Thursday 7 April 2016

Going Native

A few weeks ago, while I was watching Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Bastards on TV I managed to get myself into a bit of a stand-off on Twitter whilst discussing the concept of native Vs non-native speakers as teachers. At first, the discussion was a bit of a side-note whilst I marveled at Christopher Waltz’s glorious mustache and equally glorious acting. However, after a while, the movie faded into the background and I got quite involved in the debate.

So, how did the discussion pan out? If I am brutally honest, I do not remember what dragged me into the debate. But, the discussion revolved around one account holder’s assertion that we now work in a highly discriminatory environment where non-native teachers are treated as second class citizens. There were a couple of others who were jumping in and arguing that, because non-natives have had to learn English themselves, they are better equipped to empathize with and understand the needs of students. One lady also even chimed in with her view that the majority of ESL teachers had only taken up the profession because they had failed in other fields and that a good chunk of male ESL teachers only decided to teach as a way of meeting female students.
It is safe to say that I didn’t agree with everything I heard. However, there were some very relevant points in there. Yet, probably the thing that struck me most about the whole discussion was the strength of feeling held by some non-native speakers. before I got myself entangled in the debate, I really didn’t get how pi$$ed off some non-natives were – words like injustice and discrimination are pretty strong and were used a lot.
For the record, I tried to be fair and balanced with my comments in the discussion. I agreed that some ESL teachers have only started to teach because their careers in marketing or in PR fell foul of the financial crisis. I also fully concurred with the idea that having the experience of learning a language yourself really does help you in the classroom. In fact, it is a question I always discuss in interviews. It is true that there are too many native-speakers who speak only English and are a little too one-dimensional because of that (I speak passable, if not fluent, French in case anyone was wondering). I also countered that the comment about male teachers may be true of a small percentage of men in some countries, but went on to add that it was short-sighted, ignorant and offensive to the vast majority (for the record the lady who made that statement did not reply to my comment).
I feel I am pretty well placed to weigh into this discussion and look at both sides of the argument. I currently work in UAE and head a team with no purely native-speakers; aside from me it is all non-native. Before that, I worked for Wall Street Institute where corporate policy – in many countries – is for native-speakers only. And, if I can have a moment of honesty and confession, I got into this whole racket because I was de-motivated with my job in newspapers … Obviously, I then grew to love teaching English. So, where do I stand?
190184_4531647729_1870_n
TEACHING WITH MISS CHOI IN KOREA – A FANTASTIC NON-NATIVE TEACHER

I believe that there is no single correct answer here. The impression many of the contributors to the debate gave was that across the globe there are thousands of non-native teachers who are truly wonderful at their jobs but are being denied employment by a string of drunk, unqualified, incompetent, womanizing native-speakers. I am exaggerating a little here for effect, but some of the comments were not too far away from that. I don’t think this is true. There are some great native speakers and there are some stinkers. However, the same is also true of non-natives. I would like to look at a few key points in the discussion:

MARKETING

Let’s get this one out of the way first because it is a bug-bear for many non-natives, often with much justification. Lots of schools like to trot out their native-speakers as a big marketing tool and a way of differentiating them from the competition next door. Wall Street use this as point number one in their marketing. However, the idea is not confined to global chains. When I worked in Korea way back in 2004, my wongjannim (Headmaster) greeted me upon my arrival and said: “Now we have foreigner, more students come” (He actually said it like that as his English was not so great). When the competing school also hired a teacher from England, we retaliated by hiring a second (and patently superfluous native-speaker). There is not much I can say about using native speakers for marketing. It happens a lot and is the key reason we have the atmosphere of ‘discrimination’. As we speak you can watch videos of me promoting my universities English courses here in Dubai. Just because it is good for marketing does not mean it is great for education … also I am not sure videos of my ugly mug are good for marketing either.
200024_4226367729_8955_n
MY SCHOOL IN KOREA WHERE I ALMOST PURELY A MARKETING TOOL

MOTIVATION

“Many of these imposters did not even want to be teachers, they were just losers who couldn’t find another job”. This is the first area where I take issue. It is true, there are many native-speakers who just use EFL as a way of travelling for free and are not so dedicated to their students’ progress. I can’t argue with that. In fact, I started out like that. But, the above quote is hugely one-dimensional. First of all, not all native-speakers are there just because they couldn’t get a better job in England or the US. And, second, some may start looking simply to travel or make a little cash, but they will often soon grow to love teaching.

… OR EQUIVALENT

This, for me, as a DOS is the big area to look at. It is also one I think many non-native speakers do not give enough attention to. I discussed with many of the people on Twitter the wording of job adverts. I concurred that they should not simply say “Native Speaker”. The caveat “Or equivalent” should certainly be added. It is what I write on my job ads. But, and here is the big issue here. It really does have to be “equivalent”. This is an extract from an actual job application I received last month:
“I HAVE EXCELLENT COMMUNICATION SKILLS BOTH VERBAL AND WRITTEN AT ALL LEVELS, REGARDING MY VERBAL SKILLS, I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND AGE GROUPS THROUGH MY ROLES IN TEACHING AND TRAINING, REGARDING MY WRITTEN SKILLS, I HAVE BEEN PREPARING AND PRESENTING THE TEACHING MATERIAL IN AN EASY, INTERESTING AND UNDERSTANDABLE MANNER THROUGH MY ROLE AS AN ENGLISH TEACHER, ALSO, I HAVE BEEN PREPARING STUDENTS’ CENTERED ACTIVITIES, AS I BELIEVE IN TEACHING THROUGH USING STUDENTS’ CENTERED ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GROUP AND PAIR DISCUSSIONS, ROLE PLAY AND WORK SHEETS WHERE STUDENTS DISCUSS TOGETHER THE ACTIVITIES, IN ADDITION…” (IT WENT ON FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT A FULL-STOP)

If you were a paying customer would you want this person – who cannot write in sentences – teaching you English? Thought not.
So, where does this all leave us? I don’t think there is any great conclusion to draw on either side of the debate. And, I have only touched on this issue briefly, I acknowledge that. But, I would argue that it is far more complex than both sides of it would have us believe. Native-speakers are certainly not the be all and end all. We certainly should not discriminate against non-natives. But, some of the notions of noble non-natives being unfairly discriminated against are also pretty damn fanciful.
As a footnote, I hope everyone has noticed I have steered clear of discussing translation in class and whether this is something that is encouraged by employing non-native speakers. Equally, I have pulled away from the idea of native-speakers encouraging communicative mono-lingual environments. These are important, but they are debates for another day.