Background

Native-speakerism is an ideology that regards native speakers of English as inherently superior to non-native speakers. It assumes that native speakers are better qualified to teach English as a second (ESL) or foreign language (EFL). This belief fosters discriminatory practices in the field of English language teaching, where even highly proficient non-native teachers with strong professional expertise are often treated as second-class professionals and have their competence unjustifiably questioned. This biased view also indirectly promotes the idea that British or American English is the only superior variety and that English should be spoken in a particular way or with a certain accent.

This prejudiced ideology has been challenged by ELT professionals who advocate inclusivity and equity. Many now prefer the terms global teachers of English and global speakers of English, emphasizing that Englishes—the many varieties of English spoken around the world—should be acknowledged, respected, and celebrated.  

The frequent mention of “native speakers of English” in job advertisements for English language teaching positions reflects a clear preference for native speakers over non-native speakers. Here are some examples of advertisements that explicitly illustrate this bias:   “We are seeking native English speakers for a variety of teaching roles.”    “Native English-speaking teachers (NESTs) preferred for all positions.”  “Must be a native English speaker with an American or British accent.”  “Anglo-Indian teachers can apply”.

In this interview, Alan Maley, a globally renowned expert in the field of English Language Teaching, who has long been associated with the British Council and the National University of Singapore, shares his insights on the concept of native-speakerism, the historical and cultural factors that have contributed to it, its impact on non-native ELT professionals and the profession as a whole, as well as related issues concerning language ideology and pedagogy.

 

How do you conceptualize native-speakerism within the context of English language teaching (ELT)?

The dominant position of languages is closely associated with economic, military, religious or cultural power.  (Maley. The Future of English.  International Journal of TESOL Studies (2025)  250128, 1-12 https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.250128)

English has enjoyed unprecedented success as the most widely accepted language internationally.   As a consequence of this, the teaching and learning of English as a second language has become a hugely profitable enterprise, often referred to as an ‘industry’.  The demand for English has grown exponentially since the 1960’s and has led to dominance of the market by the UK and US (and to a lesser extent Canada and Australasia).  This is supported by the large body of university research, the publication of course materials, the professional training of teachers and of course, the testing institutions offering services to learners and to teachers through tests such as the TOEFL and IELTS, and the CELTA and DELTA certificates.  All of these are largely in the hands of the metropolitan countries, where English is a first language.  This dominance tends to support the belief that native speakers make the best teachers of the language.

In your estimation, how prevalent is native-speakerism in the global ELT profession today?

In the early days of the rise of English as an international language, there were very few professionally trained teachers of English as a second or foreign language.  Teaching by native speakers was largely done by people with very varying levels of competence and was often viewed as a way of paying for foreign travel.  They benefitted greatly from the common belief that since they were native speakers of the language, they must therefore be best qualified to teach it.  Since the 1960’s, when I entered the field myself, there has been a tidal wave of post-graduate courses in universities and various private organisations.  Many of these have been marketed also to non-native speaker teachers from all over the world.  So, in theory at least, there is an equivalence between trained native and non-native speaker teachers.  In practice, there is still an underlying bias in favour of native speakers.

To what extent have Western-centric perspectives contributed to the persistence of native-speakerism in ELT?

As mentioned above, the professionalization of language teaching has largely been directed from and located in the English-speaking countries.  The various ways in which English has been standardized, through dictionaries, grammars, qualifications and assessment, has concentrated the power over the language in the hands of the metropolitan countries.  So, the model of the language most frequently on offer is a ‘standardised’ version. And many were quick to realise that Standardisation enables Reification – where a language becomes an object.  And Reification enables packaging and Commodification, where the object can be marketed profitably. So, however indirectly, this dominance of western models of the language underpins the continuing assumption of native speaker teacher superiority.

What specific challenges do non-native English-speaking teachers commonly encounter as a result of native-speakerist attitudes and practices?

Historically, it has been virtually impossible for non-native speakers to access teaching posts on the basis of their effectiveness, since most employers have opted to employ teachers on the basis of their provenance rather than their competence.  The main challenge is the mind-set of the power brokers: the Ministries of Education, the Heads of university departments, the Directors of language schools etc.  But it should be noted that they are usually acting in response to widely held beliefs among their clients and sponsors.  Parents, in particular, tend to hold uncritical beliefs about the superiority of native-speaker teachers.  I will return to this below.

Beyond the experiences of individual teachers, how does native-speakerism influence the overall quality, diversity, and inclusivity of English language teaching worldwide?

Clearly, native-speakerism has the effect of undervaluing non-native speaker teachers, which impacts on their self-esteem and potentially reduces their motivation for professional development.  Why make all that effort if it does not improve one’s career prospects?  In this respect, it can diminish the quality of the teaching on offer.  But we also need to remember that statistically, native-speaker teachers of English will always be in a minority.  And as the level of expertise grows in countries around the world, so the value of non-native speaker teachers is enhanced.  We can readily observe this in the invaluable work of language teacher associations in many countries worldwide.  Such associations promote local research and materials development, offer teacher training and development opportunities and become involved in local curriculum and syllabus development.  So, I think the credibility of the native-speaker hegemony is on the wane, though it has by no means disappeared.

Research has shown that native-speakerism affects recruitment and promotion decisions. How might ELT institutions and recruiters be encouraged to adopt more equitable and transparent hiring practices?

