Reply to comment

With the kind permission of Scott Thornbury, whose heading I have taken the liberty of borrowing for the title of this post, I would like to add my own little piece of hand-wringing to the blogosphere. To help me make my point, I thought it best to establish a comparison with a different profession. Here is the story I want to tell you.

The protagonist is called Johnny. Picture him as a cute smiling young person or as an annoying cry-baby, this matters very  little. What matters is that both his parents are, say, architects. From a very tender age, Johnny has been surrounded by Architecture: dinner parties with architects, living room walls covered in wonderful architectural drawings and books, and so on. Many a family holiday spent visiting architectural jewels. Johnny does not show any strong feelings towards Architecture, neither positive, nor negative.  He just happens to live in a household and be part of a social environment oozing Architecture from every pore. When he leaves school, he goes with the flow and makes what seems like a natural decision to make, i.e. he goes to one of the local Colleges of Architecture. He does not like to do things by half, our Johnny, so he gets his Degree with very satisfactory results. And yet something is not right: he has never managed to develop more than a lukewarm interest in Architecture, so much so that he decides not to pursue a career as an architect. Nope.

Life outside home and college has taken Johnny along a different path: he gets involved in, let me think, maybe Refugee Rights. No, that is no good, no real connection there. Let's say he develops a passion for Art. What he wants to make a living on is Art. He wants to be an Artist with a capital letter and be recognised as one. He has taught himself a few techniques over the years -having learned how to draw in College- but, not satisfied with that, he gets a Bachelor's Degree in Arts and goes on a myriad of courses afterwards: applied arts, creative arts, oil painting, watercolour painting, you name, he has done it. He excels every time and gets congratulated over and over by all his teachers, classmates and colleagues, and also by whoever happens to see his work. They commend him not only because of his natural talent for the arts but also for his strong commitment, dedication and professionalism.

Will Johnny manage to make a name for himself as an Artist, do you think? He might or he might not, depending on a number of factors, but his career is likely to be an uphill climb all the way to the top. When people first see Johnny in action, many doors open for him. He feels full of zest and enthusiasm and starts to say to himself  "This is it, I have made it. All my efforts have paid and my work will finally bear fruit."

No such luck. Most of those doors are shut in a jiffy as soon as Johnny is found out. He is a fake, they will say, he is an impostor. What with both parents being architects and he pretends to be an Artist! Unheard of!  Shame on him! He had an architectural upbringing, who does he think he is betraying his background and his parents' teachings like that? The cheek of him! He should content himself with being an architect and leave Art to real artists, that is people whose parents are artists, or at least one of them, someone who learned Art as a child. Even twenty years later and despite the fact that he has never even joined the local Registration Body for Architects, he gets numerous calls inviting him to work as one, which he politely turns down. Only exceptionally is he commissioned to produce works of art. Only occasionally will he be referred to as Johnny the Artist; more often than not, people will still think of him as an Architect, a failed Architect perhaps. Johnny is a real fighter though: he keeps struggling to fight prejudice, to remain faithful to his passion and to reach his ultimate goal.

Does a story like this ring any bells? Here is a hint: replace Architecture with Spanish or any language of your choice, then replace Art with English and you will have the life story of thousands of English Language Teachers that are annoyingly discriminated against for the mere fact that they did not acquire the language (English, that is) as children, despite the fact they may have gained proficiency later in life as well as obtained high-level qualifications.

How come we are "condemned" to teach only our mother tongue? Why is it that other disciplines can be learned and taught, and a high level of specialisation can be reached later in life, but the same principle does not apply to ELT? The answer eludes me, time and time again.

Next time you are looking to engage a language teacher, think outside the box and look around for qualified professionals, regardless of their nationality. Do not fall for the "native teacher is always best" fallacy!