Hey, QUALIFIED Native English Speaker Teachers, it's not About You - and You Can Actually Help

Something I shared on LinkedIn quite recently caused an uproar. Certain members of the community felt offended and others rushed to tell me that I was doing the same or worse while trying to fight native-speakerism. I get it. The statement may sound very harsh if there's no context. I copied it verbatim from a headline in a(n) (in)famous article from BBC. The headline reads:

Native speakers are the world's worst communicators

The article cites experts like Chia Suan Chong and Jennifer Jenkins, a reference when it comes to English as a Lingua Franca. In fact, the article goes like this:

When trying to communicate in English with a group of people with varying levels of fluency, it’s important to be receptive and adaptable, tuning your ears into a whole range of different ways of using English, Jenkins says.

“People who’ve learned other languages are good at doing that, but native speakers of English generally are monolingual and not very good at tuning in to language variation,” she says.

If you read the whole article, you'll notice that it doesn't mention the word "teacher". Not a single time. So is it really prejudiced? Is it saying that native English Speaking Teachers are automatically worse and shouldn't be hired to teach English internationally? I really think the answer is NO. To me - there's a context behind my assumptions and I'll tell at the end - the article is simply saying what Jennifer Jenkins expressed above: Native speakers of English generally are monolingual and not very good at tuning in to language variation.

Also, Jenkins is not referring to all native speakers here. That's clear when you read her work or watch interviews. She's talking about two idealized versions of native speakers who became role models in the English Language Teaching industry for historical and cultural reasons. Americans and British nationals. For decades, big ELT publishers have reflected that dichotomy in their books by offering only the American and the British editions. If you've been teaching long enough, think for a second: who are the speakers in the listening activities and what do they sound like? How has it changed over the years?

Am I saying that there shouldn't be standards? By all means no. I actually think that materials should include AmE or BrE spelling and speakers from those countries in their listening activities. But not just the so-called General/generic American accent or RP. Where are all the Appalachians, the Southern folks, the Wyomites and the Texans? I'd love to hear more lads from Liverpool, Kent, Glasgow, and Bristol too. But that's not enough in a completely different world. Estimates show that most of the world is bilingual and that English is used far more often by non-native speakers for international communication than by native speakers. That means materials should include Latin Americans, Eastern Europeans, Africans, and Asians as well in their listening activities.

Maybe it's too much of a hassle for publishers. Maybe it's a market choice. I get that too. But there's another market decision that has been punishing qualified teachers for years. It's the blatant native-over-qualified choice expressed in most English job ads in the world. Many schools would rather hire a native speaker over a qualified non-native teacher. Read that sentence again. I wrote "a native speaker", that is, a person who was born in an English-speaking country - usually the USA, the UK, Canada, sometimes Australia or New Zealand.

There's a lot to unpack here. But simply put, hiring someone based on nationality or accent, market demand or not, is discrimination. And quite foolish to be fair. Worse even when the person is not qualified. Perhaps the idea is to keep up appearances. But that ideology is hurting millions of great teachers around the world - including native ones. If an unqualified US-born English teacher can get the job over a qualified US-born English teacher and get paid less, what does that say about these "market demands"? If the market favors a very specific type of native speaker and the research shows that they're more likely to be less intelligible/comprehensible in conversation with an international audience, what does the market know about the topic? Is the market really preparing students for the real world? Aren't schools and teachers supposed to use more authentic situations and not idealized - even mythological - scenarios?

You see, I don't know about you but I'm tired of seeing a world where teaching is considered a gig or unskilled job. A world where anyone can be considered a teacher without proper training. I'm also tired of a world where privilege and hierarchy dictate the rules and exclude people because of their nationality.

I promised you some context, right? So here it is.

I worked as a bilingual program mentor for over 2 years. I had to travel to different schools, train the English teachers, observe lessons, give them feedback, write reports, and talk to the families. Some teachers were certainly not good. But that didn't seem to matter as much as what they sounded like. I witnessed horrible things because of this impossible ideal people pursue. Families trying to get a teacher fired because of her accent or recording part of their lessons during the pandemic and sharing on YouTube to "humiliate" them - one of the mothers even sent a snippet of the recording to a friend who was getting a master's degree in applied linguistics to check if she could use it as evidence for a lawsuit.

