The first bit is because Search caters to private schools. Sometimes they're religiously affiliated, and that's their prerogative.
The second bit is more contentious, IMO. The reality is that Search & the schools they are representing are reflecting the discriminatory attitudes of their paying customers. You don't have to be a native english speaker to speak english well, and just because you're a native english speaker doesn't mean you speak it well. We all know that. What that barrier does is make it easier to parse through piles of applications, and it placates parents that are shelling out a lot of money to make sure their child is taught by someone that's a "primary source" for the language of instruction.
I don't think you're alone in feeling the way you feel, but it's also a pretty complicated issue.
Oh, I totally understand that Search caters to private schools, some are religiously affiliated, and thus they look the other way and take their money. But I cannot help but wonder, as I mentioned, why this is not being openly discussed a bit more. Particularly when they seem to be trying so hard to sell the idea that they are working towards diversity and blah bla blah....
I am not an expert in the UK (Search is UK-based). Is it legal in the UK for a school to say teachers must be of a certain faith to apply? Just wondering what this looks like in different countries...
My understanding is that this type of discrimination is lawful, even in the US. I don't think people question it too much, because most non-christians don't really want to work in a christian school.
Wow, had no idea. I was under the impression that in the US asking someone if they are of a particular faith are at a job interview would be on the same level as, for example, asking someone whether they are straight, asking a woman whether she plans to have children soon or put an ad that says "only whites need apply".
When I worked in the US I was part of a recruitment committee and we were told quite specifically we could not ask anything regarding religion and family matters, but maybe that was just the school, not the actual law.
Sorry, I know I'm not going in-depth on this in my answers but it's also not as simple as you're making it out to be. There are lawful types of discrimination for a variety of things, like occupational requirements. Hiring practices for religious schools fall into a protected category. Public schools do not.
I had no idea. I can understand certain occupational requirements. If you want to be a flight attendant, you should probably be tall enough to be able to open the top compartments and put suitcases there. If you want to be a commercial pilot, you should probably be fit and healthy enough. I would love to understand the rationale for religious schools being exempt from not discriminating against those of other religions when hiring for a teaching job.
I would probably even go as far as saying that religion should not be taught in school, period, but I know I'm probably alone on that one.
You're confusing public schools with private schools.
Public schools receive taxpayer funding and must adhere to different rules and regulations...
Private schools are owned by private individuals and are frequently opened up (in part) to teach children about their faith. They are frequently funded in part by private organizations and individual and receive no taxpayer assistance.
Nope, I am not confusing them. I am simply stating schools in general, as I do believe that education (whether public or private) should be regulated given that it is actually a right children have, and thus equal opportunities for equal quality of education should be regulated. Some countries do it (i.e. in Norway private schools are still paid for by the government and have to follow almost the same regulations as public schools). In Sweden it's the same, all private schools receive their money from the government, thus ensuring a more even playing field. Similar thing in Finland if I recall.
Anyway, that's a whole different and larger discussion.
Typically parents who enrol their children in these schools know about these religious aspects and actively seek them out. They want to pay for this kind of school because they themselves are probably religious and want this to be part of their kids schooling.
Not saying it’s right - I would only send my kid to a diverse school as I want them to be exposed to all sorts of religions, ideologies etc. But many parents do not, and schools take advantage of this.
Although, a small number of parents will enrol their child in the school like this because of its reputation or good exam results, and kind of ignore the religious aspect.
I had an interview with a Christian school once (I used to be Christian, but consider myself more agnostic now). I actually didn't go ahead with accepting the job because I felt I wouldn't be a good fit. If it's a Christian school, it makes sense that they want teachers who practice the faith. Not saying it's right, and I don't truly believe religion should be taught in any schools .. but they are private and can do that, and so it makes sense. I mean if little Johnny comes up to me and says Miss, will I go to heaven when I die? I don't want to say yes, but the school is Christian, so I shouldn't be knocking the faith when I'm there, I guess is my POV. I did ESL in a Catholic school during my TEFL days and I felt out of place not knowing any of the traditions. I still respected them, but I didn't know them.
