International House

Alternative facts

At IATEFL 2016 Silvana Richardson gave an impassioned presentation which generated a great deal of discussion and support, both at the conference and on social media. She repeated her plenary at the ELT conference organised by IH Barcelona earlier this year and once again she had the audience on its feet.

Her argument, in summary, is that it is time to stop treating English teachers who are non-native speakers of the language as second class citizens. English language teaching institutions shouldn’t discriminate between native and non-native speakers of English when they hire teachers; rather they should simply hire people on their ability to teach the language effectively.

Silvana uses a number of arguments to support her case. One of these is that bilingual or multilingual non-native speakers of English are often more effective classroom teachers than monolingual native English speakers as, having gone through the process of learning English themselves, they are often better able to anticipate the many pitfalls that students are likely to find themselves stuck in. No-one in the profession would take issue with that.

Silvana also claims that a familiar argument, that it is the market that demands native English speakers, is false. She attempts to explode this myth (as she sees it) by providing data from a number of studies conducted in different parts of the world. Two of these studies were taken from SE Asia where, according to the data referenced, a majority of students actively prefer non-native speakers (understood to be speakers of the students’ own language) as teachers. Anyone familiar with this part of the world won’t be entirely surprised by this finding. Grammar translation is still a common teaching method in many classrooms in the region and that requires a thorough knowledge of the students’ mother tongue – something most native English speakers lack. The fear of losing face is also a cultural constant in this part of the world and this fear is often compounded in the presence of foreigners.

But does the argument hold elsewhere? The only data Silvana uses from Spain to reinforce her thesis (that the market doesn’t care) is taken from a study conducted at a university in the Basque region where around 50% of the 70 students surveyed stated they didn’t especially value native English speakers. But university students don’t get to choose their teachers in any case. Could this lack of choice have influenced the result?

The ‘alternative fact’ (to coin a current phrase) is that a large proportion of students studying at private language schools in Spain (i.e. those people who do have a choice where to study) indicate a very clear preference for having native English speakers as teachers. A recent survey conducted with past and present students at IH Barcelona bears this out.

The survey asked students to evaluate 10 qualities an English language teacher might have on a scale of 0 to 10. Some of the qualities students were asked to evaluate were:

  • Experience
  • Qualifications
  • A friendly and caring nature
  • Knowledge of the students’ language
  • Etc.

The survey was completed online by 408 students.

The teacher quality that scored the highest percentage of responses (57,7%) with the maximum score of 10 was ‘Gives interesting classes’. ‘Native speaker’ was the quality that scored the third highest number of maximums, with 52,25% of respondents awarding this quality a top score of 10. But if we add the number of respondents scoring ‘Native speaker’ with an 8, 9, or 10 on the scale, it comes to a massive 83,4% (see graph). This out-performs nearly all the other qualities listed in the survey including even ‘Experience’ (76,1%).

So, whether we like it or not, ‘native speaker’ is evidently a quality that students in this particular market value highly. I think we can safely say that it is therefore very likely to be one of the factors that influences these students when they are evaluating their options and deciding where to study.

Having provided data that suggests the market doesn’t really care, Silvana seems prepared to admit that some people might care after all, as she then goes on to an ask a very pertinent question: Is the customer always right? In other words, should we as school owners and directors, go along with our students’ preferences for native speakers or “challenge them, rather than pander to them”?

Let’s state the obvious: in a highly competitive market, the providers of any service would be crazy to ignore the strongly felt preferences of their potential clients. Such an approach would be tantamount to commercial suicide.

This is precisely the situation that the owners and directors of private language schools in Spain find themselves in. Whether we agree with our clients’ perceptions or not, a large majority of those people prepared to pay to improve their English language skills (or their children’s language skills) evidently value teachers who are native English speakers very highly. Does this mean that we can’t or won’t employ non-native speakers as teachers? No, we can, we do and we will. But it does mean that there is a clear and obvious risk in doing so; a risk that is ignored by Silvana’s claims that

a) the market is essentially agnostic and

b) those students that do prefer native speakers should have their views challenged.

‘Discrimination’ is an ugly term that no-one wants to be associated with. A majority of the private language schools in Spain (including all the schools that I’m involved with personally) pride themselves on being companies that will not discriminate on gender, race, sexual preferences, age, weight, height, or anything else. But we are working in the world as is, not as we’d like it, and it will take time to wean our students away from the idea that ‘native speaker’ somehow equals ‘better value teacher’. The risks inherent in challenging this widely held view too quickly or too openly – especially in the current market conditions – are simply too great.

