Would-be language teachers everywhere have one thing in common: they all want some recognition of their professional status and skills, and a job. The former requirement is obviously important on a personal level, but it is vital if you are to have any chance of finding work.

　　Ten years ago, the situation was very different. In virtually every developing country, and in many developed countries as well, being a native English speaker was enough to get you employed as an English teacher.

　　Now employers will only look at teachers who have the knowledge, the skills and attitudes to teach English effectively. The result of this has been to raise non-native English teachers to the same status as their native counterparts something they have always deserved but seldom enjoyed. Non-natives are now happylinguistic discrimination is a thing of the past.

　　An ongoing research project, funded by the University of Cambridge, asked a sample of teachers, teacher educators and employers in more than 40 countries whether they regard the native/non-native speakers distinction as being at all important. NO was the answer. As long as candidates could teach and had the required level of English, it didnt matter who they were and where they came from. Thus, a new form of discriminationthis time justified because it singled out the unqualifiedliberated the linguistically oppressed . But the Cambridge project did more than just that: it confirmed that the needs of native and non-native teachers are extremely similar.

　　Questions:

　　S1. The selection of English teachers used to be mainly based on ________.

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S2. What did non-native English teachers deserve but seldom enjoy?

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S3. What kind of people can now find a job as an English teacher?

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S4. What is the result of the new form of discrimination ?

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S5. The phrase the linguistically oppressed refers to those who were _______.

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　Unit 2

　　S1. whether or not one was a native speaker.

　　S2. The same status as their counterparts.

　　S3. Ones who can teach and have the required English level.

　　S4. Non-native English teachers have been liberated. Or: It singled out the unqualified.

　　S5. qualified English teachers because they were non-native speakers.

　　Would-be language teachers everywhere have one thing in common: they all want some recognition of their professional status and skills, and a job. The former requirement is obviously important on a personal level, but it is vital if you are to have any chance of finding work.

　　Ten years ago, the situation was very different. In virtually every developing country, and in many developed countries as well, being a native English speaker was enough to get you employed as an English teacher.

　　Now employers will only look at teachers who have the knowledge, the skills and attitudes to teach English effectively. The result of this has been to raise non-native English teachers to the same status as their native counterparts something they have always deserved but seldom enjoyed. Non-natives are now happylinguistic discrimination is a thing of the past.

　　An ongoing research project, funded by the University of Cambridge, asked a sample of teachers, teacher educators and employers in more than 40 countries whether they regard the native/non-native speakers distinction as being at all important. NO was the answer. As long as candidates could teach and had the required level of English, it didnt matter who they were and where they came from. Thus, a new form of discriminationthis time justified because it singled out the unqualifiedliberated the linguistically oppressed . But the Cambridge project did more than just that: it confirmed that the needs of native and non-native teachers are extremely similar.

　　Questions:

　　S1. The selection of English teachers used to be mainly based on ________.

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S2. What did non-native English teachers deserve but seldom enjoy?

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S3. What kind of people can now find a job as an English teacher?

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S4. What is the result of the new form of discrimination ?

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　S5. The phrase the linguistically oppressed refers to those who were _______.

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　______________ ______________ _______________ ______________ _____________

　　Unit 2

　　S1. whether or not one was a native speaker.

　　S2. The same status as their counterparts.

　　S3. Ones who can teach and have the required English level.

　　S4. Non-native English teachers have been liberated. Or: It singled out the unqualified.

　　S5. qualified English teachers because they were non-native speakers.