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

Yes really...its called pro bono. I really was not being sarcastic.

You shouldn't take that seriously actually. That's in a country where $1 = 50. The average prices of lessons there from a good teacher (a rare breed) would be around $5-10 per lesson. I charged $10 for 8 lessons (16 hours, yes). I was the best teacher they could get in a 200 mile radius (yes, that's how rare piano teachers and pianists are in that country). So I wasn't really undercutting anybody's worth. I was the only one available there and I was a student myself and was teaching other students, so I knew that they couldn't afford much more than that. None of them quit on me (maybe one did). I had only 5 students though (couldn't make time for more, for obvious reasons, and frankly, there wasn't more demand than that).

EDIT: Let me put that into perspective for you. $10 there would buy me grocery for a week. So I'd say that its equivalent to $100 here in the US. So I probably charged an equivalent of $100 for 8 2 hour sessions a month.

Oh yea? The comment about the number of posts I've made here on PW is a dead giveaway. You must think you're really smart.

The # of posts was to illustrate that you have some spare time. Nothing more. I know you won't believe me, but that is what I meant...pro bono work, and you have the time.

Why are you so angry?

I am not a teacher, in any capacity, and I really am having trouble with your point and arguments.

John provides a trial period. His contract is upfront (this isn't a surprise fee). He's not forcing them to sign up with him. And there are plenty of alternate teachers (and activities).

Clearly, if people don't like the terms under which John offers his service, they can choose another teacher, or another activity.

Piano teachers are running a business. They can set the terms of their service in any way they want (as long as they're not breaking any laws.)

Do you get upset that you can't order pizza at McDonalds?
Or (to come back to the issue of wealth), that there are some restaurants that don't have a "value menu"?

No. You simply choose another restaurant that meets your needs. Or, if you don't have the money, you stay home, use coupons, and cook. This doesn't mean those restaurants are doing anything *wrong*. No one business can be all things to all people.

Further (and I know everyone is going to hate me saying this, but...) piano lessons aren't a necessity. We're not talking about food, water, electricity, shelter here.

I'd argue that it's actually *irresponsible* to sign up for lessons, especially under a contract, if you're not sure you'll be able to pay for them. If I were in a position where I wasn't sure if I could pay my rent or electric bill from month to month, it would be *irresponsible* of me to spend money on piano lessons (or chocolate, scuba lessons, trips to Disney, etc.) No matter how much I might want them, or how talented I think I might be. Part of being an adult is managing our money appropriately, and not buying things we can't afford - even if we (or our kids) "really really really" want them.

When I bought my piano - I really wanted a gorgeous grand that was $44,000. I didn't buy it, because I couldn't afford to spend $44,000 on a piano. Does that mean that particular manufacturer is terrible, and is doing something wrong?

Now - all that said - I *think* what you're saying is, "it's unfair that these kids who come from families without as much money don't have the same opportunities". And, I'd say, yes, it's unfair. But, life is unfair. In pretty much every way. And, to me, having to pay an early termination fee to break a contract that you knowingly agreed to is such a tiny part of that unfairness, that it just doesn't rank.

And, for the record, I did not grow up wealthy. My dad was in the military, and then decided to quit... we qualified for free lunches at school, and both my parents worked. So not being able to afford things is not a concept that I'm completely unfamiliar with. Oh, and I definitely did not have piano lessons growing up!

I think many of the analogies given above are misplaced and I have arguments against them. However, since all my arguments here have fallen on deaf ears and since John has categorically stated that he and his fellow teacher friends have "addressed all the issues" that I raised, I guess I have nothing more to gain out of this discussion. However, I leave unconvinced as I'm sure all of you are. I however go, knowing very well that there are valid points on either side. My only trouble is with people making vast general statements here, especially in posts that give "advice" to new teachers. I really think these new teachers should be making many of these choices on their own, based on their sensibilities. Experience might teach them a thing or two, and what experience teaches them need not necessarily be a need for a cancellation fee, who knows? Maybe that is what your experience, teaching in an affluent area (for example. Now don't start an argument about this) taught you. What you present as "truth" is simply not good enough, is the point that I've been trying to raise all this while. Clearly, this is the wrong forum. That just won't happen. So I'll stop now.

