I’ve just been on
Dave’s ESL Cafe. Not because I want to work 60 hours a week in a ropey
kindergarten, but to see how companies are wording their recruitment ads these
days. And amongst others, I found:
______ is recruiting female full time
native-speaker teachers of English (Saudi
Arabia);
We are currently looking for a full-time native
English speaking teacher (Thailand); and
A small independent school in ______ is looking
for experienced NATIVE English teachers (Japan
– the caps are theirs).
So it seems that, yes,
in spite of brilliant recent work from TEFL Equity Advocates and others,
teachers are still being sought on the basis of their mother tongue instead of
their qualifications. I want to say categorically that I think this is wrong.
Utterly wrong. I’ve learned foreign languages from native speakers (NS) and
non-native speakers (NNS) and it’s been an insignificant factor in their
competence. The former are quicker on collocations, perhaps, while the latter
tend to have better grammatical awareness – but really, these are just stereotypes
that cancel each other out. I want a teacher who knows what they’re doing and
doesn’t stress me out. That’s it.
Click for bigger cartoon (credit http://www.itchyfeetcomic.com/) |
But the debate is
taking an interesting turn. Last month, Laura Soracco wrote a popular post
about doing away with the NS/NNS dichotomy altogether, which was picked up this
week in a heated (OK, gas mark 2) Twitter exchange between Russ Mayne and
others. Russ tweeted:
NS and NNS may be ‘flawed terms’ but that’s no
reason to stop using them.
…and to be honest, my
first reaction was oh Russ come on. So were several other people’s, apparently. Then I thought a bit more and realised
we’re in danger of conflating two separate conversations.
For recruitment
purposes, it’s pretty clear we should stop using the NS and NNS labels. They’re
vague, they’re used to discriminate, and the non- prefix can’t help but imply deviation from the 'normal' or the
desirable. Laura suggests proficient English
language speaker, bilingual or
multilingual as preferable terms to NNS, which any sensible person would surely
struggle to disagree with.
However. For real life
purposes, you know what? I’m not a proficient English language speaker. (Hang
on, wait for the rest.) I’m a native speaker. I’m a native bloody speaker, like a Dane speaks Danish or a Turk speaks Turkish. I can emit sounds in several other languages, but I'm far from bi- or multilingual. English is the language of
my dreams, my crap jokes, my blazing rows, my memories, my 3am confessions. For better or worse, it's the lens through which I see the world. Does that make me a superior teacher? Emphatically, no. But English is a massive, integral part of my
identity that also happens to be the
international language. Do I recognise all the unfair advantages conferred on
me because I grew up speaking it? Absolutely. But I can’t truly be sorry about something
as random as the circumference of my head, nor can I adopt, without hypocrisy, any made-up word that obscures or
downplays what I am. I am English; hear me roar!
The real point, I suppose,
is that we should have each others’ backs. It's not a zero sum game in which one group must be quashed for the other to rise (see also: feminism). At work it matters
not one iota whether we were, as kids, read bedtime stories or histoires or 物語, and it’s all of our responsibility to challenge prejudice against bilingual English
teachers in job adverts, from colleagues and students, or in the wider world.
But by the same token, when we’re out of school we should respect each others’ right
to define our own language use, however we see fit – and however flawed the
terms may be.