Background
I first came across Robert Philipson’s book Linguistic Imperialism during term one of my M.Ed TESOL course at the University of the West of Scotland when I undertook a course titled, English as a Global Language. Being an L1 speaker of English, I have always been aware of the seemingly omnipresent nature of English in the world. However, Phillipson’s analytical meandering through time and events laid bare the framework upon which English as a global language and the ELT profession rests. Phillipson discusses linguicism and describes it as ‘ideologies, structures, and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language’ (Phillipson, 1992:47). From Phillipson’s definition, one can identify the symbiotic relationship between proprietorship and commodification of a language. Defining a language within strict parameters that can only be mirrored by those who share specific characteristics with the definer, results in monopolisation. This monopolisation, or structured proprietorship by any other name, fuels the commodification of English and thus the conferral of monetary benefits offered by capitalism to its proprietor. The role of inequality within a neoliberal structure Neoliberalism, as the result of unfettered capitalism, is an ism of an ism. Not a sub-ism, rather a concentration of what came before. Neoliberalism is the consequence of minimal regulation and markets defining people by their monetary value as consumers (Monbiot, 2016). Within a neoliberalist market, ‘inequality is recast as virtuous’ (Monbiot, 2016). The proprietorship and subsequent neoliberal commodification of English requires a dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’. Block et al (2012) examines the links between neoliberalism and applied linguistics. Their assessment of the position of the world of applied linguistics through the lens of neoliberal influence reveals an array of dichotomies and inequalities, specifically within the ELT and language teacher education industries. When unjust constructs are allowed to thrive This leads us, rather unsurprisingly, to another ism, native-speakerism. As with linguicism, the concept of native-speakerism was introduced to me during my English as a global language module. ‘Native-speakerism’, a term coined by Holliday (2006), is used to describe the preferential treatment which ‘native’ English-speaking teachers tend to receive over ‘non-native’ English-speaking teachers. Such privileges include, but are not limited to, greater access to employment opportunities, whilst ‘non-native’ speakers are often held to higher standards (Kubota 2002, Mahboob 2004, Clark and Paran 2007). Holliday used the term ‘othering’ to describe the creation of this ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ construct. The psychological effects of ‘othering’ on ‘non-native’ teachers have since been widely studied. Bernat (2008), identified the feeling of impostor syndrome held by ‘non-native’ speaking teachers. Suarez (2000) discussed the significance of the prefix ‘non’, and its impact on ‘non’-native teachers. He labelled the resulting feelings of inadequacy experienced by ‘non-native’ teachers as, ‘I-am-not-a-native-speaker syndrome’. There is currently growing resistance to the terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ and consequently they are being increasingly rejected as acceptable terminology. Jenkins (2017) expresses the frustration that a universal alternative term has not yet been established and utilises inverted commas when using the terms ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ to draw attention to their unsuitability. ‘Native-speakerism’ in action Prior to undertaking the English as a global language module at UWS, I had not been aware of the term ‘native-speakerism’ or its effects. I share an English class with a ‘non-native’ English teacher, and I have never considered her less of an English teacher because of her ‘non-native’ status. In fact, I never considered the ‘nativeness’ of her status at all. However, on learning about ‘native-speakerism’ I was able to reflect with new light on previous interactions with her during which she had displayed clear signs of the impostor syndrome. I also reflected on my own experiences as a teacher with ‘native’ status in the ELT industry. One such experience was with a teacher recruiter for a summer school in Italy. I had applied for a short-term position and was automatically rejected by the recruiter as she had made the assumption, based on my name, that my L1 is Italian and my L2 is English, when in fact the opposite is true. On correcting this misconception, I was then asked to produce my British passport by way of indisputable evidence. At the time, I hadn’t given the interaction much thought. However, when I reflected on this event after learning about ‘native-speakerism’, I realised that I had momentarily been in the shoes of a ‘non-native’ teacher. I had been immediately discounted based on an accident of birth, with no importance put on my qualifications or ability to teach. My British passport that I had used on many previous occasions to gain entry into a different country could also apparently grant me access to an entire industry with teacher recruiters acting as border guards. Isms breed isms. As capitalism harvests the monetary gains available