Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum "Leave of Absence" Policy?

I've read most of this thread. I think it's reasonable to expect a student to pay one more month's lessons if they want to quit during the year. So, if they have finished out March, and want to quit then, they would pay for April and be gone. I think an additional termination fee is excessive. I wouldn't sign for such a deal. But having said that, I think John v.d. Brook has every freedom to implement that fee in a capitalist society. As a consequence, he may be losing some really great students such as lizst and me, who are financially prudent.

Lizst's main contention is that such fees make it so that only rich people can study with John. He says, "Its unfortunate that some of the best teachers are only accessible to the rich."

Regardless of one's definition of rich, or what constitutes a great teacher, I think it's important to realize that rich people are always at an advantage. It starts when they're born and never stops. As a private piano teacher, you can't fight this. You can capitalize on it, or you can cater to less-than-rich people.

But there is a silver lining. Not all rich students who are given opportunities use them. Some "poor" students rise to the top because of sheer determination, despite less than stellar teaching. There's not much to worry about either way.

Reading through a topic with as many posts as this, with comments being made to or in response to different posters, is certainly challenging and as Keystring noted, because of the nature of a forum, abbreviated posts often lead to misconceptions.


That's not only my policy, it is what I suggested to the OP as a prudent business practice. Calling it a termination fee rather than an additional month's tuition, is semantics.

I want to stress this point: parents allowing students to quit before they've finished the school year usually are not doing so for economic/financial reasons. In most cases, the parents wanted to try piano for a child, but didn't realize what they were getting into. Rather than sign up for a series of trial lessons, they signed up for the whole school year. When May comes around, and junior hasn't been practicing for two months, mom is running out of nagging energy, they want to quit. Fine. But don't leave the teacher holding the bag for your error in judgment.


This presents a false dichotomy. The only time a parent would pay an early termination fee is when they withdraw their student from lessons before the school year was finished. It really has nothing to do with the income status of the family, and everything to do with whether they are taking their piano study seriously or not. They are quitting lessons for non-economic reasons, so their income levels or accumulated wealth is totally irrelevant.

Just to make the topic a bit muddier, families who are facing financial difficulties frequently ask if they can make partial payments for a couple of months. I cannot speak for other teachers, but I allow families to do so without adding a finance charge/late payment fee. Try that with one of your big institutions!

It might seem like a false dichotomy to you John, because like somebody else here pointed out, you probably haven't heard a different opinion all your life because you probably have clients who come from affluent areas (and your studio is very likely situated in an affluent area).

Income levels are relevant here for a simple reason: the rich get to sign on your policy without worrying about the $200 (or whatever) early termination fee clause since its peanuts for them. So they get more opportunities to explore activities for their kids. How about the less financially stable ones? They simply cannot take the risk of running an early termination fee bill in the event that their kid quits because that money would be better spent on utilities and other stuff that they already struggle paying for. I know its not easy for somebody who hasn't experienced this or who doesn't know many people who experience this to understand. So the point is, it still is unequal opportunities for the rich and the poor simply because such policies restrict poor kids from trying out activities because they simply cannot afford to pay termination fees whereas the rich kids get to try out different stuff. Is this so counter-intuitive that it needs to be classified a false dichotomy?

This is the false dichotomy in a nutshell. I will state it again: the reason students quite, at least 99% of the time, is because they lose interest and the parents do not want to expend the energy to work with the child to apply themselves and fulfill their commitment. Almost all of the regular teachers on this forum have stated, at one time or another, that they will work with parents having financial difficulties.

And don't kid yourself about parents wanting to do an exploratory program. Many teachers here, myself included, do offer exploratory programs.

This is not an issue of rich vs poor.

I agree with John here. Most student who have stopped lessons over the years have done so because of a loss of interest or adding too many activities and piano loses out. It is rare that someone drops for economic reasons, and if they talk to me about struggles, I will usually work out some other arrangements to make lessons affordable, including a 50% reduction in lesson costs.