One final thought: this debate, which is a very lively one, seems to centre almost exclusively on native or non-native teachers of English. Presumably this reflects the global demand for English and the huge numbers of English teachers, both native and non-native speakers, needed to address it. The debate feels rather different if we think about teachers of other languages. Imagine a student coming to Spain to take an intensive Spanish course, for example. Would such a student be surprised and possibly even disappointed if her teacher turned out not to be a native speaker of Spanish? I think perhaps she would.

A video recording of Silvana’s plenary at IATEFL can be found here: http://bit.ly/1XxfxDH

 

NS survey

 

Where have all the adult students gone?

The EFL industry in Spain enjoyed a mini boom during the early years of the global economic crisis as many adult students rushed to improve their English language skills, either to get themselves back into the job market, or else in an attempt to hang on the job they had. As we reached the new decade, the boom slowed down and then started to tail-off. But no-one expected the sudden and significant drop in adult student numbers that hit the industry at the start of the current academic year.

The drop wasn’t school, city, or even region specific; it was the same story all over Spain. And the numbers were eye-watering. Depending who you talk to (and/or who you believe) adult student numbers fell by between 10-20%. Enough to make any school owner or manager wince.

What happened? Where did all these students go? Well, as is normally the case, there is no one, simple answer. There has been a slight upturn in in-company teaching, so it may be that some students, who were previously paying for their own courses in our schools, are now studying in their company (if they’re fortunate to have a job in the first place; Spanish unemployment is still well over 20%.)

The standard of English teaching in main-stream education is also getting better, slowly, so it may be that there are more school leavers who have achieved a basic level of communicative competence.

Some adult students – especially the younger ones – may also have decided to switch from a traditional, bricks and mortar language school to a Web-based classroom.

My own theory is that it’s the free movement of labour in the European Union which is having the greatest effect on our market. In other words, as there so few jobs available in Spain, hundreds of thousands of young adults – many of whom may previously have been our students – have simply upped sticks and gone abroad to find work.

A recent survey conducted in the UK indicates that migrants from Spain rose to 137,000 in 2015 (up from 63,000 in 2011). Most of them are probably working in relatively unskilled jobs in hotels, bars and restaurants, but at least they’re working – and they’re improving their English language skills as they go.

A similar number probably emigrated to other countries in the north of Europe and another significant number emigrated to Latin America. Add up all these emigrants and we could be looking at a total of well over 300,000 migrants – just in 2015.

On a recent trip to Oxford I met a young Spanish guy, working in a hotel, who had previously been a student at our school in Barcelona. He’s a typical example. Will he ever move back to Spain, I asked him? Perhaps, in the future, he said, but only if the situation in Spain changes and he can find a decent job. His new fluency in English, learnt by living and working in Oxford, might just help him with that.

So where does that leave Spanish language schools? Will adult students come back to our schools in the same numbers as before? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean we have to give up on this market. If adult students won’t come to us, we can use the Internet to take our services to them. Even those living and working abroad.

Accreditation – who needs it?

As avid readers of this blog will know, I’m responsible for a company called Net Languages that has been developing and delivering Web-based language courses for over 18 years. During this time we’ve established ourselves as a reputable company that knows what it’s doing and delivers an effective and reliable service.

One of our sales representatives recently suggested that it would make it easier for him to compete with some of the many new-comers to our market if our courses were accredited by a reputable university – preferably from an English speaking country. He’s probably right. We all know that the word ‘university’ has almost magical properties.

That said, I honestly doubt there is a single university out there that knows as much about second language acquisition and how to deliver effective Web-based language courses as we do. So if we decide we need ‘accreditation’ what we’re really talking about is a straightforward commercial arrangement i.e. paying for the respectability that the word ‘university’ conveys.

As most universities are struggling to make ends meet, it shouldn’t be too difficult to find one interested in the idea of charging us a fee to add their seal of approval to our courses – even if they don’t know too much about it.

Organisations like the British Council, the Instituto Cervantes, EAQUALS, or International House provide meaningful accreditation to bricks and mortar language schools, as most (if not all) of these organisations do know what they’re doing. They perform rigorous inspection visits, evaluate schools’ performance and help raise standards. But the field of Web-based language teaching is rather less well catered for.

Perhaps I should start an independent accreditation scheme for Web-based language courses. But I’ll probably just go and find a university.

Who’s afraid of the Universal Translator?

