The Hub of Sparkle!

Here, verbatim, is the document I sent to the three panel members. Feel free to look through it, in order to see the parameters I outlined, and the reasons I proposed this panel in the first place. Some of you might not like some of the things I say, some of you might think I missed something, but I am publishing it in order to be transparent, as I ask others to be transparent. Hopefully, you will be satisfied that both by writing, and publishing this document, I have demonstrated the utmost effort to be as fair and even-handed as  I can, to all parties involved in this panel.

1. Preamble:

Discussions about ATEK have gotten out of hand in other places, and the main place where it HAS been discussed is at Dave’s ESL Cafe, which is inherently mistrusted or avoided by many expats in Korea, because of its reputation for negativity. This is an attempt to gather the most salient points of each side into one place, in a readable, manageable size, so that people can find the information they are looking for and make an informed decision without having to spend six hours searching various sites and multiple pages of comment boards.

The three writers will be Pro-ATEK: Tom Rainey-Smith, President of ATEK. Undecided: Chris (PatrickGHBusan on Dave’s ESL Cafe) Anti-ATEK: Mike Yates (Scouse Mouse on Dave’s ESL Cafe)

In order to create an atmosphere of discourse, we will follow a format somewhat resembling the formal debate, involving rebuttal and questioning: I’m asking each representative to write twice: first with an opening statement responding to a series of questions I will send you. The questions are meant to focus the discussion, in order to stay focused on the topics and issues at hand, and avoid the pitfalls that have troubled other discussions of ATEK. After these questions have been answered (as concisely as possible, I hope), each party will have the opportunity to ask direct questions to the other parties involved in the discussion.

The second article I am asking each of you to write comes after the first three articles have been published. This second article will hopefully be similar to the rebuttal and questioning parts of a formal debate. You will have a chance to rebut the other parties’ arguments, as well as an opportunity to respond to the questions asked by them. Like the first set, these rebuttal/response articles will be published simultaneously, once I have received all of them.

In the spirit of fairness and transparency, I will send each party a copy of the questions I am asking each of the other parties. If there are glaring omissions in the questions I ask — areas you wish to cover that would not be covered just by answering my questions, you are welcome to request that I add one or several questions to your list. The other parties will be informed if you wish to change your question list. It is my hope that all the questions will be answered: I do not particularly wish to remove questions from any of your lists. Yes, I know some of the questions are tough. I don’t think I’m letting anyone off easy.

Because Tom is officially representing his organization, he may have some difficulties answering some of the questions, in terms of questions covering areas where ATEK does not yet have official policies. If this is the case, we have two options: A. he could divide his answer with “ATEK’s position is…; Personally, I think/hope…” in the good-faith hope that his official position and his personal views not be confused. B. If Tom does not wish to do this, if readers demand it, or if I judge it necessary, I reserve the right to recruit an ATEK supporter who is not serving ATEK in any official function to answer some of the Pro-ATEK questions from a lay-person’s perspective. I would not do this to give Pro an advantage: in order to represent what people are actually thinking about ATEK, there might be things that a lay-person could say that an ATEK representative could not, while writing in an official function.

2. Parameters of discussion, and guidelines for writing:

I hope to publish each of your articles exactly as you send them to me; if I need to change something, I will inform/consult you. To make it easier for me to publish exactly what you send me, please follow the parameters below.

A.  Please summarize your main points in an opening paragraph, so that I can have that above the “Click here to read more” icon used on longer Hub of Sparkle posts.

B.  Please remember that your points will be made most strongly if they are made with simplicity, brevity, and readability. You are free, even encouraged, to link to other sites if you wish (just put the URL in and I will format the links, or send me RTF files if you prefer), and you are also welcome to use bullet or numbered point form formatting: whatever aids the readability of your articles. As a general length guideline, keep in mind that blog posts above 2000 words do not often get read until the end, unless they’re very well-written, or formatted into very manageable bits of information (hence the many many questions). You are also encouraged to say “I discuss this in more depth in my answer to question XX” rather than repeating points.

C.  Please do your best to keep the discussion factual and your wordings as neutral/respectful to all parties, as possible. This includes groups or individuals which some believe have done extremely objectionable things. Personal comments run the risk of dragging this discussion back into the ugly areas it has gone in the past.

D.  Because he is no longer serving an official function in ATEK, Tony Hellmann’s character, and particularly his past, are not under close examination here: I wish this to be an evaluation of an organization, not an evaluation of the character of one person who no longer officially represents that organization. Allusions to his past may be unavoidable, but I wish to spend as little time on this aspect of the ATEK debate as possible; the future outlook of ATEK is more compelling, and of more interest to those wanting to learn more about it, than the pre-ATEK past of its former representative Tony Hellman. His behavior while representing ATEK, of course, is fair game. However…

E.  It’s my hope that this series will not just be a timely set of posts; try to write your posts bearing in mind that three years down the road, somebody might still google these articles while trying to make up his/her mind about joining ATEK; as such, focusing too heavily on the past, or on the character of people who will probably not be in executive positions at ATEK for much longer, while important right now, might date your arguments as time goes by.

Before I post these articles, I will set out very clear guidelines for commenting as well, because grudge matches do not benefit anyone.