You are arguing people would quit early for economic reason, but before you were saying that his rates were too high and only catered to the rich and therefore those with lower incomes wouldn't sign up for lessons in the first place. If they wouldn't sign up, then there wouldn't be a termination fee or penalty for quitting lessons or 30 day cancellation notice (however you want to phrase it, they are all the same).

What it amounts to is that the lessons they had already paid for (as most teacher do take payment in advance for at least the coming month) would continue for 30 days after giving notice to the teacher. So, it's money they already spent. It is their option to take those lessons they've paid for or not. It's not costing them anything more.

If you are not comfortable with this, then you are lucky that in a capitalist economy one can take their business elsewhere to find a teacher whose policy better suits their needs. And I assure you, there are quality teachers with all sorts of policies out there. The best teacher I ever had had no policy at all and wanted cash payment at the time of the lesson, but that is not how I wish to conduct my business.

This is exactly my experience also.

I never argued that people quit early for economic reasons alone. That is a possibility though and a very real one for those people. So yes, that's just one aspect. However, what I've described in my latest post seems to be a bigger concern. With early termination clauses, you discourage a poor man from trying out piano lessons for his kids when he doesn't know for sure that his kids will stay interested over the entire school year. That is too much of a gamble for him to take. He might be able to make monthly payments with some difficulty but the early termination fee of $200 might be too much money gone down the drain as far as the poor man's concerned. I'm quite perplexed that none of you see this.

Also Morodiene, I never said that his rates were too high and that was keeping people away because if a good teacher sets a rate of $70 an hour or a $3000 annual tuition, I would have absolutely no qualms paying that amount though I'm poor. I pay $70 per hour myself. Could you please quote a post of mine where I said that his rates were too high? If I did, I've forgotten and I think it was wrong but I don't think I did.

Also, I don't understand what you say later in your post. If they don't sign the contract, they just take lessons by paying for the month in advance and they can quit when they want to?? I don't think they have the option of not signing the contract in John's studio. That's not what John's policy says. If you want to quit before the end of the school year, you shoulder an early termination fee (regardless if you've attend the lessons that you've already paid for or not). That is what I understand. I'm pretty sure that is right. John is welcome to correct me. What you describe is a non-issue.

The part that you quoted is definitely not a false dichotomy. Like I said, you probably lack the experience to comprehend that part. However, I'm beginning to see the justification behind your early termination clause if most teachers here say that in their experience 99% of the students stop because they add other activities (and can afford them obviously) and then have no time left for piano lessons. So if its impossible to find replacements (students) easily in your experience, the early termination fee is probably justified. Losing interest is a different matter. My point still holds about the poor man's kid losing interest. That kid, by virtue of being a human being, is likely to lose interest too. Early termination clauses can deter poor people from enrolling their kids. Exploratory 3 month programs definitely help but what happens after those 3 months? Say a child still expresses interest at the end of the exploratory period. We all know that just because a kid goes to 10 lessons over 3 months does not necessarily mean that the kid will go to 40 lessons over a year with the same kind of interest. So in a way, exploratory programs don't address that problem completely. I'm not saying that it is entirely your responsibility but some teachers might opt to not have such clauses just to do their bit in promoting equality of opportunities.

We can go on and on about this and reach no consensus because it is not an easy matter to come out with a clear black/white picture of. Also, the teachers in this forum have an obvious side that they will take, from the nature of the posts I've seen here. That is in a way social predispositions that you guys need in order to be successful in navigating the social system, so its only natural that you take a certain side. We are all programmed to do that (either genetically or via social evolution).

Wrong assumption. The primary reason students leave is because they lose interest, not because they have other activities added by their allegedly rich parents.

With most of my students piano is either the only activity, or one of only two other activities, the other usually a sport, which is seasonal. But then, I do not live in an affluent area, or an affluent state.



Once again, students losing interest is the always the overwhelming main thing.