This is close to my heart. In 1998 I was invited to set up an MA programme at a prestigious private university in Thailand.  I stayed for 5 years.  I accepted the post on condition that I would have a free hand in appointing faculty members.  As our students would all be from Asian countries, I decided we would appoint lecturers from a variety of origins.  My staff comprised one Indian, one Singaporean, one Italian, one Burmese, one Dutch and one Thai lecturers.  I was the only native speaker.  This caused consternation in the upper echelons of the university, and also among our first batches of students.  ‘Where are the native speakers?’ I was asked.   However, the overall quality of our course soon established our reputation, and I was fortunate to have the backing of the President.  And significantly, many of our graduates (and faculty) have gone on to senior academic appointments in their own and other countries.  But the going was sometimes rough.  This shows that a more inclusive policy can work.  It can be done – but there is a work of persuasion to be done both at the institutional level and at the sponsor level.  The Italians have a saying, ‘Basta volere’  ‘You can do it if you really want it.’

In what ways do prevailing beliefs about what constitutes “authentic English” or “correct English” reinforce native-speakerist ideologies within teaching materials, curricula, and assessment systems?

Languages develop to meet the need for communication between people. This is a messy, untidy business.  But there are two opposing tendencies when languages come into use and are adopted by large numbers of speakers.  One is the natural tendency of any language to change and to vary widely in the ways it is used.  The contrary tendency is for humans to attempt to intervene in these natural processes by codifying, regularising and standardising the language.

Standardisation comes about for a number of reasons.  One is curiosity, when scholars want to understand better how a language works.  Another is to facilitate the teaching of the language by establishing rules for correctness.  And yet another is to enable clear communication across the many varieties and dialects of the language for trade, government and culture.  But the underlying and unstated reason is that one group within a language community wishes to exercise control or to enjoy the benefits of power over other groups, or to create, mould and unify a national identity.  So, standardisation is closely associated with the growth of nation states.  We can observe this process in France in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, in China with the spread of Putonghua, with Hindi in post-Independence India, etc.

As we have seen above, the demand for standardisation has gone hand in hand with the spread of English as an international language and the demand for learning it which this has created.

But so-called standard English, whether in pronunciation, vocabulary or grammar is no more than a convenient fiction.  There are wide differences between different geographical, occupational, formal-informal and even age-related varieties of the language.  While it may be convenient for international communication to promote one or two standard varieties British and American), it should also be realistic to prepare students to encounter more than one variety.  Teaching materials are beginning to incorporate more local texts, though the practice is not widespread.

Terms such as “global speakers of English” and “global teachers of English” have been proposed as more inclusive alternatives. To what extent can these terms help reframe professional identity and challenge native-speakerist assumptions in ELT?

I very much doubt whether changing the terminology would make much difference.

Given that the United Kingdom in general, and the British Council in particular, have historically been regarded as central to English language teaching, what role should British ELT institutions play in dismantling native-speakerism globally?

The British Council has played multiple roles in the promotion of English.  On the one hand, they have long cooperated with national Ministries of Education, universities and other institutions to develop local curricula, syllabuses and materials, and have been prominent in helping develop teacher training.  On the other hand, they have profited from the perceived superiority of the courses on offer by largely native-speaker teachers in their institutes worldwide.  They have also been at the forefront of developing highly profitable testing materials in collaboration with Cambridge English (https://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/  and the RSA.  However, latterly there has been a significant shift towards a more inclusive vision, including their major Future of English project (https://futureofenglish.britishcouncil.org/#form)

What concrete measures can teacher educators, publishers, and policymakers take to counter native-speakerist assumptions and promote equity, diversity, and inclusion in the ELT profession?

There is now a longish history of fight-back against the prejudicial preference for native-speaker teachers.  Silvana Richardson’s 2016 plenary at the IATEFL conference in Birmingham is an early case in point (‘The Native factor’: the haves and have-nots) https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/news-and-events/iatefl-online/2016/plenary-silvana-richardson.  But even in 1994, Peter Medgyes’ book, ‘The Non-native Speaker’ had begun to challenge the prevailing beliefs.  And there has been a strong theoretical challenge at university level, with publications such as ‘Linguistic Imperialism’ by Robert Phillipson (2018).  The problem is that very few people actually access or inform themselves about these movements or reread these books.  This is especially true of administrators and policy-makers.  But teacher trainers can and do present the issues to trainee teachers, and publishers and bodies such as the British Council do seem more open to questioning the unexamined belief that native-speaker teachers are innately superior.

How do you envision the future of English language teaching if the profession succeeds in moving beyond native-speakerism? What characteristics would define a truly inclusive global ELT community?

I do not have a crystal ball, and I find it difficult to predict the future of anything at all in this uncertain world.  I would however again recommend the British Council’s The Future of English project (https://futureofenglish.britishcouncil.org/#form)  And I will again mention one of my recent articles on The Future of English   (International Journal of TESOL Studies (2025) 250128, 1-12 https://doi.org/10.58304/ijts.250128)  In it I suggest possible changes to the way English is taught and review the current status and functions of English as a global language with a view to speculating on how these might change, and possible reasons for this.

 

Please check the Pilgrims in Segovia Teacher Training courses 2026 at Pilgrims website