Picture this: a Chinese businessman walks into a meeting room where two clients – one German and one Italian – are waiting to greet him. They are all wearing small, high-tech ear pieces which contain both a miniature speaker and a microphone. These devices are connected by Bluetooth to the businessmen’s latest generation smart phones, which nestle comfortably in their jacket pockets. The Chinese businessman greets his clients in Chinese. His smart phone picks up the sound of the greeting, converts the voice into text, and then sends the text message to his clients’ phones. Their phones receive the text greeting, translate it into German or Italian, convert the text message into voice and transmit the now spoken message into their ear pieces. It all happens instantly. The German replies in German and his response is again picked up and translated by the others’ smart phones. Each person at the meeting continues to express himself in his own language and each participant hears every utterance made by the others in his own mother tongue.

This trilingual translated conversation probably wouldn’t sound entirely natural. Only one person would be able to speak at the same time (so the translator wouldn’t be much use at raucous dinner parties) and each participant would probably need to speak rather more slowly and clearly than they would do if they were speaking to someone who shared their mother tongue. Nevertheless the speed of interaction would certainly be faster than it would have been if they had been obliged to use an interpreter; and the intelligibility of the conversation would almost certainly be better than it would have been if they had all tried to communicate in a second (or third or fourth) language.

This combination of voice recognition and instant translation is the sort of thing we are used to seeing in futuristic TV programs such as Star Trek. Douglas Adams, author of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, also famously invented a creature called the Babel Fish that lives in the owner’s ear and is capable of translating any language in the universe instantly and faultlessly. While we´re still some way away from being able to travel across the universe at warp speed, (or discovering if the number 42 is indeed the meaning of life, the universe and everything) the prospect of everyone having access to a Universal Translator is distinctly less remote. Both Google and Microsoft are busy developing this technology and it seems only a matter of time before their programs become proficient. In 2014 Google announced that their instant translator was working with around 70% accuracy between English and Portuguese. Microsoft has also demonstrated a program capable of real-time spoken translation which it plans to integrate into Skype.

The key questions for anyone involved in the language teaching business are;

  1. How long will it be before such programs are both accurate and commonplace?
  2. Once such tools are widely available, will anyone still want to learn a second or third language?

The first question is difficult to answer with any degree of certainty. We all know that both voice recognition software and machine translation have a fair way to go before they can be relied upon. But they will get better, especially if giant corporations such as Google and Microsoft throw their almost limitless resources at the challenge. My best guess is that it will take rather less than 10 years …

As for the second question, we should probably separate those people who study a second language because they need to (i.e. for school, for work or to enhance their career prospects) from those people who study another language simply because they want to.

Needless to say there will always be people who want to be able to express themselves in a second or third language. There are also arguments for suggesting that fluency in another language increases brain power and might help stave off the onset of mental diseases such as dementia.

But it seems self-evident that a large proportion of the people who are currently studying a second or third language in our schools are motivated to do so largely by the extrinsic benefits it can bring, rather than by any intrinsic joy or value. A safe assumption, then, is that when a program exists that does away with the need to study another language, given the choice, a large proportion of our clients may well find some other way to spend their time and money.

This would not be good news for the language teaching business. It would be equally damaging for interpreters, publishers, exam boards, and all their myriad suppliers.

A lifeline may be provided by the world’s education ministries, which might decide to leave second or third language studies on the curriculum, irrespective of the rise of universal translators. If they continue to struggle to teach languages effectively (as they currently do in large areas of the world), private language schools should still be able to make a living by picking up the pieces. But what if future curriculum planners decide to abandon second or third languages in favour of more maths, or something relatively new like computer programming?

Before we collectively fall into despair, let’s just remember that many people in our industry (myself included) predicted that paper-based text books would have vanished by now; yet they still sell in their tens of thousands, even in fully-wired, developed countries. Could fear of the effects of the Universal Translator be equally misplaced?

The good news is that, no matter what the mid to long-term future brings, we probably still have a viable business for several years to come. At the very least, that should give us enough time to develop an exit strategy.

There’s lots of rules …

The 2015 edition of IH Barcelona’s ELT Conference featured a world-class line up of speakers. Coincidentally, three of the plenary speakers, Michael Swan, Scott Thornbury and Martin Parrott, all talked about a similar issue: how the English language is changing and what impact these changes might have on the language that we teach in our classrooms. The consensus of opinion of all three speakers was that while English has always been subject to change, the pace of change is increasing fast and the TEFL industry is lagging behind.

One example: we have all been told that we should use ‘less’ when we speak of uncountable nouns and ‘fewer’ for countable objects. But according to Martin Parrot, this distinction was unheard of until the 18th century. Previously ‘less’ was used for all nouns. A few centuries later and ‘less’ is evidently reclaiming its right to be used on every occasion, although students who write ‘less cars’ in an end of course exam are still likely to be marked down.