Actually you can order a pizza at a few McDonalds (e.g. Orlando, FL) so I think that should pretty much put this entire thread to rest

While I agree that any teacher can have whatever rates/fees they feel like, I would also agree that I personally become more wary once we start getting into the realm of paying for non delivered service (obviously various factors play into this).

I think liszt85 just needs to understand that while there are plenty of JvdB's in the world, that there are also plenty of other teachers who do have more policies/rates that do cater to those who maybe can't afford to lose an entire months tuition cost (again, regardless of why). That JvdB and others feel that their businesses are better off with the fees is perfectly fine for them. They might end up "losing business", but they've obviously weighed the pro's and con's and made a decision. That the decision may lack altruism is beyond the point. I know that in my neck of the woods, there are tons of neighborhood "piano teachers" that cost significantly less than our kids current teacher and have no formal "studio policies" at all. I'm guessing this area is not unique in that regard. Given the number of piano students we see and the scarce number of non-teaching jobs available, I would be willing to guess that this trend will continue.

The number one problem in this forum involves statements presented as generalities, as though they were universal truths, rather than personal experience within the writer's sphere. Furthermore, educated guesses are being presented as facts. Here are facts: acoustic pianos have strings that resound when struck by hammers, musicians generally have 5 fingers on each hand (but not always), some people stick with lessons and practice, some progress and some don't. Why people quit lessons, why they don't thrive, and what they can afford, is conjecture. What you observe and what you conclude largely depends on what you are doing with whom and where. Teachers work in isolation and usually restricted to their geographic base.

Demographics play into it. If you choose an area where people are rich, enroll their kids in tons of activities of which yours is one of many and a status symbol, is it surprising that you are treated as a commodity? If you are catering to the competition & exam crowd you'll get other behaviours. To go from the specifics of your surroundings, and then make a global statement about how things are - that is the problem. As long as we all understand that a) it may be limited and local, b) even so human nature is guesswork.

In my personal experience, including people that I know, reasons for quitting lessons have been the following. These experiences are limited to those people and circumstances:
- a woman who still accompanies her musician husband, but otherwise doesn't touch the piano because she was hit so many times by her teacher with a ruler when young
- several students who wanted serious instruction and either got frivolous light things without substance, struggled without getting the tools, and couldn't get at those tools. Some went on to better teachers. Or in one case, the teacher would arrive late to her own studio, and spend most of the time talking about her students, or arguing with family members.
- lack of money

None of the above reasons for quitting lessons can be rectified through strict payment policies. In regards to lack of money, especially not. Strict payment policies will address those cases where students are frivolous, will feel the pinch and so are "motivated" to stick it through, but are not so hard off financially that you will scare them from even enrolling. If you have a timid respectful student who puts you on a pedestal, you may scare them from even approaching you if your policies are too harsh - and lose a potential good student.

If a professional model is to be cited then all sides of professionalism should be kept in mind. I'd opt for the professional who:
- has mastered his trade so that he has something to offer. There are car salesman types who do manage to get rich through their schemes, but I'll bet this is distasteful to most members here
- plans things to the benefit of his clients (your students will be able to learn so eventually they have skills for playing independently) but realistically (not everyone wants to put in the work, or can, for real musicianship)
- has a sound business plan, and takes care of his own interests (John's point).

If the tunnel vision and either/or stances could go, then maybe some of the disagreements would be less so.

It can't just be one of these.

keystring, I love your posts, but you make me think - What kind of world do we live in where someone wanting you to pay your bills when you agreed to pay them is considered "strict?"

John, you are not writing about paying your bills. You are writing about a disincentive policy whereby someone who leaves lessons early, even with proper early notification of one or more months, must pay a penalty. These are two entirely different things.

Are you able to accept that more than one scenario is possible in this wide world? And that different people are motivated differently? Your proposed policy works for some people who are in certain circumstances and think in certain ways. This may be the majority of people in your sphere. It may not have the desired effect with other people in other circumstances. The bottom line is being paid and having people stay with you - not the policy to make that happen - is that plausible?