from linguicism, neo-liberalism and its dependency on inequality requires the ’othering’ of ‘non-native’ English teachers, all the while allowing ‘native’ teachers to enjoy the benefits of nepotism. My context and study findings Given this background and my experience, I wanted to look at issues in ‘native-speakerism’ within my own context. For my master’s dissertation, I carried out an ethnographic study titled: Native and non-native speaker teacher roles and identities from the perspective of adult Russian English Students. Teacher recruiters often cite student preference as the reason for native-speakerist ELT adverts. Due to this, many studies have sought to uncover student perceptions of their ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ teachers. However, Russian populations were comparatively under-researched with most studies covering China, South-East Asia, Turkey, and Poland most recently. I carried out a focus group and one-to-one interviews. Although the focus of my questions was to generate the data I needed to answer my research question, the qualitative nature of my research allowed for the exploration of other salient data. The findings of my study showed that students perceive their ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ teachers as equally valuable, but with distinguishable roles in the classroom. Participants expressed the belief that ‘non-native’ teachers have more of a role at the beginning of the language learning process, with ‘native’ teachers being introduced at a later stage. This ‘nonnative’-to-‘native’, beginner-to-more advanced continuum was expressed by most participants. However, none could determine the ‘native’-to-‘nonnative’ crossover of responsibilities. The study uncovered that this perception is rooted in students’ opinions about the effectiveness of teachers’ pedagogical approaches, with their ‘non-native’ teachers being associated with the grammar-translation method and ‘native’ teachers being associated with the direct method. The participants firmly held the belief that pedagogy was linked to native status as opposed to being two independent factors. Beyond native status ‘Native-speakerism’ was a recurring theme throughout the findings, with a participant commenting on the preference of teacher recruiters for ‘native’ speakers, specifically from the UK or US, a finding which is well established within the current body of literature (Selvi, 2010). This participant, a ‘native’ teacher from Nigeria, recounted several occasions where her colour was cited as the reason she was either not given a position or rejected from a pre-arranged interview on arrival. Her experiences were limited to interactions with private English schools based in Russia. However, she accepted this as the norm stating, “it’s something that I’ve received quite often. So, I just expect it and let it go”. This same participant went on to describe her self-imposed behaviour of reducing her accent to sound more American or British, a habit which she felt would avoid any confusion on the part of her students. This participant was arguably displaying signs of impostor syndrome, which was linked to ‘non-native’ teachers by Bernat (2008). Issues of race and accent in the ELT industry are being increasingly studied and explored. Vijay Ramjattan (2017) builds on the previous work of Bernat (2008), Llurda (2015), and Medgyes (1983) by identifying the negative impacts that working in a racialised environment has on English teachers of colour. My study identified and discussed the issues of native status and colour, both collectively and independently. One participant ranked teacher recruiter preference from most to least desirable as: white ‘native’ speaker, white ‘non-native’ speaker, and black ‘native’ speaker. She couldn’t comment further as her experience was limited to these definitions. Employer preference for white appearance has also been established in the literature, particularly by studies with a focus on English-language schools in East Asia (Ruecker and Ives 2014; Appleby 2013; Appleby 2016). However, the preference for white ELT teachers over ELT teachers of colour, regardless of native status, draws into question the use of the term ‘native-speakerism’. It could be argued that, in some instances, the preference for teachers with ‘native-speaker’ status is in some instances acting as a disguise for a preference for white teachers. Within the ELT industry the term ‘native-speakerism’ and its place as a racist ideology, is increasingly known and understood (although outwith the context of the industry, it remains a peculiar and unfamiliar phrase). Social media has provided a public platform where English language schools are frequently openly challenged if they display native-speakerist recruitment practices. It could be argued that removing industry-specific jargon like ‘native-speakerism’ and replacing it with a layman term such as racism, could help other stakeholders like students and parents better understand its significance. If native-speakerist teacher recruitment adverts were challenged for being racist instead of native-speakerist, would English language schools be keener to disengage from its practice? Have you ever been witness to or been the victim of native-speakerist recruitment practices? Please share your reflections