Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Teacher stealing my student - UPDATE

Don't forget, ol' Mother T worked for the mother-of-all cartels!

It is impossible to do so for the same reason that it is impossible in my own profession: as soon as something is both an art and science, with more than one way of achieving something and more than one set of goals, you can't. But I'm guessing that teachers also need to make judgment calls rather than just blindly following rules. Supposing, for example, that a student is on the way to injury or is already injured and it is absolutely clear that the way he is being taught is doing it, do you leave the student in the dark because an ethics code forbids it? That kind of thing which has got to be a delicate matter as well a a hornet's nest.

[edit] Except that none of that applies to this thread.

Sadly, that's too common to be at all exceptional.

Emphasis on "without any grounds." One can certainly talk about a bad meal they had or poor service to friends and family, and that is not slander. The restaurant owner would not have a case against the person speaking.

I don't see what problems people are having with organizations. They exist to provide a standard of ethics (and they *do* enforce them when necessary with its members or those claiming to be members), support for the independent music instructor, and continuing education for teachers including certification. MTNA only lists certified members on their website, by the way, so they only promote those who have proven a level of competence according to their standard.

Yes, the members' ethics, however good or bad they may be. A restaurant serving poorly cooked meals is one thing, a piano teacher who is outside of any association being harangued by that association whilst engaged in their livelihood is totally another.

Just to be clear, nothing that DarkDragon has written about the villainous Polish teacher suggests that she has been acting in this manner.

No, but what good is scandalous gossip if it is not embellished, exaggerated and made juicy for the telling?

No harm if said teacher's identity remains anonymous, which it has. And I do not think DD's purpose was to gossip, do you?

It wasn't DD who was embellishing and exaggerating.

Imagine if a teacher's reputation or even ability to work is dependent on gossip from other teachers who are playing the game of whispering into each others' ear, every time adding a bit every time beyond the actual facts in order to build outrage similar to the behavior we have seen here.

TJ--

Even though I disagree with 99.9999% of what you write, I do enjoy the occasions when you use clear logic and make intelligent references for your arguments. But when you degenerate into innuendo and name-calling, it's just not cool.

I didn't name names, the previous poster did. I corrected them.

If you like logic rather than emotion, then you will love this post from another poster:



Do you disagree with it as well?

None of us were there, but when any of us start adding details to the account of the OP out of our own imagination, it is not constructive. Before we know it the Polish teacher will be reported to have kidnapped students leaving the auditorium and brainwashing them to only take lessons from the true heirs to Chopin's legacy.

Adam Smith's invisible hand is making me type this (I have a degree in Economics). I would argue that a third premise exists and that is greed.




Let's assume you and I are thwe only two in the Oil business. Let's also assume that we respect each other for the big companies we are ( we wouldnt have gotten here unless we knew what we were doing ).

Let's assume that we have share holders that expect a return on their investment.

Greed will dictate that I go into a price war with you to win more marketshare and possibly put you out of business because I will be better off for it, and so will my investors. Notice how I am not bad mouthing you but at the same time your pain is my gain to some degree.

In a similar way piano teachers are individual businesses and it is in thier best interests to find those students who seem to be steady cash cows (long-term serious students). In doing so they increase their market share AND increase the return potential to their shareholders (thier families).

I doubt the OP would be upset if the Polish person took a student who was flakey. The OP is upset and is acting out of greed (self preservation) because a beloved student/cash-cow (yes,it can be both) is no longer there.

Thus we see that greed is a third premise, greed on the part of the teacher poaching and greed on the part of the teacher preserving.

This "greed" back and forth may not be good for the teachers involved but it can be good for the student because over a long enough period of time the more advanced teacher will probably win out causing the less advanced teacher to leave or to sharpen their skills to stay competitive(a benefit to the students).

I dont need a circut city and a best buy for me to be happy. They may be in the same business and respect each other but I the consumer dont need both to be happy if they both do the same thing. I will take the more professional one that can offer me the most and maybe at a discount. The two stores realize this and thus compete for my business ("greed" on their part) and I win.

But having only one company will mean they can be a monopoly and be unfair with prices; fine, enter a similar teacher with similar skills and that monopoly goes away, but the greed will always be there to keep each of the remaining businesses in check.

There is something essentially wrong with this theory. The parent was willing to pay both teachers and have his child study with both teachers. Since the first teacher was not facing any loss of income, greed cannot be involved.

Speaking personally, I had a series of duffers - all highly qualified. I got sent to a specialist teacher for a couple of lessons and stayed. Couldn't believe my luck! My life changed forever. If she'd had a non-snatch agreement I'd be working in an office today.

BTW: Good job by whomever, changing the TITLE of the thread.

Every time I come back to this thread, its 4 pages longer lol.
I've worked over the years to develop my roster of students from nothing to where it is today, as many of you have. I guess I believe in advertising like normal people. I've never even thought about sniping off any other teachers current students. I'm not so angry of the "polish" teacher as much anymore. I'm equally as frustrated with the parents of the student (the father in particular). He was obviously interested in having his daughter be successful. I remember there were issues with him not accepting my advice at first about extending the lesson time. I remember when I first found out about these "free" lessons during my lesson with the student. I was not a happy camper, even though she was one of my best students.

There have been a number of posts talking about how if I was like a store, what does it matter what store they go to if they get similar product (results)? She knew the holes that she needed to plug. She knew that there was a lot more for her to learn, but now...not from me.

One other thing.

If this teacher sniped one of my less advanced students, I would still be upset. A LOT of people say "its all about the students". For me, this is still a business. My entire income is based on what I earn from teaching. I get to be somewhat bummed out by that loss of income no? Sure I'll find a replacement for the time slot, but geez....I really enjoyed my sessions with that girl. I'm pretty sure I care "too" much

Perhaps the lesson learned here is that the relationship you develop with the parents (or those who are actually paying the bill) can be as much or more important than the one that you develop on the piano bench with the student in terms of retaining students.

Relationships are built in part on mutual understanding, trust and face-to-face exposure and experience with each other. If the father was not willing to take your advice then something was clearly missing in the trust or relationship department. Or, perhaps he interpreted the request to extend lesson time as a sign of weakness or of not being able to get the job done rather than understanding the fact that the kind of progress possible and desired meant more teaching/coaching time. Any reasonable person when evaluating this kind of one-way request from you to extend the lesson length or frequency would ask themselves questions like: Do we need more of the same? Or do we need something supplementary? Or do we need something different?

How much time do you spend with the parents? Do you know what motivates them and makes them tick? Do you understand their relationship with their children and their motivations? Do you have regular telephone conferences and base touching on progress? Do you plan some serendipity time between lessons to allow you to interact with the parent before or after the lesson? Do you meet with them formally at least once per year to really listen to them and to discuss objectives and determine plans together? Do you organize social time before and after recitals to build relationships with a cup of coffee or a glass of wine?

I spent quite a bit of extra time with this family. I heard their requests and I informed them of what we needed to do to make that happen. Although a very good student, she did need to realize that practicing hard just leading up to her exam did not make up for the lack of effort the few months prior. She had talent, so maybe she could have thought that she could put it off.

I would still maintain contact with her and/or the family demonstrating your sincere personal interest in her further development. Wouldn't surprise me if you have her again as a student in future. Who knows if the new teacher will even stay in town or will truly meet the family's needs?

Perhaps this other teacher will tell her the same thing in time and the parents will then realize the lack of progress this girl was making when compared with her potential was due to her daughter not putting forth the effort - and not her teacher at the time!