Imagine, for example, a student who has been badly burned. A previous teacher, or a series of them, have all been problematic (and truly so). The student also has limited income. The number one motivation for that student will not be a monetary threat. The number one motivation for that student will be that you are competent, able and willing to help, and will not mess that student up further. If the former teacher was abusive (as many incompetent teachers are), then any stance that appears threatening will not motivate that student - it will be a disincentive. In all likelihood you would be astute enough to size up the situation and act accordingly. What I am saying is that people are motivated by where they are at, and to get the results you want, that is a factor. In your demographics, your policy is probably perfect, and since your former problems are solved, they obviously work.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying, then. You're arguing that a student can't try out lessons because of the clause in John's policy, but he has a trial period first. If you don't like the clause, then you don't take lessons from him to begin with. If you have no problem with his rates, then what *is* your problem?

I have a policy with a 30 day cancellation period. Students pay me month to month, but if they are not going to continue I require 30 days notice. I also have a trial period that all students start out of 2 months, paid in advance. After that, they are considered enrolled (if we both agree to continue) and then would have to cancel according to my policy.

Also the point was made that most students do not cancel for economic reasons. Other teachers attest to that as well. You seem to have argued several different points over the course of this post, and your main contention seems to have been lost. Can you clearly state what you have issue with?

Of course they can be motivated differently, but if they agree to terms, don't you think they should honor their agreement?

I think that when someone shops for a teacher one of the factors to consider is the studio policies. If a teacher wishes to have a policy that a student come to lessons balancing a pencil on his nose, so be it. It is up to the potential student or the parents to be familiar with the studio policies. If the teacher is serious about the studio policies he/she should convey that idea to the student/parents.

Probably any number of things that could be in a studio's policies MIGHT dissuade a student, but if that's the case I imagine it's better for a student to go elsewhere. Perhaps studio policy is as an important factor in choosing a teacher as is the teacher?

Whatever the case, the owner of the studio has the right to run the studio in any way he/she sees fit.

Ken, I don't think anybody disputed that. In fact, I repeatedly said that John is free to run his studio as he sees fit. However, to make statements that sound as though they hold well generally as statements of facts, especially when a new teacher comes in here seeking advice, is not a very healthy phenomenon. I tried to come up with some opposing points of view with plausible justifications against some clauses in policies such as John's, not to prove that John or anybody else is running studios with immoral policies but to state that people might choose not to have similar clauses for various reasons, some altruistic in nature (and still without too any significant disadvantages to the studio owner). I was merely reacting to trends in the teacher's forum here that I think are unhealthy in general. John might have found something that works well for him but it would not be in everybody's best interest if his advice is taken seriously by every single new teacher that comes in here for advice. An opposing point of view is rarely offered on these forums, it all has to do with teachers patting each other on their backs for all the policies that are presented as necessary precautions that must be taken against rogue students. I just can't buy that argument and I can't watch as this is being fed to new teachers coming in here for advice.

I hope this answers Morodiene's question as well. I did not want to continue arguing here but I thought I'd clarify one last time since Ken decided to make a post here.

I don't understand the reason for the question. There has been no question in our conversation about people honoring agreements or not. Of course people should.

However, I thought we were discussing what types of approaches are good for achieving goals. If someone wants a behaviour, or to discourage a behaviour, they start with motivations, cause and effect. A person who is motivated by the pocketbook can be reached that way. A person who has other motivations won't be reached that way. It's like trying to catch tigers using peanut butter, or squirrels setting out hunks of meat.

If this is seen as part of the debate going on, I am not interested in debates. I like exploring ideas and finding solutions.

That's only true up to a point. The reason this thread has prompted such a rigourous debate is that it is contentious and considered to be worth debating. I don't think everything can be summed up by ideas of a free-market economy. The legal system tends adapt over time to gradually weed out the ability of service-providers to maintain unfair policies - basically by putting in laws and statutes which limit what policies are enforceable or actionable. (Of course, laws are always a step or two behind the problems of the world because they come to pass once a problem has already set in.) I'm not saying this thread belongs in that category, or that this case would ever lead to that sort of reaction - but history shows that things that were once considered acceptable and up to the discretion of the service provider, may not always stay that way. That's why debate is important. Things start at the grass-roots level and gathers momentum is there is sufficient undercurrent of concern.