on your own experiences either under this post or on our ‘Emerging Voices win ELT’ Padlet as well as feel free to share this post on Twitter. Don’t forget to tune in during our EAP4SJ Tweet Meet on ‘Native-sepeakerism’ on Twitter on Tue 2 November 12pm-2pm UK time. Author: Tanina Baronello has recently completed her M.Ed TESOL at the University of the West of Scotland. She is a private ESOL teacher with a student body comprising predominantly of Russian post-secondary students. Her interests include; issues surrounding native-speakerism, racism with the ELT industry, corpus linguistics, and ELF. Having graduated in 2004 from Glasgow Caledonian University with a BA in Accountancy with Corporate Finance, she enjoyed a career as a business development manager in the UK private sector until 2018, when she retrained to pursue her dream of becoming a teacher. With a continued focus on CPD, she is currently a student of Strathclyde University’s part-time CCEd Italian course and is looking for PhD opportunities. References Appleby, R. (2013). Desire in translation: White masculinity in TESOL Quarterly , 47, 122-147. [Accessed: 14.09.2021] Appleby, R. (2016). Researching Privilege in Language Teacher Identity. TESOL Q, 50: 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.321 [Accessed: 14.09.2021] Bernat, E. (2008). Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syndrome’ among pre-service non-native speaker teachers in TESOL. English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal 11, p1-8. [Accessed: 25.10.2020] Block, D. Gray, J. Holbrow, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Clark, E. and Paran, A. (2007). The employability of non-native-speaker teachers of EFL: A UK survey. System, 35(4), pp.417-422. Doi: 10.1016/j.system.2007.05.002 [Accessed: 4.11.2020] Holliday, A. (2006). Native-speakerism. ELT Journal, 60(4), pp.385-387. Doi: 10.1093/let/ccl030 [Accessed: 03.08.2021] Jenkins, S. (2017). The elephant in the room: discriminatory hiring practices in ELT, ELT Journal, Volume 71, Issue 3, July 2017, Pages 373–376, https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccx025 [Accessed: 13.09.2021] Kubota, R., (2002). The Author Responds: (Un)Raveling Racism in a Nice Field like TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 36(1), p.84-90. Llurda, E. (2009) “6. Attitudes Towards English as an International Language: The Pervasiveness of Native Models Among L2 Users and Teachers: “. English as an International Language: Perspectives and Pedagogical Issues, edited by Farzad Sharifian, Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, pp. 119-134. Mahboob, A. (2004). Demystifying the native speaker in TESOL. SPELT Quarterly, 19(3). [Accessed: 03.08.2021] Medgyes, P. (1983). The schizophrenic teacher1. ELT Journal. 37. 10.1093/elt/37.1.2. Monbiot, G. (2016). Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-mo nbiot. [Accessed: 02.08.2021] Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford [England: Oxford University Press. Ramjattan, V, A. (2019) Racist nativist microaggressions and the professional resistance of racialized English language teachers in Toronto, Race Ethnicity and Education, 22:3, 374-390, DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2017.1377171 [Accessed: 09.08.2021] Ruecker, T. and Ives, L. (2014). White Native English Speakers Needed: The Rhetorical Construction of Privilege in Online Teacher Recruitment Spaces. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), pp.733-756. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.195 [Accessed: 25.08.2021] Selvi, A. F. (2010). All teachers are equal, but some teachers are more equal than others: Trend analysis of job advertisements in English language teaching. WATESOL NNEST Caucus Annual Review , 1, 155-181. [Accessed: 01.08.2021] Suarez, J. (2000). Native and Non-native: Not only a question of terminology. Humanizing Language Teaching. 2(6). http://old.hltmag.co.uk/nov00/mart.htm [Accessed: 15.08.2021]
0 Comments
Close Encounters with the Consequences of ‘Native-speakerism’: Reflections and Actions-on.10/21/2021 ‘Native-speakerism’ is something that ELT is trying desperately to move away from, although efforts are, in my opinion, still not enough. It still seems that we as a global ELT community hold a widely-espoused belief: ‘native speakerism’ is wrong! – yet, the industry, or should I say, certain members, continue to promulgate the idea of the ‘native speaker’ being the ideal teacher, even when anywhere near eighty percent of teachers fall into the ‘non-native’ category (Cangarajah, 2005). There has been much research and numerous studies on the changing face of ELT, looking at the interactions in English and why the ‘native speaker’ teacher need not be the perfect or, in fact, correct model. But the aim of this article is not to take you through the research; rather, it is to share with you two encounters I, as a teacher trainer, had in the previous academic year regarding the consequences of ‘native speakerism’ and how I reacted to these. These consequences relate to teacher identity, feelings of inferiority and perceived credibility, and I feel that they are underrepresented in the ‘native/non-native speaker’ story. I aim to provide a list of what I call ‘actions-on’, which hopefully will help others deal with similar situations.
