bit up.

2) We all have different students with different needs, mine are students who, although having had English lessons for 10 years and little time left in school, do not know basics like numbers, greetings and such, students who the system has completely and utterly failed and who are understandably disheartened by the whole experience. My priority is changing that feeling to one where they believe that they can learn English, if they carry it on after they leave then it will not be me teaching them, I am looking for the motivation of quick results. By throwing teenagers who have always had translation into a situation where they don't they find themselves in the deep end but so many come out swimming. They become creative, use mimes, draw pictures, invent words, desperately trying to be understood they become highly motivated. If I did not have an English only policy I am not sure if I would give in and translate before I ever see that creativity.

[Caitrin]

I had received the distinct impression that you were claiming that the British Council and Cambridge advocated, and offered Kerr as proof, universally using English-only classrooms. If English-only classrooms really are the best, then why would there clearly be evidence in the gloss that some teachers wish not to do so? Why acknowledge the option if not wishing to do so would mean those teachers are denying their students the best option? I don't think I made it up, I thought it was what you've been advocating all along and claiming Kerr as an appeal to authority who backed you up.

I have taught in multiple countries and with a wide variety of ages, and I cannot say I have experienced the situations you describe. I would call my students "beginners" as well, but by 12 years old, I can already trust they know numbers, greetings, colors, and lots of vocabulary. What they lack is target sentences and grammar and the ability to use their vocabulary (most of which are nouns, lots and lots of nouns) in order to communicate. They may believe they can't learn English effectively or that English is very hard, but I assure you, "throwing them into the deep end" would cause even my best students to become sullen and resentful, rather than creative and motivated. They would, correctly, see my behavior as abandonment.

Your priority does not really seem to be teaching your students English, but rather creating a sort of... nutritious soil where future English learning may grow. This is important, but far more akin to what I do with five year olds than what I do with fifteen year olds. So we're not really looking at comparable situations.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Caitrin

[JAG]

I did not think that LOS invited teachers. My understanding is that they arrive as sexpats; no $$$ & take teaching positions by default.

Perhaps you shouldn't judge everyone by your standards?

[seedy]

Troll / Flaming post removed

Civility and politeness go a long way to creating an enjoyable Forum

[cumgranosalum]

It seems to me that this talk about immersion has missed the point re TEFL; TEFL is not actually so much an "immersion" method as such it was designed primarily to teach classes of mixed nationalities and therefore no common language.

In the case of Thailand as I said earlier it was been found expedient to use variations of this method, but the principal is neither immersion nor single language classes but a method of teaching REGARDLESS of the learner's language.

Edited November 16, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[Caitrin]

It seems to me that this talk about immersion has missed the point re TEFL; TEFL is not actually so much an "immersion" method as such it was designed primarily to teach classes of mixed nationalities and therefore no common language.

In the case of Thailand as I said earlier it was been found expedient to use variations of this method, but the principal is neither immersion nor single language classes but a method of teaching REGARDLESS of the learner's language.

Both Lorn and I pointed that out about what has been labeled here as TEFL (which is a sort of "branding" of a far more generalised concept). Lorn specifically mentioned different L1s, and I mentioned where these kinds of courses are most effective--in an English speaking country for the benefit of immigrants, such as the U.S. or the U.K.

Thai and English are significantly far apart in the family tree of human languages that I still maintain that at some point explanation of concepts is important in L1. Thai students have far more in common with its East and Southeast Asian neighbors than many different L1 learners in an immigrant country which uses English. I still think when speaking about Thailand specifically, we need to look at two ideas: what constitutes study of language and what our purpose is. I don't believe that the goal of my French classes was actually to teach me French, rather I believe it was a sort of "social studies." An addition to the idea of a "well-rounded liberal arts education." If it wasn't, why make the credits mandatory despite rarely producing speakers? I feel like English in the Thai school system, as well in the school systems of several other nations, is used the way my schools used French.

If we want a methodology to work, whatever it is, including "English-only" classes, we first need to make sure everyone is on the same page regarding the goal, and right now, I think the teachers in this thread are at cross purposes with the educational system. We may well want to build foundations for or help create students who go on to become effective speakers of English, but I don't feel that's the actual desired goal for the system as a whole.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Caitrin

[philipines]

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/870424-thai-officials-to-slash-number-of-foreign-english-teachers/?p=10073553

[philipines]

This is the desired result of the proposed actions?

[Issangeorge]

I saw the Deputy Education Minister speak at the FCC in Bangkok a while back. He seemed like a really smart guy, who I thought could really do some good in transforming the Thai education system.

Then I read this....

Oh dear.

When I was 'teaching' English here 5 years, the school I was at ran 'Teach The Teacher'. Once a week one of the farang teachers had to 'teach' the Thai teachers English.

That lesson teaching the teachers was more problematic than even my lowest ranked pratom class.

The Thai teacher had absolutely no interest in learning and often just sat their talking among themselves, playing on their phones and would almost never participate for fear of losing face.

I once taught at a school where I had to teach the Thai Teachers one period a week. In the four months I taught there I had the teachers show up once. Once in four months.

[Artisi]

I saw the Deputy Education Minister speak at the FCC in Bangkok a while back. He seemed like a really smart guy, who I thought could really do some good in transforming the Thai education system.

Then I read this....

Oh dear.