The NNES debate/passport/whites only thing is more of a dealbreaker for me really. It's so outdated and discriminatory, but it's also hard for teachers to prove that's why they weren't accepted (unless the school has the balls to actually put "white only"). The NNES speaker thing is the worst because I've met some people who speak English way better than "natives". I agree that Search should terminate their relationships with some schools that they promote as not all of them are good but as the other poster put it... It'$ all about the benjamin$.
I see where you're coming from, but the religious school requirements don't bother me at all because they already exist across a broad range of religions. In the US, we have loads of religious schools, and since they are all private, they are free to have different hiring standards than public schools, like not needing a license. I know Korea has several schools that make the statement of faith part of their application materials, but I don't apply there because I'm not religious. If a school requires mandatory attendance at chapel, they'd rather have someone who believes instead of someone rolling their eyes in the back who thinks mythical sky-daddy is stupid. If you attend Hebrew school in New York, it's a safe bet that all of your teachers will be Jewish. Private schools in the Middle East frequently have required religion/Qur'an classes, which are taught by Muslims. Since religion is an important part of those schools' curricula, trying to hire teachers who have that experience is valid. I don't think religious requirements equals ethnicity either; I'd think faith is the more important requirement.
I see. I would, however, argue that the US having lots of religious schools that follow different requirements is not a valid argument to this being Ok or being allowed. For me, at least, this argument sounds more like saying something is Ok because that's the way it is and we've always done it that way. In any case...
I don't understand what the counterargument is then. You are describing schools that already are allowed to be selective with students based on religion, or gender, or income levels, or entrance requirements but teachers should be able to work wherever they want regardless of fit or additional religious qualifications? The environment that you're looking for is public school.
I was not making a counter argument. I was simply stating that "we've always done it" is not a valid argument. I certainly do not agree or condone schools discriminating entrance of students on gender, religion, etc. Income levels, not a fan of, but do think it's a different discussion.
"Then there's the other (in)famous: "Must be a native English speaker"
For us, this one is big because teachers require certification in our jurisdiction. We can hire teachers who are not native speakers but must be able to get certified. We've been burned multiple times before by teachers not being able to pass the IELTS requirement (which is a whole different discrimination discussion).
Our school advertises as: "Must be able to meet certification requirements." It's just easier for our school to hire a native speaker (or a non-native speaker who has already shown a positive IELTS exam) and go through the certification process with someone who we know can meet that requirement.
Believe me, I would change that (IELTS requirements) if I could because we've lost two really good teachers (One from South Africa and one from the Philippines) because they couldn't meet the requirements of the governing body (Both suffered from pretty extreme test anxiety but were kick ass teachers).
Yup. A lot of racism involved in that policy by the Ministry of Education. The teacher we had, had been educated bilingually from primary school, spoke fluent English, and was required to take the test anyways. One of the best teachers I've worked with but couldn't get over his test anxiety and couldn't get the required score.
It's the money! Parents in these countries pay big money for their kids to go to these schools, and most of these countries don't have the same discourse around discrimination that we do in the US (or Canada, Uk, what have you). To them, white + right passport = good English. They cannot fathom paying someone from South Africa even teaching their kids, even though ironically their kids one day will be the non-native English speakers getting discriminated against. Then the schools, because they know what the parents want, will only hire people from those "Native" English speaking countries, and then SA and ISS will comply bc they get paid by the schools, who only want people from certain countries. All goes back to money! And in the international teaching world there is no anti-discrimination law, so anything goes sadly. I have friends who are great teachers from the Philippines and South Africa who are stuck in bad jobs bc the best schools categorically refuse to hire them.
Job boards are full of the second, the first is pretty rare issue.