Would a student be marked down for saying “I so don’t agree with you” or “I was sat there for hours” in an oral exam? Probably not. What about a written exam? Probably yes.

Martin Parrott, who’s talk was entitled ‘The Tyranny of TEFL speak’ made the point that most English language course book writers seems oblivious to most of these changes and consistently produce a version of English that essentially reflects the way university educated, middle class people living in the Home Counties spoke in the 1970s and 80s.

So how should this natural evolution of language impact our classroom teaching? Should we accept any utterances that are commonly used, however much they might grate on our ingrained sense of correctness? Should we teach students how people actually speak in this day and age, but warn them that certain commonly used words and expressions shouldn’t be used in exams? That might be one solution, but it doesn’t feel quite right.

As Scott made abundantly clear, all languages change over time and globalisation has hastened the changes.  That said, not all languages are quite as amorphous as English seems to be. In some cases this is because the natural process of change is corralled by institutions which seek to keep some semblance of control. Spanish is overseen by a collection of highly prestigious academics and authors who collectively make up the Real Academia Española. These eminent minds meet periodically to discuss which changes to Spanish are acceptable and which are not.  Whatever they say goes. Students taking the Instituto Cervantes’ Spanish language exams don’t therefore have to navigate the fast expanding grey areas that students of English are increasingly faced with. If the Real Academia says something is admissible, that’s fine. Otherwise it just ain’t.

Cultural historians may like to consider why Spain has an official body of language overseers whose role is to determine what is and isn’t allowed in Spanish, whereas the free market seems to hold much greater sway in England, at least outside the “tyranny” of most EFL course books and exams. But that’s a debate which goes way beyond the scope of this blogpost, innit?

Learning the ropes

Parent to child: What would you like to be when you grow up, dear?

Child: Director of a private language school!

Parent: Really? That’s an odd choice. Why do you want to do that?

Child: Well, I like languages. I like travelling. And I’d like to make some money.

Parent: Well, if you’re sure that’s what you want…

Child: What do you think I should study?

Parent:  Umm, let me think. Language teaching? Business management?

Child: Both at the same time?

Parent: Probably not. Best do the language teaching bit first and then, if you’re still keen, do the business management afterwards.

Child: That sounds complicated. Maybe I’ll be a vet instead.

Parent: Yes, that sounds much more sensible.

*************************************************

How do you learn how to run a private language school?

Well, some managers come ‘ready-made’ in the sense that they’ve studied an MBA and/or worked as managers or consultants in a different industry. Some of them are quite successful. But most of the managers I know in the language teaching business have made their way along the following long and winding path:

It starts with a language teacher training course (I’d recommend the CELTA for English language teachers, but there are alternatives). Then you go off and get some experience teaching your own language, probably somewhere abroad. After a couple of years, if you’re still having fun, you might take a more advanced qualification (still completely focused on teaching).  If you survive that, you could then move into a position of some responsibility, perhaps as a level head, or Assistant Director of Studies. A year or two later you’ll probably have to choose between taking the academic branch on the language teaching career ladder (and become a teacher trainer, Director of Studies or possibly even a materials writer) or take a leap into the much less familiar, much harder-nosed world of business management. (OK, it’s not exactly Gordon Gekko territory, but if not dog-eat dog, it can be parrot-pull-the-tail-feathers-out-of-parrot…)

If you choose to take the leap into business and you work for one of the larger language teaching organisations, you’ll probably find that they offer their own internal management training courses, which may or may not be useful.

If you’re tempted to make the leap but your employer can’t help, there are a couple of useful training courses out there which are open to everyone:

IH London offers an online course in Educational Management http://www.ihlondon.com/courses/diploma-in-academic-management/

IH Barcelona (my own outfit) runs a blended learning course leading to the International Diploma in Language Teaching Management http://www.ihes.com/bcn/tt/idltm.html

Excellent courses, but they are moderately expensive. If you can’t afford the fees (or your organisation isn’t prepared to help finance you) there is always the Web with its swarms of helpful user groups, networks and bloggers who are more than willing and quite often able to guide you.

But let’s face it, whatever pre-service training you do, nothing could fully prepare you for the daily smorgasbord of issues you’ll have to deal with as director of a private language school. Depending on the size of the school, you may end up being strategic planner, financial director and/or bookkeeper, marketing director, community manager, webmaster, human resources director, social programme organiser, exam administrator, janitor, cleaner, and standby teacher, all at the same time.

