Sorry, I really disagree.
I think the criminal background check policy is just an extension of a panic that was unproductive and never should have happened.
Criminal background checks don't really help finding good teachers, although if you want a screen to rule out a few people who are real bad apples, fine.
But as studies (and the recent experience of vilifying foreign teachers has shown), most sex offenders don't even have criminal records, and the best way of judging a good teacher, like a good worker or babysitter, is by checking experience and references, and keeping the applicant pool large.
And the point here is that the move to start criminal background checks on foreign teachers didn't come from any real incident or good reason, but from a panic started by completely racist and factually inaccurate documentaries from YTN and MBC. Christ -- immigration even said so in citing its reasons for changing its visa requirements to criminal background checks and HIV tests.
Sorry for the "bitching," but you over there blogging about such is pretty short-sighted and uninformed by how things actually went down, and the reasons that foreigners are in the news all the time, even when the Korean government's own stats show that rates of foreigner crimes in all categories (yes, including smoking da weed) is far lower than for the Korean population, and is, in fact, quite low overall.
And as for the international hunt for the child-porn-making dude they found teaching in South Korea, he had no criminal record and he wasn't even here on an E-2! Yep, those criminal background checks on E-2 holders is a pretty good idea.
Wrong. The other difference is that the racist freakout has made it harder to live/work here than even before, since Korea's work and residency visas have always been linked, and the applicant pool has shrunk. Which, no matter the job we're talking about, reduces quality.
Again, like what I proposed (even before they made the F-5 visa, which pretty much matches exactly what I posted in my own proposed solution), if you want to raise quality, you raise the size of the applicant pool while being more stringent where it counts, such as checking references and other aspects of background.
Remember the whole "fake degree" things that was linked to foreign teachers, then expanded to Koreans, which became so embarrassing that is stopped being linked to us anymore? In the end, the problem isn't fake degrees, but the fact that Koreans either are too lazy to check references or don't want to (many hagwons want fake degree holders, duh, same as undocumented workers in the States, which keeps prices down and power in the hands of the employer).
And last, as anyone who has lived here a long time and has made a trip to the 동네세무소 knows, all records in Korea are centralized, and a criminal background check, or getting your family register, or filing for a business license, or just about anything official you do costs about $.50 and takes a few minutes to print up. Checking a Korean teacher's name against a criminal database requires no effort from Korean teachers.
On the other hand, we know the time and expenses associated with criminal background checks for E-2 holders. It keeps the applicant pool down. It doesn't actually help screen out the people they're looking for. And its origins are found in a media panic, not cool-headed policy-making.
And it's really funny the Korean teachers union is opposing it, when they were demanding it for foreign teachers. Guess they realize the same thing -- that it's an unnecessary invasion of privacy that does little to address the problem in question.
Like an HIV test for us.
Or an expensive, time-wasting criminal background check (for North Americans, at least).
And in the end, the two leading groups of English teachers on the peninsula were:
1) the Peace Corps (which ended in Korea in 1983, I believe) and
2) the Fulbright ETA progam, which is still going strong, but has never expanded past around 70-80 active members in middle and high schools because of concerns with quality control and obviously, the administrative overhead that would come with massive expansion.
There were never any need for criminal background checks, since the quality control comes in the process itself -- finding a pool of people who either have a strong interest in Korea or a drive to serve, have good backgrounds in general, from looking at everything from grades to the application essay, from extracurricular activities to the writing sample or proposal, and other things that a criminal background check doesn't affect, but are real factors that determine quality.
The real problem here is that these new regulations actually push everything in the opposite direction, at a time when the visa program should be liberalized, especially in light of the supposed idea to "globalize" Korean society.
That way, more people could come here as English teachers, learn about Korea and/or Korean, then naturally move into other sectors of society as their interests and abilities allow. But the way it is, you have to teach, teach, or teach, and it gets old after your early 20's.
Frankly, for both myself and most of my friends around me who are scriptwriters, artists, writers, freelancers, and other folks who came here initially to explore Korea, but often with teaching English as a bread-and-butter crutch, they're all F-class visa holders. Not because they're better, but because we don't have to teach a full-time job while trying to be a writer, photographer, or even open your own business.
All the stricter visa regulations mean, in the big picture, less globalization for Korea, and in terms of the more direct issue in question, a smaller applicant pool.
That goes without mentioning the inherent insult that goes with the fact that this all comes from the Korean idea that foreigners are "dangerous, diseased, or deranged."
Oh. Sorry for "bitching," Picasso.