3. Questions

Questions For the Pro-ATEK side:

1.  Can you give us a brief timeline of ATEK’s history from its first conception until now, as well as an outline of what to expect next, now that ATEK’s initial membership drive is completed?  (If you wish to publish this as a separate document, I can do that for you).
2.  How closely is ATEK paying attention to the criticisms leveled against it on comment boards and blogs?  What is ATEK doing to demonstrate accountability toward its critics?

The negative stuff

3.  Who exactly does ATEK represent, and what is being done to clarify whom it does and does not represent?
4.  From your side, please explain why the “Equal Checks For All” campaign generated so much negativity from certain quarters.
5.  What is/has been/will be done about the accusations of plagiarism in “The English Teacher’s Guide to Korea”?
6.  Up until this point, ATEK has been criticized as being “Three (now two) guys with a computer” … how would you respond to this criticism?
7.  How does the outlook for ATEK change now that Tony Hellmann has resigned?
8.  Are there any consistent threads of misinformation circulating about ATEK on which you would like to set the record straight?
9.  From what source do you expect to face the greatest resistance and opposition, if/as ATEK establishes itself and begins promoting its future goals?

The positive stuff:

10.  What are some ways ATEK can help 1. short term E-series English teachers, 2. long term E-series English teachers, 3. long-term F-series English teachers.
11.  What are some things ATEK has accomplished so far, and what how do you hope to build on those accomplishments?
12.  What are the most compelling reasons that you believe ATEK should exist, and can make a difference for English teachers in Korea?
13.  What are some of the long-term goals that ATEK either plans to work on, or MIGHT plan to work on, once it is organized into chapters and representatives?
14.  If you could travel back in time to the week before ATEK made its first media push, what would you do differently?
15.  Here is your chance to directly address ATEK’s detractors.  What would you like to tell, or ask them?
16.  Here is your chance to directly address those who are still undecided about ATEK: is there anything you like to tell or ask them?

Questions For the Undecided Side:

1.  How long have you been following ATEK in the media and online, and how closely?
2.  Was there a time when you were either more strongly for, or more strongly against ATEK, but then you changed your mind?  Please explain that decision.
3.  In your opinion, what actions of ATEK did the most damage to their case or credibility as an organization, and as advocates for English Teachers’ rights?
4.  In your opinion, what actions of ATEK have done the most to help their case or credibility as an organization, and as advocates for English Teachers’ rights?
5.  How could ATEK have started out differently, so that you would not have your current misgivings about it?
6.  What are your main misgivings about ATEK?
7.  What are your main hopes for what ATEK could become, in a best-case scenario?
8.  What changes would you need to see, to change from indecision to support of ATEK?
9.  How does Tony Hellmann’s resignation change the picture for you?
10.  Here is your chance to directly address Tom Rainey-Smith and other ATEK supporters.  What would you like to tell, or ask them?
11.  Here is your chance to directly address Mike Yates/Scouse Mouse, and also the other Anti-ATEK people at Dave’s ESL Cafe and elsewhere.  What would you like to tell, or ask them?

Questions For the Anti-ATEK Side:

1.  How long have you been following ATEK in the media and online, and how closely?
2.  How soon after their first media push did you decide you opposed them?
3.  Are you opposed to any kind of English Teacher’s advocacy group?  If yes, why?  If no, why not ATEK?
4.  How could ATEK have started out differently, in such a way that you would either be neutral or supportive, instead of against its formation?
5.  Please concisely summarize the main objections other commenters have with ATEK, the organization.  Use point form if you wish, to make your points as clearly and simply as possible.
6.  Please concisely summarize the objections you personally have with ATEK, the organization.
7.  How does the resignation of Tony Hellmann change the situation regarding ATEK’s formation and future plans?
8.  Why would you advise F-series visa holders, or others who disagree with, or dislike ATEK NOT to join ATEK and try to follow due organizational process to influence the organization’s agenda, once it is organized into chapters and representatives?
9.  Why don’t you believe ATEK will help improve the situation for English teachers in Korea?  For E-series visa teachers?  For F-series visa teachers?
10.  Do you believe ATEK should disband immediately?  If so, please give reasons for this.  If you do think ATEK should disband, what do you think should happen next for the sake of English teachers who are being scapegoated by the Korean media and exploited by their bosses?  Where should their help come from, if not ATEK?
11.  At this point, how much time, and what exactly, would it take, to restore your faith in ATEK as an organization advocating for the rights of English teachers?  If the answer to this question is nothing, and no amount of time, please briefly describe the kind of organization you WOULD trust to defend English teachers’ rights and reputation?
12.  Is there anything you would like to directly ask, or tell, ATEK, or its supporters?
13.  Is there anything you would like to directly ask, or tell those who remain undecided about ATEK?

That is the entire document I sent the three panel members as a groundwork for the articles they have submitted to me.  Other than correcting the occasional spelling error and some adjustments in formatting, I have published them exactly as I received them.  I do not believe I let anybody off easy, or loaded the questions in order to favor any of the panelists.

Read the Pro-ATEK essay by Tom Rainey-Smith here.

Read the Anti-ATEK essay by Mike Yates/Scouse Mouse here.

Read the Undecided essay by Chris/PatrickGHBusan here.

Back to the table of contents.

Please comment at the table of contents page.

Trackback URL