When I was 'teaching' English here 5 years, the school I was at ran 'Teach The Teacher'. Once a week one of the farang teachers had to 'teach' the Thai teachers English.

That lesson teaching the teachers was more problematic than even my lowest ranked pratom class.

The Thai teacher had absolutely no interest in learning and often just sat their talking among themselves, playing on their phones and would almost never participate for fear of losing face.

I once taught at a school where I had to teach the Thai Teachers one period a week. In the four months I taught there I had the teachers show up once. Once in four months.

If they showed for the first lesson and no more - have you asked yourself why?

[cumgranosalum]

It a cunning plan...get rid of those moaning teachers who àre forever criticising the Thai system and their headmasters......replace them with a load of native Thai speakers who understand how graft and nepotism really work and then cook the figures.....Bob are you unken...as they say in Thai educational circles

[blazes]

Yes, the Thai teacher stating to loose face.

So the only option for Thais is to eliminate the competition. Since this is thailand and no one is facing the music, what easier way to just kill the band.

Politics never cares about education only power. How to stay in power? Make the people happy. Promise them something .

Set the date in the near future. Aaaaaaaaaaand voilà you have nice obidient people how give a flying .

They do care for education, they just rewrote the history books. Its great to teach the masses how it really happened in history and very benificial for politicians. In the end, the history books are always right!

Are you nuts?

Thai history books have always been favorable to the current admins views on how history needs to be taught. It is not based on factual occurrences in most cases. It's biased and one sided leaving no room to form your own opinions. You should actually look and try to teach history using their books before you make such a uninformed comment.

Alas, you need a six-week course on the use of irony....

[simonuk]

Numbskulls. ..utter stupidity

[cumgranosalum]

There is talk of end goals with EL in Thailand.......

Firstly this is pie-in-the-sky; it would be closer to the truth to suggest that there are almost as many linguistic goals as there are students. What is needed is an educational system that includes an integrated EL teaching that is long-term and efficient and capable of addressing these needs - the Thai habit of running things by dictum is not helpful; these dictums are issued without proper research and often by people who have no knowledge of education methodologies whatsoever. Repeatedly introducing "new measures" and policy changes is a sure sign of a country with no real sense of direction.

To get a good EL system (not program0 will require a ground up change is the WHOLE education system in the country - a system which basically is stuck in the early 20th century if not even the 19th C. - Until then, the best EL educators can expect to do is work on their own to try a patch up the mess that successive Thai governments have left, with their ignorant and reactionary attitudes to education.

One wonders why time after time in a wide range of issues Thai governments take a blinkered and parochial aproach....disregarding current thinking and examples in other nations.

As for the "surveys" that Thailand repeatedly fails in - well, they really are't to be taken at face value. The fact that in almost ANY survey - a meta-analysis - Thailand repeatedly does badly has to reflect that Thailand's system is not working, but the survey themselves and their criteria are usually highly questionable and tend to look at things from a narrow perspective. how many actually look at spoken English outside the educational system...not just business and commerce in the major sectors but small businesses and sole traders - e.g. those involved in the tourist trade who are self-taught and actually have mastered quite good English skills for dealing with their customers - who BTW are not necessarily English speakers themselves?

One would have thought that a country with nearly 10% GDP in tourism would be actively offering help to those wishing to improve their EL skills.

[timewilltell]

It is not teaching Thai teachers English that is stupid but a 6 week course is going to achieve almost nothing since most Thais can't understand anything after 6 years or more learning English. Thai teachers should be trained but on a much more comprehensive level for the lower school years at least. But slashing native English teachers in the meantime is typical of the Thai mindset. The education budget id wasted through extensive corruption like every other thing here and until that is properly addressed Thailand will go backwards relatively. It is not something anyone in power wants to address as they are all benefitting from it. Sad really

Edited November 18, 2015 by timewilltell

[ev1lchris]

I was thinking that Thailand needs to send people overseas to live for years. Then bring them back to teach English. But that's probably too expensive.

[fang37]

"probably too expensive"

[bentfarang]

This thread has the longest posts I've ever seen on TV... folks out to impress?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed.

[SiSePuede419]

Gran-d-prix, 555

https://youtu.be/ILkAY58If9Q

[digibum]

I wont be popular but given the quality of a large percentage of the foreign teachers here I cant blame them. Yes there are very good committed teachers here from all backgrounds but unfortunately we all know that most are here for the booze and hookers and nothing else.

You talk like booze and hookers are a bad thing :-)

Seriously though, even the most alcohol addled whore-monger can teach/speak English better than the vast majority of Thai English teachers.

[digibum]

The funny thing as well is they think they are going to save money by not hiring native English speakers. Well I guess that means most schools with a MEP program will have to shutdown their "cash cow" as parents will not pay the money schools demand for non-native speakers. A double shot in the foot!!

It's all part of the plan.

Those in the know have shorted the Thai baht and the SET and are hoping to make a killing as they drive both to near zero.

[SiSePuede419]

"Seriously though, even the most alcohol addled whore-monger can teach/speak English better than the vast majority of Thai English teachers."

99.9% of the English speakers in the world don't understand Cockney, so no.

I've heard Thai teachers speak English better than many people I met in England and Scotland, 555

[digibum]

Thailand needs to look forward to the next generation, as it's already too late for this generation.

That pretty much sums it all up. Not just in education but several other areas as well.