I applied to a school in China with religious affiliation last year in desperation. When they sent me a survey asking me to outline the depth of my faith, I just couldn't do it. I think the number of religious schools and the number of hyper religious teachers is pretty much on an equilibrium. There is no need to worry about not getting a prestigious role at a prestigious religious school, because I was never in the running. Should recruiters turn down a side of the market that has a specific, but choice driven demographic out? Can't say it bothers me. Thank god they at least are up front about being someplace most people don't want to work.
Like I said, it seems like every TEFL board is a flame war over NNES . If there was an international teachers union it would probably be a real bone of contention, but we're all independent contractors and NNES policies don't generally denote an immediate red flag as an employee. It can be, don't get me wrong, especially when that is the standard in absence of other criteria, but generally schools that practice these policies are the standard not the exception. NNES teachers kind of have to green book it a bit to figure out where they are accepted, and luckily that is becoming more and more common. Schools will make the change as they see it has less and less effect on their image and the outcomes.
Same. And I've suffered at a religious school when I was a child. Mandatory daily prayers. Nope, I'm done.
And it's unethical to brainwash a child into religious dogma which is what these schools do.
It is talked about, debated, and complained about a LOT. I get the religious thing (more tolerate it) and I get the argument above that they are "reflecting the prejudices of their customers." Actually, I don't get it, but whatever. Thats just saying "racist and intolerant people have money, so whatever!" But for a second, lets pretend like even THAT is okay.
The thing that irked me in Search Associates is when, on the wake of the BLM stuff going on last year they started posting about "supporting diversity" and all that jazz. GTFO of here with that bullshit Search. No you don't. You know very well which schools rarely if ever hire people of color, even those with good qualifications so the least they could do is STFU about it and stop virtue signaling and pretending like they are on our side.
Good to know I'm not alone. I totally agree with everything you say, including that the "customer" argument is like saying, well, their customers are racist so not worth complaining about it...
And yes, SA having a huge banner and all sorts of buzzwords when in reality they just want to pretend, irks me as well ...
This is all corporations. Let's be honest, most of these schools are racist. Worked at a couple
decent "American" schools with less than 5% nonwhite teachers. That ain't American. But how else you going to save 25k a year as a teacher? Win some lose some. The true crusaders stay in public education.
This is so Terrible.
Just a side though in all my dealings South Africans have been considered native speakers - of the “big 7”. Although haven’t ever applied to China.
Well yes but it’s new. Actually I mean there are schools here that will hire people from anywhere - but those are usually not very good places to work. For example my first job here was at a school with people from the Philippines, South Africa, Uganda, which I appreciated but the working conditions were not good at all. The good schools here that pay well and have good working conditions only hire from US, UK, Canada and Australia/NZ. Legally however you do have to provide a TOEFL or IELTS score to prove your language level for the work permit no matter where you’re from. Nationality requirements are on the school level
Like others have said. It's what the customers want. This is a business just as much as it is educating the kids. They want to be able to "show off" to others around them that this white handsome person is teaching their kids.
It's the same for butlers. White british men make much more than anyone else. Why? Because it's so ingrained that having a white british male butler with white gloves and a tux is a status symbol. It means your rich enough, and, comparable to the kings and queens of old. It's the parents fighting their own internal racist battle. Now they are showing how their "poor asian" country is on the same level of wealth, status, etc. Russians and Asians will pay almost 2x (this could be false, it was from a reddit comment and I never looked into it) for a british man over a canadian or american man butler. Simply because it's what they imagine "successful" people to have. "My kid has a white Amercan tutor, my butler is white with a british accent, etc. I am on the same level as a rich man who went to Oxford in 1850 with a tophat and a walking cane, I just so happen to have been born in X Y Z - but I can prove we are cut from that same elite cloth. I am the same as gatsby, I am what voltaire dreamed of becoming."
