Thanks for your reply linguisticus.

Just a few comments:

I'm a little confused as to how you managed to read into my post that I expected FT's to love China. Yeah, it would help, but I'd rather make that a broader statement in that it would be nice if they had a general love for humanity. In that context, it may make them a little more patient when dealing with the shortcomings of their students.

"Behind such pompous declarations for one's political love......"

Huh? I'm shocked that you found such declarations of my political love. Where did you read that? Actually, I have zero political leanings. Well, at least none that I discuss here in this forum. If you must label me, though, you can call me a Taoist/Buddhist/Shamanistic freedom lover who despises Theocracies, loves nature and embraces change.

"If you work for one of these superiors he or she will not concede to you any room to adapt your teaching to China's unrealistic book-centred subject learning."

Your point is well taken; however, I have managed to convince my superiors to be a little more flexible in that regard; they've now accepted a 70 - 30 split in terms of percentages. That is, they hope that teachers will at least use the provided texts 70% of the time. With my own classes, though, since I've been there for two years now, I'm given far more flexibility than that. Just to play the devil's advocate for a moment, though, wouldn't you say that college deans and the like have had to take a rigid stance in the face of having to deal with so many inexperienced "teachers?"

"The Chinese have no regard whatsoever for practical skills and ability, but a deep-seated, almost pious respect for certs and degrees."

That statement is a little too all encompassing for me to accept. But I do get your meaning. However, I should note that one of the loop holes in the law that allows for non degree holders to be employed as English teachers is that those with demonstrated experience can be hired without degrees in some instances. It wasn't Westerners who drafted that loop hole clause.

"How many FTs involve themselves in the acquisition process by leaning towards being a participant?" My words that you found to be "convoluted." Well, I guess you meant to say that you found it to be convoluted logic. Why? I admire anyone, such as yourself, who has mastered more than one language. (Thanks for giving me that information.) I'm a little surprised that you could have done so without embracing the notion that a language teacher needs to move through several phases in the process of helping their students acquire the language. One of those phases is certainly that of participant. Well, perhaps I should have stated clearly that a teacher who simply teaches will rarely reach their students.

I agree with your statement about the need for more integration of FT's into the Chinese academic system; however, I can't see them expending much energy in that direction as long as they are dealing with so many disinterested and inexperienced teachers in their midst. Teachers who, dare I say, for the most part have agendas that don't match up with the needs of their students.

Finally, I can't see that my being a "China advocate" has much to do with my observations regarding the dirth of excellence in the Chinese EFL classroom. Please. Give me more credit than that. What would you call yourself, Linguisticus? An FT advocate? I don't think so. I think you're more objective than that, and quite capable of seeing the bigger picture. Unfortunately, your posts often swing back and forth between compliment and invectiveness as if there's a game you're playing and you're the only one who knows the rules. Kinda fun actually, but as a friend's father used to say, "Go figger how a cow catch a rabbit."