KJ...
A hugely informative, thought provoking and enjoyable post. Thanks.

CHINA AND ENGLISH

"In the land of the blind; the one-eyed man is king!"

[In regione caecorum rex est luscus.]
Desiderius Erasmus, Adagia (III, IV, 96)
Dutch author, philosopher, & scholar (1466 - 1536)

TRANSLATION: Anyone fluent in English can secure a job teaching English in China.

Demand far exceeds the supply. Too many students - not enough teachers. Qualified teachers?, who cares?!

"I have a hard time accepting that said teachers should be held to blame - or, at any rate, not held to blame in a way that will damage their reputations and/or moral."

Yes, I think we all agree with this......however, you are assuming that if these teachers had been properly prepared than they would have done a quality job. I am not finding fault with good intentioned persons, when, through no fault of their own, they suddenly discover they are lacking qualifications to teach. Again, yes, much blame can be laid at the feet of the ESL/TESOL schools. These schools need a governing body. I am not talking about the federal, state and private institutions of higher learning, (Universities and Colleges throughout the world) rather the entrepreneurial variety that is promoted based only for profit by the owner. Government involvement. Yes, as you rightfully lamented, it seems we may have to resort to becoming a beseecher of the Government.

"So, should these teachers be held accountable? My personal feeling on this is that the accountability itself should be shown in the lack of a contract extension, which, in itself, shifts the blame back to the employer in that said action obviates the fact that the teacher should not have been hired in the first place............."

Again, I could not agree with you more. It seems to me that you are arguing from the position that every teacher is a good teacher. No one, certainly not I, is suggesting that quality/good, even marginal teachers be sacked, disciplined or litigated. I would rather have YOU teaching at 60 to 70 per cent of capacity than an unqualified individual functioning at 100%. My prey is the instructor/teacher who knowingly (conceals his lack of qualifications and/or uses false credentials) is defrauding everyone - the school, the DOS, the student, the parents and perhaps, even themselves.

It seems to me that everyone is overly concerned with the right of the individual teacher (Western influence rearing its ugly head again) and is not visibly concerned about the rights of the student and/or the parents. We are attempting to micro-manage a nonmicro-manageable POSITION. Too defend an indefensible line of thought. Maybe, we are being overly analytical and too emotional on this issue. Obviously, and understandably, however, one also needs to have the ability to see this problem from the perspective of those most EFFECTED/AFFECTED by the incompetent teacher. The consumer!

Objectives and abilities of the student must play a role in the equation. The five w's may be applicable here (Journalism. who, what, when, where, and why: along with how, the essential questions about the subject of a news story that the lead is traditionally expected to answer). Do we use the same methods to teach a student with an IQ at the genius or near genius level as the average learner? What are the objectives of each student? Are expectations and qualifications for teachers now so high that no one is sufficiently educated to perform at the expected level? So on and so forth. The number of variables that come to play is staggering. Everyone can think of many reasons to not start litigation against a teacher. No one can be all things to all people. However,..........

WHEN DO WE STOP BEATING THE HORSE AND MAKE AN EFFORT TO SAVE HIM?

Must the carcass of the deceased animal lie in the sun until the stench of rotting flesh fills the nostrils of the wealthy and influential before the rights of the consumer are addressed? I hope not.

The Private Sector. You touched on this area. Totally unregulated. This is the starting point for cleaning up the ESL/TESOL industry. This is where the COUNCILORS strike, bringing the omnipotent power of the law to work for the consumer. After a few charlatans have been prosecuted and fined, yes,and driven from the ranks, I think a lot of issues concerning the ESL/TESOL will slowly fade from the from the beam of the floodlights.

The problems of the ESL community are many, varied and complex.

Reasons lawyers have not entered this ARENA previously are: because there is little money to be made. And, the structure is so weak that it will not support their weight. And, international law does not receive the backing of the government with whom they must court and rely upon to uphold their efforts. The BIG money is not yet there. Only when the offspring of the affluent members of a particular society are affected by the incompetence of the teachers will the lawyers seek to soothe the egregious effrontery against the children of their clients.

The attacker in any controversy has the easiest path to glory. Without exception the posters on this issue defend the teacher. Expectedly, only teachers are responding. What will be the attitude of the recipients of a substandard education? Nonetheless, to stand for something, to have a belief in something and then have the courage to express your beliefs and not stumble is very difficult. The attacker has the advantage, always. He's mobile. Moving at will. Attacking the weak points. Never standing for anything. He does not have to defend a position.

The proposal of lawsuits against teachers is not popular. Understandably. I hope it does not come to this. But, it will.

We, you and I, are privileged to be accorded an opportunity to teach English to the indigenous people of the oldest continuous society on earth, in a nation that is the most populous on earth, that is home to the largest number of ethnic groups (56) on earth and has contributed more knowledge to the people on earth than any other. We have a responsibility to China. I do not take that responsibility lightly. I hope that you do not. And you. And you. And you.