Experience 1: An interview With the end of the academic year fast approaching here in Spain, we were looking for teachers to replace those that would move on from our private language academy. One of the interviews my director of studies and I carried out was with a Vietnamese teacher, and it left me quite shocked but also very proud, if you will, of the strength that this teacher displayed. It also left me a little dismayed. As the interview started, introductions were carried out, questions were asked, and she completed a speed teaching activity. Then came the time to speak about why she wanted to join our team, and she mentioned the usual: the academy is development-focused, in the right location, etc. But then she said, ‘My previous employer was very good. She was happy for me to teach even though I look how I look. So, I am happy to teach for you as long as you’re happy with me looking Asian’. Now, what would you do in a similar situation? My director and I were gob smacked – she had just confronted an industry-wide bias in a way that she felt was going to help her. We said that her looks were not important and that her teaching experience, qualifications and drive to develop were what we were looking for. But I kept thinking, ‘wow – that takes some guts’. At the end of the interview, I congratulated her on the way she held herself, and I wished her the best of luck. We offered her a job, but, unfortunately, she turned it down due to time commitments. After some time, I sat down to reflect on the situation. It seems clear to me that this teacher, although more than qualified, still felt her ‘non-native’ identity immediately put her in the second-class citizen boat. As Bernat (2008) writes, many Non-Native English Speaking Teachers (NNESTs) create their own ‘inferior’ personal discourses and identity, and it seems as if in her mind her identity lacked the credibility of a ‘native speaker’, regardless of her qualifications. What’s interesting is that she is not alone; in a survey conducted amongst 450 NNESTs (Rajagopalan, 2005 cited in Bernat, 2008), some 52% felt disadvantaged regarding career opportunities. In another survey (Chase Aleixo, 2020) of a group of 500 teachers (both NEST and NNEST), 56% of NNESTs noted that when searching for jobs they had been rejected because of their nationality. This naturally has consequences, such as leading NNESTs to take on less desirable jobs, selling themselves for less (not only financially but morally), and helping create a dynamic in which a certain group of teachers is marginalized and made to feel inferior simply for their place of birth, regardless of their professional competence or language proficiency. Perhaps the first step forward here is reflecting on our own identities as language teachers? So, how do you see yourself, and what impact do you feel this has had on your career? And how might you have dealt with this situation? Experience 2: Name changing Earlier in the year, I ran an external workshop that focused on teaching in diverse classrooms. The group of teachers I was working with were all career NNESTs, having been teaching English for fifteen to twenty years, and had high levels of English (all CEFR B2+). As with all my external workshops, I like to get to know who I am working with. We went around the online room and introduced ourselves while at the same time writing information about ourselves on a Padlet wall. I noticed that one of the teachers had two names: Isabella/Samantha (anonymised). Here in Spain, it is quite normal to meet people who go by their second name, so I simply thought that she had written both her names, but I asked anyway. She said that she had created Samantha so that her students would not react poorly and so that she could get more jobs as an English teacher. In essence, her Spanish identity was not appropriate enough, from her perspective, for the role that she had taken on. Again, I was confronted with a situation to which I was unprepared to respond. At that moment I valued the integrity of the workshop and its aims so I chose not to go deeper into her motivations or try to help this teacher understand that she should not feel that way and that she and her identity were not the problems – and so all I said was, ‘ok, that’s interesting’. Did I do the right thing? Selvi (2019, p.188) writes that teacher education “programs have an important role to play in [teacher identity] and addressing equity in ELT contexts around the globe”, and as such I know there was more I should have done as a teacher educator. Some options could have been to create a space within the workshop for the discussion of teacher identity or contact the teacher after and redirect her to NNEST support networks (e.g. TEFL Equity Advocates). In short, I know that what I did was not enough. What would you have done? Actions-on Looking back on these experiences, I now believe that there is a need to define ‘actions-on’, a term taken from my military background that means actions that are carried out when something occurs; in this