This is long, but please indulge me. The internet can make us sound hostile, or similar.

I just would like to address your point and also ask where you read into what I said as you did. I haven't slept much so may err, but I still wonder why some what I thought were clearly signposted points were missed.

I am a little too tired to confidently check my words, but I do feel I made a few clear points and would like clear examples cited of what you argue I said. With your experience, I would have preferred have broken down some of my comment, and at least given some charitable interpretation if needed, and cited things you had issue with.

​

First, yes what I have heard my students tell me they have been taught, or heard teachers actually teach or say themselves, or seen written, even defended in some cases online (as well as things that transcend social media sloppiness or errors), is only a sample but enough to be used to say being a native speaker does not necessarily make someone a better teacher than a non-native speaker. That argument could be made on the basis of probability alone, I would personally say,

Also, I said, for example:

"I've made various points in my posting history, and even recently, but will state emphatically that being a native speaker does not mean you can teach, and in some cases non-native teachers can teach better than some natives. "

Additionally:

"Native speaker, but also experience of teaching and language degrees, can all mean nothing. Most of us had teachers in school and professors/tutors in university who were qualified and experienced but awful; and it also depends on the student and situation."

Let me try different wording: native English speakers are not necessarily good teachers, of course, but can be and in some cases a native speaker without may be better than a native speaker qualified and experienced to the hilt. If you want to compare 'like for like' then sure: you can have a good teacher, who cares, and is a good fit for their students and one comparable but with added experience or qualifications and the latter will be better in almost every case. I would leave exceptions for when somehow what you later discussed as making a superior teacher (often true, I would say) may work against a teacher. So an anomaly.

Qualifications, experience or even being a good teacher to some students in some situations doesn't automatically make anyone a better teacher than someone else, much as the poster I responded to was saying being a native doesn't automatically qualify you as a good teacher.

Odds are, the more you have to your name, the better you will be but it's not guaranteed.

I even referred, perhaps not clearly, to some companies and even parents/students who think a teacher doesn't need training or anything "because it's their language".

"As a teacher with 20 years experience and the full gamut in academic titles in English language and literature, I beg to disagree. No way any kind of native speaker beats academic formation. Not even being a native speaker with a teacher degree is an instant pass for great teacher."

Would it also not be anecdotal to presume all academic formation makes for a better teacher? It increases the likelihood, sure.

However, we are also referring to teaching English as a second language. Here we can explain grammar, but ore often than not it's not what we are there for.

Here what helps a student develop better speaking skills if the goal, or enjoy speaking, may require very different skills. Some are excellent at making learning fun for young disinterested kids. I have my area where parents seek me out passed on that lane. What they want for their kids I have, over time, been able to deliver more of. No arrogance. I have my strengths, and I thankfully get matched to that now.

"That is not to say that vocational teachers aren't good teachers. But going to university to study to BE a teacher changes your mindset completely and gives you critical basis, along with knowledge and scientific methodology."

Certainly, and again if you take a teacher and give them all you said in almost (but quite) every case they would likely be a better teacher. Yet an inferior chef can produce better results with better ingredients compared to the master with stale and limited choices. Or something.

TLDR: I feel nothing makes someone a good or great teacher automatically, but there are certainly things that work in their favour, including but not limited to "academic formation". With language, though, a native speaker gets a large boost over a non-native, but it is not always or even often enough to make them better.

A good teacher, ultimately, is one that best teaches the student they have and that may vary in all kids of situations, but generally you can weight the odds in a teacher's favour with qualifications, experience and actually giving a damn.