To me, the assumption that authentic materials are those made by and for native speakers is erroneous.

To me, the assumption that authentic materials are those made by and for native speakers is erroneous. I would argue that any artifact of language production should be considered authentic. The intention of communicating ideas is what makes something authentic or not.

The power of the native speaker comes up because we are always concerned about what is "proper" or "correct" language. We look to native speakers to set the standard for this. As we all know, however, native speakers are neither the majority when it comes to English users nor English teachers. Additionally, there is no monolithic "native speaker" standard to refer to.

Out of our need to be inclusive, ESL/EFL professionals have adopted the phrases "English as a Lingua Franca" and "World Englishes." I find these concepts still a little too stratified, cordoning off different users into sub-groups based on their location at birth. It takes the criteria of where you were born, originally used to decide "native-ness," and simply applies it to others as a way to systematize "non-nativeness."

To apply these criteria to materials in order to discern their "authenticity" drags into the classroom identity politics that, in many cases, can hinder the breadth of learning opportunities for students.