Management and Abuse

Whether due to cultural differences or tangible management problems, PPIs are seen by NESTs as being poorly managed. This gripe is exhibited in one way or another by most pilot study respondents; be it a lack of autonomy (Appendix A: 1.2) a gap between management expectation and reality (Appendix A: 1.4), unnecessary stress (Appendix A: 4.6, 2.3), or simply lack of organization (Appendix A: 4.6, 4.10).

A telling statement “there are schools out there that have no idea what they’re doing”

(Appendix A: 4.10) summarizes the sentiment. And while one could argue that many of these NESTs are not qualified to be teaching and thus not qualified to be judging the way schools are run, it is still a perceived negative behavior outcome.

The primary survey gave a little clarification with 59% of respondents stating that kindergarten management tended to be bad with 21% claiming it was neutral and 20% saying it was not likely to be bad. This had a mean score of 3.2 (more likely than not) with a standard deviation of 1.62.

Many of the interviewees had strong things to say about the issue. Both qualified NESTs claimed to have had big enough problems with their PPIs that they quit, both stating that PPI managers were incompetent, only caring about money, and only concerned with the appearance of quality (Appendix C:John, Rachel). Rachel further comments that “I was powerless when implementing discipline” (Appendix C: Rachel). Nelson claims that PPIs only gave negative feedback (Appendix C: Nelson), while Anton claims they didn’t approach problems until long after they arose; both NESTs considered that it might be a cultural misunderstanding. NESTs continually discussed the difference between expectations and reality when dealing with management (Appendix C: Kyle, John, Hugo). Interviewees and pilot

47

respondents continually cited parents as influencing managers (Kyle, Hugo, Anton, John);

logical as private schools are dictated by market mechanism (Chou, 2014). Management is unaccountable and uses verbal punishment (shouting) rather than actual dismissal (Appendix C:

Hugo). Discipline was another issue regularly discussed be it too lax in the case of teacher Anton who claimed “it's a case of the inmates running the asylum” (Appendix C: Anton) or too extreme in the case of the perceived child abuse.

Although child abuse did not arise in the pilot survey, recent news articles involving a PPI (in this case a buxiban acting as a kindergarten) made it prudent to address the issue (Lin &

Chen, 2015). Several of the interview respondents had encountered incidents similar to those in the news, kids forced to eat hot sauce as punishment for eating slowly, kids being made to strike themselves, hair pulling, and use of stress positions (Chen, 2015). Teachers Nelson, Rachel, and John claimed that exposure to child abuse influenced their decisions to leave a PPI, and Rachel claimed it contributed to her decision to quit teaching in Taiwan altogether: “my parents didn't approve of me dealing with the abuse” (Appendix C: Rachel). Notable individual events include kids being taped to chairs for not sitting properly, kids having tape put over their mouths, (Appendix C: Nelson), and kids being hit for being naughty (Appendix C:Rachel, Hugo, Mike).

John cited incidents of kids being force fed and made to drink too much water (Appendix C:

John). Other teachers cited general rough treatment; kids being carried out of classrooms as though “it were a bouncer taking someone out of a bar” for example (Appendix C: Kyle).

Teacher Mike claimed that he was shown a location in the school where he could hit students off the CCTV camera during an early interview (Appendix C: Mike). Although a deterrent for some, three NESTs stated that the punishments were conducted on instructions from parents (Appendix C: John, Nelson, Hugo) and although disturbing, were dismissed as being an element of

48

Taiwanese culture they did not understand (Appendix C: Nelson, Hugo, Gregory). One teacher rationalized the situation “I've seen things that made me uncomfortable, but when I tutor kids I see their parents doing same thing, and even as a child I experienced whippings” (Appendix C:

Hugo).

There is a silver lining however, the practice is not perceived as being totally endemic.

30% of respondents stated child abuse was common, 30% remained neutral and 40% stated it was uncommon. The mean score of 4.31 with a standard deviation of 1.57 implies that most respondents were neutral on the subject. Considering that the mean years in Taiwan is 6.5 these people are more likely to have been exposed, skewing the statistic. Interestingly, a score of 30%

mirrors a 2015 study which states 20.3% of student suffer physical abuse in public schools (Wei, 2015). We can surmise that NESTs in PPIs are not prepared in any sense to address the implications of child abuse, nor do they feel confident in addressing the issue due to cultural and legal implications (as well as the risk of losing their job). NESTs however do have a stronger grasp of the labor abuses they perceive as enduring.

The research indicates that labor abuses are perceived as being a likely result of teaching ESL in a PPI in Taiwan. Labor abuses run the gamut between withheld wages, to being denied vacation time, or paid sick leave. Labor abuses in the guise of this study are benefits or protections provisioned by the Employment Service Act (2006) that were perceived as not being received.

Pilot study results suggested that “work without compensation” (Appendix A: 4), and work with no benefits (Appendix A: 4) or pensions (Appendix A: 4) was a negative outcome to teaching English in PPIs. Furthermore, that the legal status of NESTs allows employers to put

49

you in a “compromised position” (Appendix A: 4). the idea of NESTs being exploited without legal repercussion is further discussed in the literature (Lan, 2011).

Out of eighty respondents 60% believed that teaching kindergarten would expose them to labor abuses with 20% remaining neutral and 20% perceiving exposure as unlikely. On a 1-7 point Likert scale the mean score of 3.33 (likely) was observed with a standard deviation of 1.65.

Interview results explain labor abuses in greater depth. One respondent stated “The whole thing is a labor abuse… your made to work extra hours, work through breaks, check books on your free time, schools misrepresent taxes” (Appendix C: John). Two respondents reported being docked wages, and all but one respondent claimed that they did not receive paid sick leave (Appendix C: Kyle, Nelson, Rachel,). Kyle claimed to have been fined 19,000 NT for leaving a contract early when his mother was sick (Appendix C: Kyle).

All but one interview respondent viewed labor abuses as being an outcome to teaching in Taiwan at any level. “I moved away from Taiwan because of labor abuses; my boss refused to let me take time off to see my family” (Appendix C: Rachel). Teacher Hugo stated that a previous buxiban tried denying him wages, but after he contacted relevant legal authorities, his employer relented and he was paid in full (Appendix C: Hugo) he added that they are used to NESTs accepting these consequences. Teacher Gregory reiterated this notion citing his Chinese abilities and his understanding of the law as protecting him (Appendix C: Gregory). The outlier in the group stated that although labor abuses did occur, they didn't concern him as they were nothing compared to those inflicted on NNESTs (Appendix C: Anton).

As demonstrated, foreigners in Taiwan often have their taxes misreported (Appendix C:

Chris; Lan, 2011). It is likely that NESTs working 30 plus hours a week, are having their taxes reported as being part time labor. While working at two schools, and clearly full time; employers

50

skirt the regulations by misreporting their actual hours; thus inhibiting their ability to make legal claims.