WhyDev Gets it Wrong: Volunteering to teach English is NOT the new volunteering in orphanages (Part 1)

This is a direct response to a recent blogpost by the international development blog, WhyDev criticizing English teacher “voluntourism” in developing countries. They say “If you want to teach, teach. If you want to travel, travel. Don’t do both. Don’t mix business with pleasure.”  To counter their argument I have a number of points. This got me thinking so much that I’m even going to address arguments not presented in their post as part of a series. My disclaimer is my arguments are drawn from working as volunteer English teacher for 6 months with Sudan Volunteer Programme and that I believe there is room for debate on the merits and drawbacks of English teacher volunteering and voluntourism and that every country, volunteer program, and individual’s experience is different.

What does volunteering to teach English in a development country actually lead to?

English Teacher = Social Worker

First the author makes the comparison of teaching and education delivery to volunteering in an orphanage doing social work. I have no qualms about the criticism about short-term volunteering at orphanages which has anecdotal and through scientific research been proven too often to cause more harm than good to the orphans who became traumatized and re-traumatized from the experience. An English teacher who instructs a class of students for several hours in a day and an individual essentially acting as a primary care giver for a group of young children by feeding, clothing, and washing them, have two completely different types of influence and opportunity to influence a child’s life. Obviously great teachers have the power to make a great influence on their students lives, and a poor teacher to set their students back. I think most people would agree that the risk or potential to do harm as a social worker is much higher than as a teacher. It’s this type of harm that causes orphanages to institute extreme “No picking up” or “No hugging” rules which are put in place actually to protect the children in their care.  I agree that child-based voluntourism is inherently problematic, but we should be discretionary about the differences between someone acting in a substitute parental role then leaving after a month and that same situation with a child’s teacher, camp counselor, or day care professional. Sometimes these roles overlap, teachers are mentors; sometimes our biggest support system, orphans get placed in daycare too, and of course many young children get attached very quickly in almost any circumstance. This requires further consideration, but certainly structurally and responsibility-wise the jobs of an English teacher and social worker are different.

A native speaker teaches an evening class

Unqualified teachers undermine the profession and students’ learning outcomes

          So setting that aside let’s address the other major qualm in the article which is that “education is  an academic discipline and professional practice” which I couldn’t agree more with, and despite this, the requirements or qualifications to join many volunteer English teaching programs require no teaching background, certificates, or prior training. The same criticism of Teach for America by The Onion that we shouldn’t leave the education of our children to armatures, could be made of English teaching voluntourists. Teaching is an occupation and shouldn’t be something someone can chose to do as a leisure activity. However, there is one major difference which is that volunteer teachers aren’t responsible for teaching core curriculum; they’re teaching English. This is why I have come to the conclusion that if done correctly being a native speaker teaching English in a country where English is a second language can, when done correctly, count as a providing a much needed skill and opportunity to practice and improve speaking in which without exchange or volunteer programs ESL students would not get.

         I in fact have been told how much I am needed as “a native speaker” by several English department administrators here in Khartoum. They say the students “know how the clock works, but they can’t tell the time.” Countless students have approached me and said almost verbatim that they “can read and write perfectly but when it comes to speaking they face many difficulties”. This has also led to having to convince time and again students, administrators, and random inquirers on the street that learning English takes time, hard work, and practice and that having a white American teacher isn’t magically going to make them fluent in two months but the sincere desire to improve is pervasive.

          Often times, and in best practice volunteer English teacher teach “Conversation”, or “Speaking and Listening” and occasional “General English” class when other staff are not available. They facilitate English clubs based on weekly discussion topics. They teach public speaking or debate. This type of teaching does not require the expertise taught in a Master’s program in Education. Any English speaker with a B.A. or even high school diploma could be an effective teacher in this setting but surely some sort of training or orientation, in teaching best practices and cultural awareness should be provided by the volunteer program.

          When talking about quality of professional Sudanese English teachers in Sudan I can’t say I’ve been overwhelmingly impressed. I’ve met several English professors with whom I can not hold a conversation with and they are still consistently employed. I’ve witnessed not only teachers who exhibit a poor quality of English but who also exhibit a poor quality in teaching strategies which speaks to the systematic problems with Sudanese educational institutions. I sat through an English class where a teacher, read, 4 definitions verbatim, repeated them with varying phrasing and volume level, to his 2^nd year college students in a class blocked for 2 hours’ time. 

       If your sitting at home thinking "Eh I could do better than that guy, I'd do a great job!"  The example above shouldn't be the measuring stick to which we compare potential volunteer teachers. Students deserve a hell of a lot lot better. And a lot more goes into being a  "good" volunteer teacher in a developing country than traditional teaching and English language skills. They ll be more on that issue Part 2.  

English teacher colleagues and myself

Volunteers undermine local labor

          I’d also make the argument that unlike construction volunteer trips building schools or wells that with teaching as a volunteer you aren’t competing with or replacing local labor. There is no reason, a GOOD Sudanese English language teacher couldn’t find classes or private tutoring, especially for courses on Phonetics, IELTS and TOEFL preparation, and Transcription.

          There is a huge demand for English teachers. Bad teachers aren’t out of work either. This isn’t because there is a lack of quality Sudanese teachers, rather I have been told many have emigrated temporarily to teach in Saudi Arabia or Libya for higher wages and I’d argue higher quality education administration which reflect the two biggest complaints my Sudanese colleagues have about teaching in Sudan.

         Volunteers aren’t corroborating the public education system’s failures nor are they an obstacle to reform. If there was the case that volunteers were teaching in a country which was experiencing teachers’ strikes or a flood of volunteers were putting local teachers out of work it would be a different story.

STAY tuned for part 2 which will address the argument that teaching English is a form of neocolonialism .