Move to Evaluate Teacher Fluency Risks Faulty Outcomes

Arizona's state school board has been in the news recently for banning ethnic studies programs. However, news has been less relentless about reporting their move to evaluate teacher fluency.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the state education department is examining comprehensible pronunciation and grammar. To me that sounds less about fluency, which can be measured objectively through assessments, and more about subjective perceptions of how well an individual with an accent is understood.

As these evaluations commence, it is important to consider the intersection of communication and race. Language is often a marker for race and can activate stereotypes.

If we think about communication being solely one-sided, the onus is on non-native speakers to conform and assimilate. They should take accent-reduction courses and speak more standard English. However, what if we considered that communication is reciprocal? That would require us to acknowledge our own biases against non-native speakers. Thus, we must change the stereotypes and assumptions we have about non-native speakers in order to free up our ability to understand and learn from them.

In a research study that examined students' perception of non-native instructors, results suggest that students perceive teachers of color (in this case Asian) as poorer and more difficult to understand. Students in two different groups were played the same lecture (recorded by a woman from Ohio) but were shown two different pictures (one of a White woman and one of an Asian woman). These results suggest that we make preconceived judgments and block our own understanding based on those assumptions. This study tapped into misconceptions about race and language in that the students discriminated against the Asian teacher (race) and had lower listening comprehension scores (language) as a result of her accent (which was non-existent).

Extrapolate this example to what is happening in Arizona, and it would be safe to assume that there are teachers who will be deemed "unacceptable" based on subjective factors. Some evaluators will conflate their stereotypes about language and race, which could very well cloud their judgment. It's a slippery slope when you go beyond fluency, which can be measured by a host of assessments, and enter into this realm of comprehensible pronunciation.

Someone could respond to this post by suggesting that we simply only hire native English speakers. Yet even with that drastic move, we would have variations in speech patterns. Can you recall travelling to a different state or part of the country and having to retrain your ear to understand a new pattern of speech, articulation or accent? Therefore, it is more important to be cognizant of how our perceptions of people influence our ability to understand them rather than spend money trying to make everyone accent-free.