Teaching a language that you can't speak?

Question

Do you think that a language teacher should be required to be fluent in the language that they are teaching, and why? Not necessarily native-level fluency, but at least somewhere NEAR native-level.

I ask because I teach in Japan, and the general consensus among the Japanese teachers of English that I know is that they shouldn't have to be "fluent" in the language in order to teach it. Most of them know a lot about grammar, but have very poor speaking and listening skills.

Answer 1

I think they should be fluent to teach it! Wouldnt' you want your child's math teacher to be "fluent" (so to speak) in math!?

Answer 2

u definetely have to be fluent! how can u teach some one a language that u cant speak urself!!!

Answer 3

i think they should have the "native tongue". they should be fluent to teach it.

Answer 4

They should definitely be near-native in language ability. What happens when you get that one student who really knows more than the teacher? Hmmm????

Answer 5

Of course they have to be fluent. I'm Japanese and when I was in school, I always ignored what English teachers tell me. I think my choice was great. They only provide us useless grammar and teach us how to read unworthy complicated sentences which we never see in daily life. I have ignored them and studied English by myself and I feel it's far better than waste my time listening to their teachings. In addition, their focus on grammar is making English very boring.

Why do we Japanese need thousands of Eikaiwa schools after 6 years or more study in schools? Why do we need to be ridiculed that we can't distinguish L and R. Japanese English teachers are not doing their job. Poor speaking/listening skills is a proof that they can not teach how to use that language. If we can't learn how to use language, we don't need to learn it.

Answer 6

I'm going to have to disagree a bit with some of the others and say that it depends often on the level and intensity of the course taught.  I think for a basic intro. course, where the students are just getting a feel for a bit of vocabulary, perhaps a few simple grammar rules, extreme fluency isn't a necessity. (for example, a class for small children a few hours a week or perhaps a crash course for travel).   Once students reach a level where translation and advanced conversation makes or breaks you, the teacher's ability should be much higher.  

I think it's really important for teachers to have an awareness of their ability.   A teacher should be able to be honest and admit, "My language skills aren't strong enough to teach students beyond X level". It sounds a bit like some your coworkers need to be honest among themselves that they are only trained to teach English at a certain level (after all, the world needs people who can teach the abc's and people who can teach 19th Century Lit.)

On the flip side, I think sometimes students and parents are a bit dillusional and feel that the teacher must be terrible if students aren't  fluent after a couple of years of courses. The skill of the teacher is quite important, but also, part of gaining fluency is exposure to various speakers of the language (video, audio, actively practicing for many years).  

However, it does appear as though the teachers you are describing are brushing off the fact that teachers should strive to learn as much as they can about what they are teaching.  That does take many years to accomplish (which is why it's always a good idea to start with a basic course as an inexperienced teacher), but it should be the ultimate goal of any teacher.....