If that sounds daunting, it often is. But it can also be stimulating and fun. And there are plenty of opportunities out there for budding managers who are prepared to take the leap and put in the hours.

Alternatively, you could always become a vet.

Composite and transient advantages

One of the best known mantras of business management theory is that in order to succeed, a company must have a competitive advantage over its rivals. In other words, it must have or do something that will persuade its potential clients to buy its good or services, rather than those of its competitors.

Michael Porter (aka Professor Strategy) argued that there are essentially two types of competitive advantage available: lower-cost or differentiation. He also argued that strategic management should be chiefly concerned with building and sustaining a company’s competitive advantage.

When I first came across this sort of thinking, back in the late 1980’s it seemed pretty obvious that we had this issue sewn up. Our companies – our International House language schools, teaching English in Spain – had a very clear competitive advantage which helped us differentiate ourselves from the vast majority of our competitors: we only employed native English speakers who had been specifically trained to teach English as a foreign language. Most of our competitors employed a mixture of non-native speakers and backpackers. They didn’t have a chance. The non-native speakers may have been perfectly competent teachers, but the market wanted native English speakers. As for the backpackers, they were often native English speakers, but put them in a classroom and they didn’t know what they were doing.  Our competitors were often cheaper than us, but we had that essential ingredient –professional, native English teachers – and students literally queued out the door to pay for our services.

It was great while it lasted, but it didn’t last long. Thousands of professionally trained, native English teachers soon found their way out to Spain, or were trained in Spain (most often by International House) and before very long, almost all the self-respecting language schools in our part of the world were offering the same essential ingredient. We could still try to claim that we were different and better e.g. by only employing the very best candidates from our teacher training courses, and by making teacher training a continuous process – but the differentiation gap had narrowed significantly. We were no longer miles ahead, or miles more attractive.

I spent the next decade or so secretly worrying that we were living on our past success and that we no longer had a clear tick in the box marked: sustainable competitive advantage.

Then I came up with an idea that made me feel a whole lot better: while it may be true that we no longer had a single, clear, competitive advantage, we did have a number of smaller advantages that when added together, amounted to something significant. For example: we not only had trained, native teachers and continuous, in-service training; we also had a sound academic structure, led by a well-qualified Director of Studies; we used the best study materials available on the market; we had eye catching promotional materials; we had good, comfortable premises, in good locations, with easy access; we trained our front of house staff to deal with customers correctly; and so on. I even coined a name for this amalgam of small, competitive advantages: I called it our ‘composite advantage’.

If I’d been teaching at a top Business School rather than running a small group of companies, this term – composite advantage – may have become part of the established jargon. Or so I tell myself. In any case, it was enough to help me sleep at night and not worry too much about Professor Strategy.

Earlier this year I was introduced to another idea that also makes perfect sense (thanks Monica). The thinking here is that in this day and age, it’s almost impossible for most companies to develop a sustainable competitive advantage. The business world simply moves too fast. As soon as one company comes up with a significant advantage, many of its competitors simply go out and copy it and bang goes the advantage. (This is of course exactly what happened with our trained, native teacher advantage, albeit at a slower pace). So, rather than trying to create a competitive advantage that can be sustained over time, companies are now being advised to come up with something described as a transient advantage, something that will keep them ahead for a while, but will need to be replaced by another transient advantage before too long, as soon as the competition catches up.

A couple of examples of transient advantages from our own experience:

When we first started to offer intensive pre-service training courses for Spanish language teachers that included both theoretical and practical sessions (based on the model of our training courses for English teachers) we had a tremendous competitive advantage: we were the only organisation in Spain offering such courses. Nowadays there are dozens of similar courses available and we have had to find new ways to maintain our advantage e.g. by developing a blended version of the course and by obtaining university credits for trainees who successfully complete our courses. We don’t know how long these new transient advantages will last, but we do know they won’t last forever.

Similarly, around four years ago, a number of our schools decided to equip all their classrooms with data projectors and interactive whiteboards. This new hardware transformed our classrooms from something that would have been familiar to students from the Edwardian age, to something that was at the cutting edge of classroom technology. Most of our students were suitably impressed. However, nowadays almost every private language school has classrooms bristling with technology, so the competitive advantage we briefly enjoyed has evaporated. It lasted about two years.

According to Rita Gunther McGrath, a professor at Columbia Business schools and author of a book called The End of Competitive Advantage (Havard Business Review Press, June 2013) these days companies need to develop and manage a ‘pipeline of initiatives’ since many will be short-lived.

To stay ahead in our business I think we need a wide pipeline, producing a broad range of initiatives. So perhaps we should be talking about transient, composite advantages.