case, encounters with the consequences of ‘native speakerism’. It is difficult, however, to create a set of ‘actions-on’ that are appropriate for all contexts, so please be aware that some may need to be modified depending on where these encounters happen. Dealing with NNESTs identity issues in interviews – Understand that most NNESTs are likely to have encountered discrimination previously. – Acknowledge that they have been discriminated against but emphasise that their nationality or language background is not a qualifying factor in the interview – their experience, professionalism and qualifications are! – Encourage them to not see themselves as a ‘non-native’ teacher; rather, encourage them to see themselves positioned along two continua: competence in language teaching and language proficiency (Pasternak and Bailey, 2004 cited in Selvi, 2019). – Lead them to places where they can be guided through the process of changing their ideas about their teaching identity. For example, Marek Kiczkowiak from TEFL Equity Advocates has a course that is specifically designed to help NNESTs gain employment in the industry, tackle ‘native speakerism’, and feel more confident in themselves. Dealing with name changing – Again, it is important to understand that the teacher has most likely encountered discrimination due to ‘native speakerism’. – Acknowledge their choice to have their ‘second’ name, but ask them why. Explore their values, beliefs and attitudes behind this choice. – If the context permits, ask them about the message this sends to learners of English. That is, it would seem that even if one becomes proficient in the language, they may still have to sacrifice part of their identity to fit into the ‘language’ community. This, however, is not the case – or should not be anyway! – If the teacher is open to discussion, ask them about what it would take for them to feel comfortable in using their name. – Be ready to acknowledge that at the end of the day it is the teacher’s choice and no one can dictate to them what they need to call themselves. – Redirect them to NNEST support networks such as NNEST of the month blog and The Non-Native English Teacher Facebook group Final thoughts As Widdowson (2003) writes, if NNESTs are continuously feeling this sense of distress and inadequacy, this has very negative effects on the teachers themselves, their teaching, their learners, and the industry as a whole. The issues here are very complex and multi-layered; however, it remains clear that even though ‘native speakerism’ is still rife within ELT, there are things that we as teachers, trainers, managers, directors, etc., regardless if we are ‘native’ or ‘non-native’ speakers, can do to help rid the industry of this ugly disease, promote multilingual competencies in our teachers and learners, and gain ground in the fight for equality within the industry. These two situations are but a minority of the majority, and there are many more that need their own set of ‘actions-on’. Perhaps you have had similar experiences, either as someone who has encountered such consequences or as someone who has been discriminated against – what ‘actions-on’ would you define? I would encourage all of us to reflect on our positions and ask ourselves how we should react in situations such as these, ensuring that we are always prepared to deal with such consequences and, hopefully, reconceptualise and deconstruct the disempowering rhetoric of the ‘native/non-native’ dichotomy. Please share your story in the comments below or contribute to the Emerging Voices Padlet here. Next week, we’re releasing another blog revolving around ‘native-speakerism’ – stay tuned! There will be also an opportunity to contribute to @EAP4SJ Tweet Meet discussion on ‘native-speakerism’ on Tuesday 2 Nov 12-1pm UK time with the authors of these two blogs. We’ll try to determine to what extent this reality is also present in the EAP sector. Author: Jim Fuller is a teacher, trainer, manager and blogger who has taught extensively throughout Italy and Spain. His interests lie in teacher education, task-based language teaching and developing learner autonomy. When not enjoying the insights of a good book or eating tapas at a local bar, one can find him blogging at spongeelt.org, often sharing his insights into teacher training and teaching. He has completed various development courses including the Cambridge Delta and is currently completing his Master’s in Professional Development for Language Education. Follow Jim on Twitter @elt_sponge. References: Bernat, E. (2008). Towards a pedagogy of empowerment: The case of ‘impostor syndrome’ among pre-service non-’native speaker’ teachers in TESOL. English Language Teacher Education and Development Journal, 11, 8. Cangarajah, A. S. (2005). Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum. Chase Aleixo, C. (2020, September 30). ‘native speaker’ism: Discriminatory Practice or Response to Market Demands? BridgeUniverse – TEFL Blog, News, Tips & Resources. https://bridge.edu/tefl/blog/native-speakerism-discriminatory-practice-or-response-to-mar ket-demands/ Selvi, A. F. (2019). The ‘non-native’ teacher. In The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education (pp. 184–1989). Routledge. Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford University Press. To come out, or not to come out? This is the question I have been facing for as long as I can remember. Born and bred in Poland, the most homophobic country in the EU (Rainbow Europe, 2021), I had stayed in the ‘closet’ for most of my life. It was not until I arrived in the UK that, at the age of 24, I mustered up enough courage to come out to my family and friends. Although I have come a long way in terms of self-acceptance and openness, I have not been brave enough to come out to my learners. I work as an ESOL teacher in the North of England, with learners aged 14-16. Many of them are of Asian, African and Eastern European origin, which increases my wariness even more, as I am aware their backgrounds may be even more homophobic than Poland. Consequently, I go to great lengths to hide this particular part of my identity from them, convincing myself I’m not obliged to share my personal life with anyone. Nevertheless, I simultaneously feel that, as a language teacher, I am, in a way, limited. I can’t, for instance, use personal stories as teaching opportunities, or build better relationships with my students by being honest with them. This inability to be a ‘whole’ person in the classroom and the constant fear of being ‘caught red-handed’ by my learners made me question the suitability of my identity for the teaching profession many times. It also inspired me to embark on a personal quest (which took the form of my MA dissertation project) to investigate whether other LGBTQ+ English language teachers working in the UK face similar issues, bearing in mind the UK is a relatively tolerant country where LGBTQ+ people are legally protected by the Equality Act 2010 and can enter into civil partnerships/marriages and adopt children (Stonewall, 2018).
According to literature, language teachers’ identities are extremely multidimensional (Schutz et al., 2018), comprising such components as one’s place of origin, accent, race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation (Yazan & Rudolph, 2018). All of these might have an important impact on one’s teaching (Varghese et al., 2005). Kayi-Aydar (2019) argues the way teachers perceive themselves may tremendously influence their professional development/relationships, pedagogical choices and classroom practices, impacting their teaching abilities. Not having to conceal a significant part of one’s identity contributes to classroom dynamics and learning processes; open queer teachers may, for instance, illustrate the importance of honesty (Lander, 2018). For some, this may even be a precondition for successful/confident teaching, facilitating richer debates, enhancing student awareness/tolerance and encouraging them to express opinions more freely (Orlov & Allen, 2014). Although teachers’ sexuality may not be an appropriate classroom topic, it is easy for heterosexuals to mention their husbands/wives, and if a female teacher is married, her name is often prefixed with Mrs (Gray, 2010), which Connell (2015:69) calls “the invisible privileges granted straight teachers”. Contrastingly, many LGBTQ+ teachers have to declare their sexuality (Gray, 2010). Connell (2015) places them in three categories: Splitters try to separate their personal and professional life by staying in the closet. A “lack of discursive space” for non-heteronormative identities in the workplace usually renders them invisible and/or silenced (Gray, 2013a). Some do not know how/when to do it whereas others think it is inappropriate/unprofessional, too personal or irrelevant. Others claim educators should be ‘neutral’; worry about being pigeonholed or losing their students’ respect. One’s internalised homophobia may be a factor, too, and those working with children may fear accusations of ‘recruitment’ (i.e. trying to indoctrinate children into homosexuality) and/or ‘molestation’ (Connell, 2015; Snelbecker, 1994). Splitting may also impact one’s life decisions, e.g. living outside the catchment area (Lee, 2019). Knitters implement their queerness at work, which may range from coming out solely to colleagues to a full identity incorporation (Connell, 2015). Some carefully plan their disclosure, often integrating it into the curriculum (Leal & Crookes, 2018); others do it more casually/spontaneously, when good opportunities arise (Snelbecker, 1994). Usually, a friendly relationship with learners helps (ibid.). Many feel obliged to be visible/vocal LGBTQ+ role models (Henderson, 2017, Leal & Crookes 2018), educating learners about the LGBTQ+ myths and realities and combating homophobia/stereotypes (Snelbecker, 1994). For others, hiding is simply too costly emotionally (Gray, 2013a), making them feel inauthentic, hampered and stressed (Orlov & Allen, 2014). Moreover, self-disclosure can develop one’s rapport with learners; let