I actually agree with Dogs, but I think - to an extent - it can help native teachers enormously if they have learned a foriegn language themselves, simply because they can identify and anticipate the possible mistakes that may or may not arise, and they will be able to empathise more with the student's needs and difficulties.

The problem with non-native English teachers is that they are non-native. I know many non-native speakers of English who are fluent, but they will very rarely be at the level of a native speaker, simply because - having a different mother tongue - they simply won't know everything about the language that they have learned. They may mispronounce certain words, their spelling may be off, they may not recognise archaic words or academic/scientific terms . . .

Personally I'd rather learn a language from a native speaker, (providing they have training, as Dogs said) just because they are less likely to make mistakes and I'd be able to learn the language spoken as it is meant to be spoken.

Edit:

JCJ, pronunciation can be very difficult to learn frm audio-visual aids. If a student struggles with how to pronounce a word, then unless the teacher themselves can pronounce it then they will struggle. It's like with how the French roll their "r"'s, or how the Japanese can't pronounce their 'l' sounds . . . if you are relying solely on audio-visual aids I don't think it's possible for a non-native teacher to teach it properly, solely as they don't know how to pronounce it and an audio-visual aid can't explain that kind of thing. If the aid could then why would you need a teacher?

Really? A whole course! All the way to the end? Wow, that must be the biggest insult to professional teachers all around the world I've ever heard! I'll make a note of that while I go chatting up people in English on the streets and even City Hall! Oh yeah, that's right... if only those pesky results wouldn't exist.

I'd say this is a good place for a caveat: If the shoe fits...

And native speakers are immune to those? Let's share some laughs over at the Lamebook, shall we?

Incidentally, I've heard a lot about the importance of pronounciation above everything else. Why? Native speakers with no accredited qualification have impulsive control over their own accent only. How does that help a student? They may know how to do it, but how do they convey that to the student any better than a tape recorder?

Allow me to demonstrate. You can walk, right? Instruct your friend in the art of walking. He will survive, because he uses common understanding that you both have to fulfill the gaps in your explanation, meaning he already knows how to walk.
A foreign language student has no common understanding with you, so do the following: instruct your friend to only do as you say and nothing else. When he wakes up, you will have an awakening of your own.

If they are learning English to go to England then they might want to specifically learn British english. the fact is, though, that English is the international language. the chances are that a Japanese speakers is as likely, or more likely to use English with a Korean, German, Chinese or what have you than an Englishman.
See Dr. jessica jenkins for starters

to robin Mask

you miss the point. I am talking about starting young. I am not against native teachers teaching in schools but school age is too late for difficult phonemes. School aged kids will not get them from native or non-native conversation in any case. See Dr. janet Werker

they will get them young, and that is when the non-native teachers come in. many of the teachers teaching very young kids, in small happy groups, are non-native and they, at this age, are key.

these kids can pick up the sounds from audio devices as long as the sounds are contrasted, emphasized and given in numerous voices. (one native won't do it anyway) See Dr. patricia Kuhl.

Non-native teachers need not fret their pronunciation. Kids can get the difficult phonemes from audio visual devices. Heck, it even works with students who are supposed to be beyond the critical period for learning such things:
Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2007). Neural plasticity in speech acquisition and learning.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10 (2), 147-160.

I find it very ironical that an outright supporter of romatized Japanese as yourself is even discussing "correct spelling".　　

ヤッパその程度なんだよな～。マジウケ。

what a rude arrogant person you are acjama.

I don't think I've ever said I was an 'outright' supporter of romaji. I think in the few discussions that have cropped up I have supported its use for beginners, and I stand by my belief that it's good for some types of learners to begin in romaji and work their way up into kana and then kanji.

Insofar as the topic . . . spelling is extremely important in English, more so than in Japanese. In Japanese words are spelled phoenetically in the kana, and it's extremely difficult to 'mispell' a kanji. The very placement of an apostrophe can give the phrase "sisters friends" multiple meanings, and a typo of a simple word can change the entire meaning of a sentence. I argue - in English - native speakers will always trump over non-natives, because they are more likely to be aware of these important little differences. A non-native speaker may be just as good as a native, better, but if I was paying for a lesson I would prefer a native speaker, I think many would.

Also, I can't read what you wrote in Japanese. I don't recognise those two kanji yet, and although I can read kana I'm still not at any level to decipher what you said in terms of vocab.

In retrospect you perhaps have a point. My reasoning would probably be a little different, but with young children a non-native speaker would be most helpful, although I would personally say it depends on whether that teacher has the same primary language as the students. To learn the basics it would probably be easier for young students to learn from a teacher who can speak the same language as themselves, but I still think a native speaker is key, simply because they can spot errors or correct mistakes that the non-native might miss, and at such an early age accuracy is vital. It may be easy to learn a language, but it's very difficult to correct a mistake later on that's been taught and learned in one so young.

I can well understand that it would be good for a Japanese teacher who is teaching young japanese children some basics of the English language. Obviously it would be easier for children to learn from someone who speaks their own language to then teach them basic English or any other language they wish to learn. I believe that young children pick up languages really quickly. Here in UK we should be teaching languages from an early age.

Someone poo pooed the EFL Courses for those who wish to teach English to speakers of another language. But it retraces all the grammar etc that is needed to teach someone else.

I wonder why here in UK we have so many foreign students coming here to study English from an English teacher? I do believe its important to mix with people who speak the language naturally. If I went to Japan I would want to learn from a Japanese teacher--but it would help if that teacher could also speak my language so there could be explanations.

What do Japanese teachers of their own language have to do-- to be qualified to teach Japanese to foreign students? do they have tests?

I agree that the future of learning English lies largely in the hands of non-native teachers... But not for the same reasons outlined in this thread so far. I fee, that way simply because most of the time, the first exposure to English is with a non-native teacher. Most English teachers in Japan are not native speakers. English conversation teachers almost always are, but the majority does not go to conversation classes. They go to regular school, where the regular English classes are overwhelmingly taught by non-native speakers.

If you improve the base - in this case the non-native teachers - you improve everything. Therefore I feel that improving the quality of the non-native teachers will go a lot further than just throwing native speakers and hoping something will stick.

In terms of value; a qualified native speaker is better than a qualified non-native speaker is better than a non-qualified native speaker is better than a non-qualified non-native speaker.
There are a lot more non-native teachers who could have their skills improved, but not many truly qualified native speaking teachers...

I agree entirely.
In the few times this topic has come up in the forums I feel that there is a biased comparison of trained non-native versus non-trained native (and in that case each has their strengths and weaknesses) when training can be acquired but nativity can not.

I've had lots of applications for positions at my school by both native and non-native, over a hundred at least.
The non-native tend to have awkward sentence structure and spelling mistakes far more than the native... in their resumes!

I'd like to point out that I agree with a point acjama made about the priorities of the native speaker going to Japan. It does tend to happen a lot that they are here to have fun and teach English as a meal-ticket and visa-extender.
I'm not impressed with the insinuation that non-native foreigners are somehow exempt from this same behavior, it's the same shit from a different pile.

Also, Masaegu, "ironical" is correct but so is "ironic" and if you want to sound native and a little less awkward, use the latter.