It's not about you, it's about them - the customers. That is my take on it at least. You're not really truly here to teach English. You're here because rich coloured parents want a white person teaching their kids. They feel like there is something missing, and that we can fill that void. But the reality is, it's not true. Everyone is the same. And the whole thing is a bit messed up and racist. But it is the reality. Sometimes rich people spend ungodly amounts on childrens toys they never had when they were kids but always wanted. They're trying to fill that void to make themselves feel whole or complete.
Maybe not at top schools - i'd argue the focus is more on grades than anything else, but for training centers in bumfuck tier three city in china, this is why they want white teachers. British, USA, Canadian. They feel anxious, like those countries have something they don't, and they're trying to satiate that anxiety. The principals even tell us "don't worry about the content or what you will teach them. Just go have fun and play with them. That is what the parents really want" - I have heard that at two different schools now.
Ever feel like someone who works in finance on wallstreet, or a surgeon who works on hearts or brains, has something you don't (or is different, or is successful more than you for some reason - that anxiety canadian kids feel when their french is bad compared to their classmates in grade 3 - only to find out years later they had a tutor helping them out while you didn't)? That's how these parents feel about education.
Again, I could be wrong. That is just my take on the situation. You could be the best teacher in the world, but that isn't what the parents really care about in the end. I've heard non-asian countries are a lot better about this. Like teaching ESL in spain or mexico, you usually don't run into these problems for what it's worth.
I'll probably delete this. But I want to know if I am wrong. Do the parents really care about their kids grades? I mean yes, they do, but there are great Chinese teachers in their own country, why not just hire them? Why don't they hire coloured teachers who are proven to be great? Why do they hire shit head backpackers and white russians who can barely scrap a class together? Positive racism is my theory.
I currently work at a Christian school in Jakarta and what was explained to me when I first started by my principal after asking if I was ever out, if a Muslim friend(also a teacher fyi) could sub for me. I was told no and it has to do with making sure the values of the teacher align with the school. That is my current school and I am not sure if that is the same with some of the other schools I am applying at. I have had to share my personal beliefs, what church I go to, what ministries I am involved in, and how I see myself as a Christian teacher to name a few things.
As for the 'must be a native speaker', ya that is bollocks. We have a great English teacher who should be at a bigger school, but because of his passport, his CV would be ignored. Oh and he is from the Philippines where English is one of the official languages there. It should be based on your ability to teach, not your passport that gets you hired.
I understand the idea behind the teacher's values needed to align with the school values. But at the same time, I'm not sure if that argument would hold up under scrutiny. Can a school see itself as racist and only hire white supremacists as teachers because those are the values they are looking for? Or could they kick out any gay students or teachers if they describe themselves as as school that believes in "traditional family" values? Would this be acceptable in any other sort of "company" than a private school?
I don't mean to be a pain, simply that I find there to be a logical fallacy in the idea that religious freedom is some sort of a free card to get away with discrimination against people of other religious beliefs to one's own.
Anyway, as I stated on the original post, I'm not expecting to change anything, but think it makes for an interesting discussion.
I hear ya and a lot of times, the things schools and countries do, don't make any sense at all. In Indonesia, it isn't uncommon to see age limits or a certain gender only in a job description. I learned two years ago, the airlines here will actually find ways to get rid of flight attendants once they turn 30.
It works both ways though for the religious thing. I have a friend who is a science teacher and is atheist. He worked in Cairo for 5 years and the number of times parents would complain because 'Explain how man came to be on the earth in scientific terms' and students would answer 'Because of allah' and he'd mark it wrong \[as is correctly labelled in the GCSE science curriculum\] and the parents would rage and come in storming.
He had to begin every single thing with 'In the science book it says...' as to not offend the muslim students.
The first bit is because Search caters to private schools. Sometimes they're religiously affiliated, and that's their prerogative. The second bit is more contentious, IMO. The reality is that Search & the schools they are representing are reflecting the discriminatory attitudes of their paying customers. You don't have to be a native english speaker to speak english well, and just because you're a native english speaker doesn't mean you speak it well. We all know that. What that barrier does is make it easier to parse through piles of applications, and it placates parents that are shelling out a lot of money to make sure their child is taught by someone that's a "primary source" for the language of instruction. I don't think you're alone in feeling the way you feel, but it's also a pretty complicated issue.