But there's more context. I teach Introduction to Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, and Language and Cognition at the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná and the University of Caxias do Sul. My students and I discuss things like bilingualism, plurilingualism, and multilingualism. Additive, subtractive, recursive, and dynamic bilingualism. Monoglossia, diglossia, heteroglossia, and transglossia. Code-mixing, code-switching, and translanguaging. Prestige and heritage languages. How many of these terms have you studied? Which ones are new to you?

There's so much beyond the field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). There are also new SLA acquisition studies beyond the scope of traditional SLA theories. When we think about some of the paradigms and research tools in SLA, like grammaticality judgment tests based on the native ideal or the critical period hypothesis, how much of that looks at psycho and neurolinguistics? Authors like Ellen Bialystok, Jubin Abutalebi, Edna Andrews, Judith Kroll, and Ingrid Finger have shed light on many things recently. How familiar are you with their research?

The world has changed and so has what science can tell us about the language learning process. How many non-native speakers who are taught in accredited language institutions by both qualified native and non-native teachers get the C2 proficiency certificate every year? Is what matters the most how old they were when they started or how far they went? Do those taught by native teachers have a better shot at passing the exam?

Native-speakerism is bad because it emphasizes birthplace and not qualification. It is not about the individual. It's about the collective. It's about a very privileged group of people who are offered one of the most important jobs in the world simply because they exist, simply because they were born "in the right place". It might be a market demand but that doesn't make it any less harmful.

If you read that statement (in the BBC headline) and you felt offended, you really missed the point. It's not about you or about native speakers' communication skills in any context. It's about native speakers in a world of English as Lingua Franca, English as an International Language, World Englishes, and their communication skills when engaging with the vast majority of English speakers in the world - who happen to be non-native speakers. It's about privilege and discrimination. It's actually an invitation for you to reflect on the paradox. The paradox is that the world believes in a myth that prioritizes two nationalities put on a pedestal. These two nationalities, with their amazing cultural and linguistic varieties, have been condensed into an elitist ideal. This ideal is sold in a package to all those people who would like to learn English to communicate with the world. But this ideal represents a minority who is most likely monolingual and perhaps not even as educated as you might think.

So, basically, a minority of idealized monolingual English speakers has become the role model for everyone and, despite the incredible changes we've been through, that still remains. And to me, that's far more outrageous than the ambiguity of that headline. To me, it's like being outraged when someone says that women are underpaid or that white people are privileged. These are statements that speak up against the status quo - aggressively some might add, but reflect on that for a minute. There is a status quo and it's that qualified non-native English teachers can't get a job around the world because of their passports. Isn't that the aggression we need to speak up against? Isn't that aggression making far more victims worldwide?

I also beg people to stop saying that ambiguous - even aggressive - statements weaken or delegitimize the fight or make us "lose allies". I get that if you think someone is offending you personally, you're less likely to sympathize. But look at the bigger picture. It's not about you. Educate yourself, discuss, and ask before you accuse.

If you are a qualified English teacher from the USA or the UK, and you get angry or offended when someone points that out or questions your communication skills, rethink your privilege. The status quo favors you. You didn't even need to get all the qualifications you have to be hired over someone who spent years studying how to teach your language. Actually, no, not your language. Our language. Think for a minute. Did you get your job as a teacher because you're a native or because of your qualifications? Do you want people who do a job for you to be hired because of their skills or nationality?

And please don't get offended. You can help a lot. You're not the victim here. I know that if you're qualified, possibly bilingual, and experienced, you can be an amazing teacher. If it were up to me to decide whom to hire, I'd never disregard your CV just because you're a native speaker. But I would totally chuck your CV to hire someone more qualified than you who was born in a country where English is not an official language. You can help by promoting precisely that. You can explain it to your students, to your employers, to the publishing industry, and on social media posts.