We are not debating reasons for why people quit. However, if losing interest is the main reason and not addition of activities, then my point remains about the poor vs rich. Poor kids are kids too and they are as likely to lose interest as rich kids. If these so called exploratory programs worked, the rich kids would be opting for those as well and wouldn't quit once they've decided that they want to continue on. Apparently, that does not happen as you still get a huge number of quitters. So why do you expect the poor kids of make use of the exploratory programs to avoid incurring the early termination fees later on?

I was trying to look for a plausible justification for the termination fees but with your latest post, it looks like I'll fail in my endeavor.

Well, you should go back through the thread and reread the posts; it was carefully explained to you, by several teachers, many times.

That's the problem. Several teachers. You are often blind to other opinions and points of view and I also told you why it was natural for you to behave like that. Its how people work in the current society. However, please don't assume you are right in an absolute sense just because several people belonging to your profession think there is a strong justification for charging that fee.

Liszt, you obviously are a compassionate and caring person who is upset about economic injustices. And you are a good player who has something musical to offer.

I have a suggestion: Take your skills and passion and focus it on teaching poor kids how to play the piano.

Charge them a nominal fee, such as $5.00, because studies have shown that people do not value very highly what they get for free. If they have no money at all, have them wash your car, take out the trash, something in exchange...(and no termination clauses!!!)

You certainly have enough time to teach a child or two, in that you have over a thousand posts here on PW...use some of your forum time to teach a kid or two who has little or no money for lessons.

I am not being sarcastic...its just a constructive thought.

Although I really like rocket88's suggestion above, I'd like to add one of my own, and that is, you change your moniker to shifty85. Debating with you is impossible, because when you raise an issue, and we address it, you answer with another issue. Your post, quoted above, addressed justification for a termination fee, your answer, also quoted above, shifts the focus to another aspect of the topic, in this case to whether we're blind to the view points of others. For the record, I get it - you don't want to pay a termination fee if you abrogate a contract. I also understand why you don't want to pay the fee - (dare I say it?) - because as a poor person, you feel the world should bend to your needs and sensibilities, rather than follow procedures which guaranty balance for both parties. So my question to you is: do you get why teachers who are income dependent on students fulfilling their contracts, have cancellation fees?

Of course, you weren't being sarcastic.

Your post is an excellent example of the prevalent attitude amongst the teachers on this forum (at least most of the ones who've posted in this thread). The insensitivity displayed by you in this post of yours is appalling. I think it speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. How about that for just a thought?

P.S: I've taught people for $10 (for 8 lessons a month, 2 hour sessions each). They've all been serious and advanced well. There are other methods than charging insane misc fees to encourage people to be serious, I'm sure you don't know about any of those techniques. I will consider your idea of having them take out my trash when I teach in the future. Thanks for that very thoughtful idea.

Really?

Of course John, I knew you would like his suggestion for me to teach poor kids in return for taking out my trash. So classy of you. Why am I not surprised?

I was at least gracious enough to acknowledge that differences in views arise out of social predispositions and that it was natural for you and me to have our respective opinions. We now have two people belong to the teaching community hurl insults at me (and claiming not to be sarcastic) just because I happen to have some arguments for the opposing view. My, are you guys so insecure about the moral issues surrounding your policies? If not, you wouldn't feel the need to make the kind of posts that you've made in the previous 2 posts (one by rocket88 and the last one by John where he seems to like rocket88's "suggestions"). I also did tell you that we could go on arguing about this without ever agreeing on anything and I even gave you a researched reason (from the sociological literature), which you've ignored completely, so that you can keep fooling yourselves that all of this has an absolute stamp of correct on it.

Is that $10 per hour or $10 per 16 hours??

Either way, you are directly affecting other piano teachers in your area by grossly undercutting their worth.

Of course, there are some wealthy piano teachers who can afford to audition their students and pick the brightest ones to teach for free. That's rare enough, though, as to not pose a problem.

John has over 5000 posts here. Your advice would suit him better, don't you think?