How international are international schools?
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:22 am
I've been wondering about this lately: how international are international schools *really*?
As a non-native speaking teacher, I confess I get a bit frustrated sometimes. There are lots of interesting international schools hiring here in Europe, but many of them put up one damning requirement: you have to be a native English speaker in order to apply.
Now I have my CPE, I've lived, studied and worked both in the UK and in the US and I'm absolutely fluent in the language both in written and in oral form, with but a minor, apparently rather indeterminable accent. In fact, I *think* in English. And apart from that, I've got all kinds of goodies on my CV that tend to be high up on the list of desirable or required skills, experiences and qualifications.
So why won't they at least give me a chance to present myself?
I can understand and accept that British schools prefer to hire British teachers and American schools prefer to hire American teachers etc. But why should international schools limit themselves to native English speakers only? How does that reflect on their internationality?
Schools' websites often proudly announce that their school has a student body representing (say) 30 different nationalities and 25 languages. Well, that's very interesting, but that's hardly the school's own merit. It just depends on who happened to move to the area. If you really want to advertize your school's internationality, let me know how many nationalities and languages are represented in your teaching staff! If they're all native English speakers, you might as well call yourself an Anglosaxon school, because it's not just the language, it's also the school's culture and teaching approach that are affected by the teachers' cultural background.
Besides, what message does it convey if you *only* want native English speakers as teachers in your school?
First of all, apparently you seem to think that anyone who is not a native English speaker is unworthy to teach at your school. Native English speakers apparently are automatically seen as superior. But if we have superior teachers based on their nationality/native language, then we also have *inferior* ones. So much for the laws against discrimination based on nationality...
Secondly, most of the students in international schools tend to be non-native English speakers. And no matter what fancy international education they will receive at your school and elsewhere, by definition they'll never, ever become native English speakers. In other words, they'll always remain *inferior* (see above) to the native English speakers. Wow, that's a great message for the parents, isn't it...
Instead, if both native and fluent non-native English speakers are employed side by side as equals in an international school, students and parents can see that even if you're a non-native, you can achieve the same as native English speakers. Isn't that far more inspiring?
Okay, so we non-natives might (might!!) lack a *real* American/British/Australian whatever accent. But apart from it being preposterous to simply presume so, I also wonder why a slight non-Anglosaxon accent would be considered worse than for example a Texan drawl.
And besides, students hardly ever keep the same teacher all through their entire school career. They're bound to encounter a different accent in their teacher's speech every year. So what's so bad about including a few non-Anglosaxon accents in that? Why should the whole world need to learn that specific Anglosaxon accent? And *which* Anglosaxon accent in that case? They vary widely!
The most grating example of this narrow-mindedness IMO is when IB schools will only accept applications from native English speakers. That doesn't quite go with their much valued Learner Profile and its component of open-mindedness, does it? An IB *World* school? Forget it - those are IB Anglosaxon schools... (Not all of them, mind you - far from it. There are lots with a real international teaching staff. But there are also too many that insist on having native English speakers for their teachers. I even came across an IB school the other day of whom I know the director - he's a former colleague of mine. I recall for a fact that he was no native English speaker; he is a national of the country in which we worked together. And now he's inviting applications for teachers for his school - but only native English speakers need apply. That's what I call hypocrisy...)
So what should I do? You think it would work if I moved to for example Australia and get Australian citizenship? Lots of my countrymen moved there after the war, so my last name wouldn't be all that odd coming from there. And then 'englishize' my first name a bit... I know it'd be rather impossible to try it as an experiment, but it'd be interesting to see whether in that case these Anglosaxon 'international' schools suddenly *would* accept my application...
As a non-native speaking teacher, I confess I get a bit frustrated sometimes. There are lots of interesting international schools hiring here in Europe, but many of them put up one damning requirement: you have to be a native English speaker in order to apply.
Now I have my CPE, I've lived, studied and worked both in the UK and in the US and I'm absolutely fluent in the language both in written and in oral form, with but a minor, apparently rather indeterminable accent. In fact, I *think* in English. And apart from that, I've got all kinds of goodies on my CV that tend to be high up on the list of desirable or required skills, experiences and qualifications.
So why won't they at least give me a chance to present myself?
I can understand and accept that British schools prefer to hire British teachers and American schools prefer to hire American teachers etc. But why should international schools limit themselves to native English speakers only? How does that reflect on their internationality?
Schools' websites often proudly announce that their school has a student body representing (say) 30 different nationalities and 25 languages. Well, that's very interesting, but that's hardly the school's own merit. It just depends on who happened to move to the area. If you really want to advertize your school's internationality, let me know how many nationalities and languages are represented in your teaching staff! If they're all native English speakers, you might as well call yourself an Anglosaxon school, because it's not just the language, it's also the school's culture and teaching approach that are affected by the teachers' cultural background.
Besides, what message does it convey if you *only* want native English speakers as teachers in your school?
First of all, apparently you seem to think that anyone who is not a native English speaker is unworthy to teach at your school. Native English speakers apparently are automatically seen as superior. But if we have superior teachers based on their nationality/native language, then we also have *inferior* ones. So much for the laws against discrimination based on nationality...
Secondly, most of the students in international schools tend to be non-native English speakers. And no matter what fancy international education they will receive at your school and elsewhere, by definition they'll never, ever become native English speakers. In other words, they'll always remain *inferior* (see above) to the native English speakers. Wow, that's a great message for the parents, isn't it...
Instead, if both native and fluent non-native English speakers are employed side by side as equals in an international school, students and parents can see that even if you're a non-native, you can achieve the same as native English speakers. Isn't that far more inspiring?
Okay, so we non-natives might (might!!) lack a *real* American/British/Australian whatever accent. But apart from it being preposterous to simply presume so, I also wonder why a slight non-Anglosaxon accent would be considered worse than for example a Texan drawl.
And besides, students hardly ever keep the same teacher all through their entire school career. They're bound to encounter a different accent in their teacher's speech every year. So what's so bad about including a few non-Anglosaxon accents in that? Why should the whole world need to learn that specific Anglosaxon accent? And *which* Anglosaxon accent in that case? They vary widely!
The most grating example of this narrow-mindedness IMO is when IB schools will only accept applications from native English speakers. That doesn't quite go with their much valued Learner Profile and its component of open-mindedness, does it? An IB *World* school? Forget it - those are IB Anglosaxon schools... (Not all of them, mind you - far from it. There are lots with a real international teaching staff. But there are also too many that insist on having native English speakers for their teachers. I even came across an IB school the other day of whom I know the director - he's a former colleague of mine. I recall for a fact that he was no native English speaker; he is a national of the country in which we worked together. And now he's inviting applications for teachers for his school - but only native English speakers need apply. That's what I call hypocrisy...)
So what should I do? You think it would work if I moved to for example Australia and get Australian citizenship? Lots of my countrymen moved there after the war, so my last name wouldn't be all that odd coming from there. And then 'englishize' my first name a bit... I know it'd be rather impossible to try it as an experiment, but it'd be interesting to see whether in that case these Anglosaxon 'international' schools suddenly *would* accept my application...