FTs in China do not teach integrated English. Their students already have Chinese teachers that teach English reading, writing, listening, integrated English and grammar.

Teaching Oral English in that context is a uniquely flawed process, one devised by the Chinese educational system.

Who decides what qualifies a FT to teach this 'component' oral English? China.

Having said that, I do have an undergraduate degree in English and TESOL certification from Columbia. I do not consider myself a genuine English teacher because I lack the requisite credits in Education and a teaching license.

I do write well. One semester I had an opportunity to teach writing in a first level university. Chinese English students are taught a variety of writing techniques by Chinese teachers to do well on standardized exams. As a result they are 'conjunction addicted', 'preposition perplexed' and 'article blind'. Their Chinese English teachers share these writing maladies.

Although, I believe that I am qualified to teach an integrated English program (including grammar) to 'Students of Other Languages', in China I am not hired to do so. Employment in that field is restricted to Chinese citizens, although many top universities in China act to hire 'Foreign Experts' with full teaching credentials to perform as fully functioning instructors.

I was playing devil's advocate more than anything. And in doing so I find that along with myself and all the other posters, using Turnoi's exacting standards of the minimum qualifications an FT should have, you do indeed fit quite snugly into his category of 'Deecher' with a capital D. I am quite happy for an FT with a degree in botany to teach Oral English to the Chinese; however such a loser in Turnoi's eyes would be a 'deecher' personified. Although I can see where Turnoi is coming from; he is indeed unusually learned in language skills himself ,so sets extremely high standards.

Warning to all, look after your belongings at Chinese airports. This money belt was cut with a knife or scissors while I was wearing it.

1. There are certain formal qualiicational requirements for decent teacher like a subject-relevant degree in the subject you teach and addiitonal recongized teacher training like a PGCE. Anyone else without these formal criteria is NOT a teacher in these terms. ESL commonly employs "teachers" that do not match these criteria, we all know. Against these criteria, the latter would be sub-standard "teachers", and far too many of them work for ESL outfits with sub-standard conditions with respect to pay, working conditios, etc

I understand. Although I do doubt, and I don't include yourself, that most of the posters agreeing with you on this site and accusing others of being 'deechers' do not have the subject relevant degrees (namely in English grammar) thus putting them in the 'deecher' category themselves. I think you'd agree that a teacher teaching chemistry should have a degree in chemistry and a teacher teaching English need one in grammar. The latter of course would also need a degree covering English Literature if he teaches writing. What I am saying in short is that you are getting most of your support from 'deechers'