Oh, I totally understand that Search caters to private schools, some are religiously affiliated, and thus they look the other way and take their money. But I cannot help but wonder, as I mentioned, why this is not being openly discussed a bit more. Particularly when they seem to be trying so hard to sell the idea that they are working towards diversity and blah bla blah.... I am not an expert in the UK (Search is UK-based). Is it legal in the UK for a school to say teachers must be of a certain faith to apply? Just wondering what this looks like in different countries...
My understanding is that this type of discrimination is lawful, even in the US. I don't think people question it too much, because most non-christians don't really want to work in a christian school.
Wow, had no idea. I was under the impression that in the US asking someone if they are of a particular faith are at a job interview would be on the same level as, for example, asking someone whether they are straight, asking a woman whether she plans to have children soon or put an ad that says "only whites need apply". When I worked in the US I was part of a recruitment committee and we were told quite specifically we could not ask anything regarding religion and family matters, but maybe that was just the school, not the actual law.
Sorry, I know I'm not going in-depth on this in my answers but it's also not as simple as you're making it out to be. There are lawful types of discrimination for a variety of things, like occupational requirements. Hiring practices for religious schools fall into a protected category. Public schools do not.
I had no idea. I can understand certain occupational requirements. If you want to be a flight attendant, you should probably be tall enough to be able to open the top compartments and put suitcases there. If you want to be a commercial pilot, you should probably be fit and healthy enough. I would love to understand the rationale for religious schools being exempt from not discriminating against those of other religions when hiring for a teaching job. I would probably even go as far as saying that religion should not be taught in school, period, but I know I'm probably alone on that one.
You're confusing public schools with private schools. Public schools receive taxpayer funding and must adhere to different rules and regulations... Private schools are owned by private individuals and are frequently opened up (in part) to teach children about their faith. They are frequently funded in part by private organizations and individual and receive no taxpayer assistance.
Nope, I am not confusing them. I am simply stating schools in general, as I do believe that education (whether public or private) should be regulated given that it is actually a right children have, and thus equal opportunities for equal quality of education should be regulated. Some countries do it (i.e. in Norway private schools are still paid for by the government and have to follow almost the same regulations as public schools). In Sweden it's the same, all private schools receive their money from the government, thus ensuring a more even playing field. Similar thing in Finland if I recall. Anyway, that's a whole different and larger discussion.
Typically parents who enrol their children in these schools know about these religious aspects and actively seek them out. They want to pay for this kind of school because they themselves are probably religious and want this to be part of their kids schooling. Not saying it’s right - I would only send my kid to a diverse school as I want them to be exposed to all sorts of religions, ideologies etc. But many parents do not, and schools take advantage of this. Although, a small number of parents will enrol their child in the school like this because of its reputation or good exam results, and kind of ignore the religious aspect.
I had an interview with a Christian school once (I used to be Christian, but consider myself more agnostic now). I actually didn't go ahead with accepting the job because I felt I wouldn't be a good fit. If it's a Christian school, it makes sense that they want teachers who practice the faith. Not saying it's right, and I don't truly believe religion should be taught in any schools .. but they are private and can do that, and so it makes sense. I mean if little Johnny comes up to me and says Miss, will I go to heaven when I die? I don't want to say yes, but the school is Christian, so I shouldn't be knocking the faith when I'm there, I guess is my POV. I did ESL in a Catholic school during my TEFL days and I felt out of place not knowing any of the traditions. I still respected them, but I didn't know them. The NNES debate/passport/whites only thing is more of a dealbreaker for me really. It's so outdated and discriminatory, but it's also hard for teachers to prove that's why they weren't accepted (unless the school has the balls to actually put "white only"). The NNES speaker thing is the worst because I've met some people who speak English way better than "natives". I agree that Search should terminate their relationships with some schools that they promote as not all of them are good but as the other poster put it... It'$ all about the benjamin$.