them be their genuine selves and evoke greater feelings of fulfilment (Leal & Crookes, 2018). Quitters fail to achieve the above and cannot function as teachers at all, choosing a new career or moving into administration positions requiring less teacher-student interaction (Connell, 2015). As a firm ‘splitter’ myself, I wished to discover the percentage of ‘splitters’, ‘knitters’ and ‘quitters’ out there. To achieve this, I adopted a mixed-methods approach (Dörnyei, 2007). My study, conducted in 2020, was open to practitioners from various ELT settings including EAL in primary/secondary schools, ESOL in further education, and EAP at universities. In total, 35 queer-identifying teachers completed the survey and 4 took part in the follow-up semi-structured interviews. I used content analysis to quantify all the qualitative data (Dörnyei, 2007). The questionnaire revealed almost all of the LGBTQ+ questionnaire respondents (97%) thought their queer identity was compatible with their teaching role and they had never thought they should not be teachers because of it. However, only about half of them (54%) felt free to fully express their identities in the classroom. 29% felt limited at work due to their identities and 34% thought it has a negative impact on their quality of teaching. 31% felt they were in a worse position than their straight colleagues (in terms of teaching opportunities and feeling comfortable) and 37% sometimes felt jealous when their straight colleagues talked freely/openly about their personal lives. When asked about their private lives by learners (e.g. about being married), 63% of the LGBTQ+ teachers told them the truth. The interviews showed that the queer teachers found it easier to be fully themselves in the UK than in other countries, but also stressed the importance of their right to privacy. Interestingly, 23% of the LGBTQ+ respondents had made career decisions based on their queer identities; 6% made life decisions based on their queer status (e.g. buying a house outside the catchment area) and 11% suffered from mental health issues caused by being a queer teacher (e.g. stress/anxiety caused by hiding from students). While most of the questionnaire respondents were ‘out’ to all/most/some of their close friends (91%), family members (74%), colleagues (65%) and managers (57%), only 34% came out to all/most/some of their learners. Some of them neither manifested nor denied their sexuality. Those questionnaire respondents who had come out to their learners gave various reasons for this decision; the top three answers were: (1) to be a role model for LGBTQ+ learners (2) to broaden learners’ cultural knowledge (3) to educate learners about LGBTQ+ myths and realities. The ‘role model’ factor was particularly emphasised by the interviewees. The top three coming out strategies among the questionnaire respondents were: (1) spontaneously, when a good opportunity presents itself (2) wearing an LGBTQ+ symbol, or having it in the classroom (3) establishing a rapport with learners first. The significance of a friendly relationship was highlighted by the interviewees. Moreover, none of the ‘out’ questionnaire respondents reported negative reactions from their learners; on the contrary, the reactions were either positive/mostly positive (65%) or neutral (35%), which was confirmed by the interviews. Those survey respondents who were not ‘out’ to any/some of their learners provided several reasons, however, the top three answers were: (1) to avoid confrontation with culturally/religiously conservative learners (2) feeling this is not relevant/important to their teaching role (3) to avoid confusing learners with limited cultural knowledge. The interviewees additionally emphasised people’s ignorance and traditional views. My small-scale research suggested about half of the LGBTQ+ teachers based in the UK are feeling comfortable to fully express their identities in the workplace. Most of them seem to accept themselves and feel comfortable in their own skin, and very few made career/life decisions based purely on their queerness, which suggests more and more of queer teachers are determined to live and work wherever they like. Nevertheless, although most of the LGBTQ+ teachers are ‘out’ to their colleagues, only 1/3 have come out to their learners; therefore, they could be described as ‘splitters’. The main reason given was to avoid conflict with religiously conservative learners who have limited cultural competence. This therefore implies that teaching international learners in the UK may involve extra obstacles for queer teachers, which may be less the case for non-ELT contexts. Those LGBTQ+ teachers who do come out to their learners do so for various reasons but mostly to act as role models for potential queer students. Others come out as they feel obliged to educate learners and broaden their horizons. Depending on the situation, my participants used a variety of coming out strategies; however, it was confirmed that developing a close bond with learners is crucial for one’s coming