You probably don't know me and what I do. Maybe you genuinely thought that reproducing that headline was an attack or a post to generate more views. Of course I want people to see the things I share, that's precisely why I share them. I think they're important and people can learn something. But my purpose is not to get people's attention at any cost. I don't want a million followers and I certainly don't want to share things that are deceitful. I want to help educators around the world. I want to impact students - not just English students. I want to empower people to use this language, new learning and teaching skills to do whatever they want - to become what they want to become. That's my record, my path, my legacy. I don't want to have kids, I don't want to become a millionaire, and I don't want to be anyone's hero. I want to teach and help others teach.

My request here is simple. Learn more about native-speakerism and support colleagues who are qualified. I'd love to take the time to explain more so I promise I'll write a series of blog posts with all the terms I've mentioned in this text, with the conclusions from the studies I based my university lessons on, and with resources for anyone to check and rethink their position. For now, I'll leave you with an interview with Marek Kiczkowiak, an expert who discusses and publishes frequently about this issue. After his remarks, you can find some interesting blogs and a reference list you can read to learn more about this ideology that has been harming teachers and our industry for decades.

I totally understand that you might think pointing out this issue like I did is too political or woke or something else. I also get that you might not agree we should do that or that it's actually going to change anything in the future. What I wrote is absolutely not revolutionary. It's moderate at best. There are people discussing this issue at conferences, protesting, and suing schools all over the world. And here we are. If things haven't changed much over the years, maybe we're not doing enough. I'll continue to discuss this with my students and write about it now and again. You can keep doing what you believe in. Just remember that the issue is probably not going away for a long time and that we're missing such a brilliant opportunity to make things better and benefit our industry as a whole.

First, while we tend to view “native speaker” teachers as superior, there is no evidence to support this. For example, it’s a myth that students will learn better pronunciation with a “native speaker.” Students will learn better pronunciation from a teacher who is trained to teach pronunciation.

Another common myth is that learning with a “native speaker” is better because students can learn about the target culture, and of course – as the myth would have it – only a “native speaker” can provide such insider knowledge. Even if it was possible to define what the “culture” of a language spoken officially in 60+ sovereign states is, it is also not true that any “native speaker” by definition is a better informant on this “culture” than any “non-native speaker” can ever be.

There is no evidence anywhere that your mother tongue correlates in any way with being a good or a bad teacher. This applies equally to those perceived as “native” or “non-native speakers.”

To leave you with some final food for thought, imagine you’re looking for a construction worker. A few women apply, but you reject them straight away, because women are supposedly not strong enough to be construction workers. Quite sexist, right?

Marek Kiczkowiak

Some references I use with my students

Braine, G. (2012). Non‐native‐speaker English teachers. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 1-5.

Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. The modern language journal, 91, 923-939.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge university press.

García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In Social justice through multilingual education (pp. 140-158). Multilingual Matters.

Graddol, D. (2006). English next (Vol. 62). London: British council.

Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT journal, 60(4), 385-387.

Houghton, S. A., & Rivers, D. J. (Eds.). (2013). Native-speakerism in Japan: Intergroup dynamics in foreign language education (Vol. 151). Multilingual Matters.

Jenkins, J. (2012). English as a Lingua Franca from the classroom to the classroom. ELT journal, 66(4), 486-494.

Mauranen, A. (2006). Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. 123-150.

Matsumoto, Y. (2011). Successful ELF communications and implications for ELT: Sequential analysis of ELF pronunciation negotiation strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 97-114.

Matsuura, H. (2007). Intelligibility and individual learner differences in the EIL context. System, 35(3), 293-304.

Munro, M. J. (2011). Intelligibility: Buzzword or buzzworthy?. Pronunciation in Second Language Learning and Teaching Proceedings, 2(1).

Rajagopalan, K. (2005). Non-native speaker teachers of English and their anxieties: Ingredients for an experiment in action research. Non-native language teachers: Perceptions, challenges and contributions to the profession, 283-303.

Sharifian, F. (2013). Globalisation and developing metacultural competence in learning English as an International Language. Multilingual Education, 3(1), 1-11.