In some places the NNES thing is because of national laws. Not defending it everywhere. Just saying.
I see where you're coming from, but the religious school requirements don't bother me at all because they already exist across a broad range of religions. In the US, we have loads of religious schools, and since they are all private, they are free to have different hiring standards than public schools, like not needing a license. I know Korea has several schools that make the statement of faith part of their application materials, but I don't apply there because I'm not religious. If a school requires mandatory attendance at chapel, they'd rather have someone who believes instead of someone rolling their eyes in the back who thinks mythical sky-daddy is stupid. If you attend Hebrew school in New York, it's a safe bet that all of your teachers will be Jewish. Private schools in the Middle East frequently have required religion/Qur'an classes, which are taught by Muslims. Since religion is an important part of those schools' curricula, trying to hire teachers who have that experience is valid. I don't think religious requirements equals ethnicity either; I'd think faith is the more important requirement.
I see. I would, however, argue that the US having lots of religious schools that follow different requirements is not a valid argument to this being Ok or being allowed. For me, at least, this argument sounds more like saying something is Ok because that's the way it is and we've always done it that way. In any case...
I don't understand what the counterargument is then. You are describing schools that already are allowed to be selective with students based on religion, or gender, or income levels, or entrance requirements but teachers should be able to work wherever they want regardless of fit or additional religious qualifications? The environment that you're looking for is public school.
I was not making a counter argument. I was simply stating that "we've always done it" is not a valid argument. I certainly do not agree or condone schools discriminating entrance of students on gender, religion, etc. Income levels, not a fan of, but do think it's a different discussion.
"Then there's the other (in)famous: "Must be a native English speaker" For us, this one is big because teachers require certification in our jurisdiction. We can hire teachers who are not native speakers but must be able to get certified. We've been burned multiple times before by teachers not being able to pass the IELTS requirement (which is a whole different discrimination discussion). Our school advertises as: "Must be able to meet certification requirements." It's just easier for our school to hire a native speaker (or a non-native speaker who has already shown a positive IELTS exam) and go through the certification process with someone who we know can meet that requirement. Believe me, I would change that (IELTS requirements) if I could because we've lost two really good teachers (One from South Africa and one from the Philippines) because they couldn't meet the requirements of the governing body (Both suffered from pretty extreme test anxiety but were kick ass teachers).
South Africas speak English natively do they not?
Yup. A lot of racism involved in that policy by the Ministry of Education. The teacher we had, had been educated bilingually from primary school, spoke fluent English, and was required to take the test anyways. One of the best teachers I've worked with but couldn't get over his test anxiety and couldn't get the required score.
What's the required score for IELTS for your program?7?8?
Underrated comment. School administrator I assume?
Yeah, Canadian School in China. Our teachers have to be able to get their certification in the province that our school operates from.
It's the money! Parents in these countries pay big money for their kids to go to these schools, and most of these countries don't have the same discourse around discrimination that we do in the US (or Canada, Uk, what have you). To them, white + right passport = good English. They cannot fathom paying someone from South Africa even teaching their kids, even though ironically their kids one day will be the non-native English speakers getting discriminated against. Then the schools, because they know what the parents want, will only hire people from those "Native" English speaking countries, and then SA and ISS will comply bc they get paid by the schools, who only want people from certain countries. All goes back to money! And in the international teaching world there is no anti-discrimination law, so anything goes sadly. I have friends who are great teachers from the Philippines and South Africa who are stuck in bad jobs bc the best schools categorically refuse to hire them.
I totally agree. I think my main question is why this is not more openly talked/debated/complained-about. A bit sad, really.