out decision. Interestingly, none of the ‘out’ respondents/interviewees reported negative reactions to their coming outs, which might suggest that being an openly queer teacher is not such a ‘big deal’ as one might imagine, or, simply, that these teachers felt comfortable with their students and knew them well enough to gauge that they would take this information well. This would therefore imply that the tutors who didn’t tell their students did so as they had accurately predicted that for their specific student group this wouldn’t go too well. It seems it would make a huge difference if more LGBTQ+ teachers were brave enough to come out and fully embrace their identities. Personally, I have not yet officially come out to any of my learners, although I am sure most of them have an inkling. Am I going to? Definitely. It is just a matter of time. And courage. If there are any LGBTQ+ English language teachers reading this article, I have several questions for you. Are you ‘out’ to your learners? Why? Why not? Do you openly discuss your personal life in class when suitable? Are there any limitations? Please share your story in the comments below or contribute to the Emerging Voices Padlet here https://padlet.com/eap4socialjustice/zwyhw6oji4pq5rlf. If you’d like to contribute to @EAP4SJ Tweet Meet discussion, we’re launching our first #EAP4SJ #EmergingVoices Tweet Meet on Monday 11 October 2021 at 1:15 – 2:15pm BST – you’ll also be able to join the Twitter event later if the time is unsuitable. We’re looking forward to hearing from you! Author: K. is an English language practitioner working in West Yorkshire, England. Having previously taught EAL within secondary education, he is currently teaching ESOL at an FE college to learners aged 14-16. In the future, he would like to pursue a career in higher education, as an EAP tutor. He holds both the Cambridge DELTA and a Master’s degree in English Language Teaching. His most recent academic interests centre around language teacher identity and queer pedagogy, and their implications for the ELT classroom. So far, he has published two articles. References: Connell, C. (2015). School’s Out. Gay and Lesbian Teachers in the Classroom. California: University of California Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Equality Act (2010). Chapter 15. Available from: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf> [Accessed 30th July 2021]. Gray, E. M. (2010). ‘Miss, Are You Bisexual?’ The (Re)Production of Heteronormativity within Schools and the Negotiation of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Teachers’ Private and Professional Worlds. [Ph.D. Thesis]. Lancashire, UK: Lancaster University. Gray, E. M. (2013). Coming out as a Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual Teacher. Negotiating Private and Henderson, H. (2017). Silence, Obligation and Fear in the Possible Selves of UK LGBT-Identified Teachers. Gender and Education, 31 (7), pp. 1-17. Kayi-Aydar, H. (2019). Language Teacher Identity. Language Teaching, 52 (3), pp. 281-295. Lander, R. (2018). Queer English Language Teacher Identity: A Narrative Exploration in Colombia. Profile: Issues In Teachers’ Professional Development, 20 (1), pp. 89-101. Leal, P. & Crookes, G. V. (2018). “Most of my Students Kept Saying, ‘I never Met a Gay Person’”: A Queer English Language Teacher’s Agency for Social Justice, System, 79, pp. 1-11. Lee, C. (2019). How do Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Teachers Experience UK Rural School Communities? Social Sciences, 8 (249), pp. 1-14. Orlov, J. M. & Allen, K. R. (2014). Being Who I Am: Effective Teaching, Learning, Student Support, and Societal Change Through LGBQ Faculty Freedom. Journal of Homosexuality, 61 (7), pp. 1025-1052. Professional Worlds. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 13 (6), pp. 702-714. Rainbow Europe. (2021). Country Ranking. Available from: <https://www.rainbow-europe.org/country-ranking#eu> [Accessed 30th July 2021]. Schutz, P.A., Hong, J. & Francis, D. C. (2018). Research on Teacher Identity. Mapping Challenges and Innovations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Snelbecker, K. A. (1994). Speaking Out: A Survey of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Teachers of ESOL in the USA. [Master’s Thesis]. Brattleboro, Vermont: School for International Training. Stonewall. (2018). Global Workplace Briefings 2018. United Kingdom. Available from: <https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/uk_global_workplace_briefing_2018.pdf> [Accessed 30th July 2021]. Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B. & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing Language Teacher Identity: Three Perspectives and Beyond. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 4 (1), pp. 21-44. Yazan, B. & Rudolph, H. (2018). Criticality, Teacher Identity and (In)equity in English Language Teaching: Issues and Implications. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer International Publishing. |
Archives
May 2023
Categories
All
|