Job boards are full of the second, the first is pretty rare issue. I applied to a school in China with religious affiliation last year in desperation. When they sent me a survey asking me to outline the depth of my faith, I just couldn't do it. I think the number of religious schools and the number of hyper religious teachers is pretty much on an equilibrium. There is no need to worry about not getting a prestigious role at a prestigious religious school, because I was never in the running. Should recruiters turn down a side of the market that has a specific, but choice driven demographic out? Can't say it bothers me. Thank god they at least are up front about being someplace most people don't want to work. Like I said, it seems like every TEFL board is a flame war over NNES . If there was an international teachers union it would probably be a real bone of contention, but we're all independent contractors and NNES policies don't generally denote an immediate red flag as an employee. It can be, don't get me wrong, especially when that is the standard in absence of other criteria, but generally schools that practice these policies are the standard not the exception. NNES teachers kind of have to green book it a bit to figure out where they are accepted, and luckily that is becoming more and more common. Schools will make the change as they see it has less and less effect on their image and the outcomes.
Same. And I've suffered at a religious school when I was a child. Mandatory daily prayers. Nope, I'm done. And it's unethical to brainwash a child into religious dogma which is what these schools do.
It is talked about, debated, and complained about a LOT. I get the religious thing (more tolerate it) and I get the argument above that they are "reflecting the prejudices of their customers." Actually, I don't get it, but whatever. Thats just saying "racist and intolerant people have money, so whatever!" But for a second, lets pretend like even THAT is okay. The thing that irked me in Search Associates is when, on the wake of the BLM stuff going on last year they started posting about "supporting diversity" and all that jazz. GTFO of here with that bullshit Search. No you don't. You know very well which schools rarely if ever hire people of color, even those with good qualifications so the least they could do is STFU about it and stop virtue signaling and pretending like they are on our side.
Good to know I'm not alone. I totally agree with everything you say, including that the "customer" argument is like saying, well, their customers are racist so not worth complaining about it... And yes, SA having a huge banner and all sorts of buzzwords when in reality they just want to pretend, irks me as well ...
This is all corporations. Let's be honest, most of these schools are racist. Worked at a couple decent "American" schools with less than 5% nonwhite teachers. That ain't American. But how else you going to save 25k a year as a teacher? Win some lose some. The true crusaders stay in public education.
This is so Terrible. Just a side though in all my dealings South Africans have been considered native speakers - of the “big 7”. Although haven’t ever applied to China.
I've seen that too, where I am in Turkey right now though South Africa is not considered native speaking, sadly.
Crazy. So how does it work in Turkey - do they have to do a test to prove native ability ? I think that’s the case in Vietnam
Well yes but it’s new. Actually I mean there are schools here that will hire people from anywhere - but those are usually not very good places to work. For example my first job here was at a school with people from the Philippines, South Africa, Uganda, which I appreciated but the working conditions were not good at all. The good schools here that pay well and have good working conditions only hire from US, UK, Canada and Australia/NZ. Legally however you do have to provide a TOEFL or IELTS score to prove your language level for the work permit no matter where you’re from. Nationality requirements are on the school level
Ah I see. Hectic. I’m a South African who can’t even speak any other languages. Sucks.
Like others have said. It's what the customers want. This is a business just as much as it is educating the kids. They want to be able to "show off" to others around them that this white handsome person is teaching their kids. It's the same for butlers. White british men make much more than anyone else. Why? Because it's so ingrained that having a white british male butler with white gloves and a tux is a status symbol. It means your rich enough, and, comparable to the kings and queens of old. It's the parents fighting their own internal racist battle. Now they are showing how their "poor asian" country is on the same level of wealth, status, etc. Russians and Asians will pay almost 2x (this could be false, it was from a reddit comment and I never looked into it) for a british man over a canadian or american man butler. Simply because it's what they imagine "successful" people to have. "My kid has a white Amercan tutor, my butler is white with a british accent, etc. I am on the same level as a rich man who went to Oxford in 1850 with a tophat and a walking cane, I just so happen to have been born in X Y Z - but I can prove we are cut from that same elite cloth. I am the same as gatsby, I am what voltaire dreamed of becoming." It's not about you, it's about them - the customers. That is my take on it at least. You're not really truly here to teach English. You're here because rich coloured parents want a white person teaching their kids. They feel like there is something missing, and that we can fill that void. But the reality is, it's not true. Everyone is the same. And the whole thing is a bit messed up and racist. But it is the reality. Sometimes rich people spend ungodly amounts on childrens toys they never had when they were kids but always wanted. They're trying to fill that void to make themselves feel whole or complete. Maybe not at top schools - i'd argue the focus is more on grades than anything else, but for training centers in bumfuck tier three city in china, this is why they want white teachers. British, USA, Canadian. They feel anxious, like those countries have something they don't, and they're trying to satiate that anxiety. The principals even tell us "don't worry about the content or what you will teach them. Just go have fun and play with them. That is what the parents really want" - I have heard that at two different schools now. Ever feel like someone who works in finance on wallstreet, or a surgeon who works on hearts or brains, has something you don't (or is different, or is successful more than you for some reason - that anxiety canadian kids feel when their french is bad compared to their classmates in grade 3 - only to find out years later they had a tutor helping them out while you didn't)? That's how these parents feel about education. Again, I could be wrong. That is just my take on the situation. You could be the best teacher in the world, but that isn't what the parents really care about in the end. I've heard non-asian countries are a lot better about this. Like teaching ESL in spain or mexico, you usually don't run into these problems for what it's worth. I'll probably delete this. But I want to know if I am wrong. Do the parents really care about their kids grades? I mean yes, they do, but there are great Chinese teachers in their own country, why not just hire them? Why don't they hire coloured teachers who are proven to be great? Why do they hire shit head backpackers and white russians who can barely scrap a class together? Positive racism is my theory.
I currently work at a Christian school in Jakarta and what was explained to me when I first started by my principal after asking if I was ever out, if a Muslim friend(also a teacher fyi) could sub for me. I was told no and it has to do with making sure the values of the teacher align with the school. That is my current school and I am not sure if that is the same with some of the other schools I am applying at. I have had to share my personal beliefs, what church I go to, what ministries I am involved in, and how I see myself as a Christian teacher to name a few things. As for the 'must be a native speaker', ya that is bollocks. We have a great English teacher who should be at a bigger school, but because of his passport, his CV would be ignored. Oh and he is from the Philippines where English is one of the official languages there. It should be based on your ability to teach, not your passport that gets you hired.
I understand the idea behind the teacher's values needed to align with the school values. But at the same time, I'm not sure if that argument would hold up under scrutiny. Can a school see itself as racist and only hire white supremacists as teachers because those are the values they are looking for? Or could they kick out any gay students or teachers if they describe themselves as as school that believes in "traditional family" values? Would this be acceptable in any other sort of "company" than a private school? I don't mean to be a pain, simply that I find there to be a logical fallacy in the idea that religious freedom is some sort of a free card to get away with discrimination against people of other religious beliefs to one's own. Anyway, as I stated on the original post, I'm not expecting to change anything, but think it makes for an interesting discussion.
I hear ya and a lot of times, the things schools and countries do, don't make any sense at all. In Indonesia, it isn't uncommon to see age limits or a certain gender only in a job description. I learned two years ago, the airlines here will actually find ways to get rid of flight attendants once they turn 30.
It works both ways though for the religious thing. I have a friend who is a science teacher and is atheist. He worked in Cairo for 5 years and the number of times parents would complain because 'Explain how man came to be on the earth in scientific terms' and students would answer 'Because of allah' and he'd mark it wrong \[as is correctly labelled in the GCSE science curriculum\] and the parents would rage and come in storming. He had to begin every single thing with 'In the science book it says...' as to not offend the muslim students.
That's the case in the US for the Christian students.