Let's say a piano teacher has a policy of not teaching students with a mixed-blood heritage. No matter how clearly worded, that would not be considered acceptable and would breach any number of laws. Yes, that's an extreme example, but the point I'm trying to make is that we have to be somewhat circumspect about what is considered fair and reasonable in the wider community before blindly accepting that a business person can set whatever policies they like, and enforce them, so long as they are clearly worded and have a signature beneath them.

Again, not suggesting this thread is in that ballpark, but it's a reason not to fall too blithely into the Darwinian free-market economy thing. Every policy should be subject to questioning. And I do disagree with the quote above from Ken. There are limits and controls - teaching studios can't operate like dictatorships. Many traders do set down policies and get people the sign them which are not actually legal or enforceable. A policy is only as strong as its enforceability. I encourage people to be as aware as possible of the law so that they don't suffer in the grey area of policy-making and false threats and supposed consequences. Of course, the ideal would be that you are sufficiently aware before a transaction takes place so that you don't ever get roped into an unjust policy, thinking you must abide by it. Even so, if you ever do find yourself in an unfair situation, it's always a good idea to seek advice to see if you are really beholden to it or whether it's just hot air disguised as law. A substantial proportion of policies presented like laws by service providers are not actually binding or enforceable - no matter how many times you have signed it. Policies must operate under the limits and controls of real laws.

We must also remember that there is an element of good faith involved when setting policies. People who sign things can be tricked into believing it means something different. People who ask you to sign something may gloss over the fine print, or worse, deliberately mislead you. The fact is, in the world of civil "policies", if it comes to a claims court, the judge will decide the case on the basis of general law and basic fairness, not on fine print and ingeniously-worded, rogue policies. It's something to remember when people start operating their teaching studio like it is a republic with it's own laws which cannot be challenged.

So yes, you can make your own policies, and most people will abide by them if they sign up with you. But unless your polices are inline with the law, don't expect to be able to enforce them. Signatures aren't as iron clad as you think.

No wait, that doesn't make sense. You yourself state that it would be illegal, so it doesn't fit the scenario being discussed (ethical/moral vs legal).

liszt mentions that he wants to present a countering view from JvdB in that he believes that JvdB et al's policy of handling early terminations (and related refunding of tuitions) is not one that he hopes that every teacher will blindly follow. He has done that, and any new teacher reading this thread will hopefully see that there are certain ramifications to setting up those types of policies/contracts.

But beyond that, the "moral conscience" issue with studio policies/contracts (legal issues notwithstanding) really does come down to economics. If one has no other alternatives to what are perceived to be unfair policies, then I believe "moral conscience" starts to come into play. However, if a teacher decides to have utterly draconian rules (e.g. prepay 1 year in advance, no refunds for any reason, students must meet attendance/practicing requirements, students must participate in competitions and are expected to meet performance standards, etc, etc) and folks have reasonable options available, then studios can very definitely be dictatorships (I happen to know of one that is very much run in that fashion).

We can of course debate the merits of such an approach, and that is where I believe it helps to have non-teachers pipe in on these types of topics. It's good for teachers to at least hear and understand where their customers heads are at as well. So a teacher coming here will hopefully get multiple views and choose the one that best fits.

This reminds me of the time I went skydiving for the first time. They show you a video that has a lawyer and stick a contract in front of you that says that you agree not to sue them for _any_ reason _including_ (but not limited to) gross negligence on their part (packed your chute up wrong because the packer was drunk and just dumped by his girlfriend, too bad). I read it, chuckled, and asked the person if their contract has ever held up in court. The person gave me a very unamused look and quite seriously queried, "are you a laywer?" The jump was awesome BTW.

It does if you read the rest of my post. I said quite clearly that I wasn't arguing this thread (moral/ethical or otherwise), but against a statement from Ken which suggested a teaching studio can set any policy it likes. In any case of policy, it's not worth the paper it's written on if it's not enforceable. I think I made that point very clearly. I am choosing not to involve myself in the main discussion of this thread because it already has enough players. I was quite clear that my post was an aside. Still relevant though.

Ando, I think you're carrying the point to an all new level. Certainly I was not speaking of a studio having the right to set policies that are morally, ethically, or legally wrong. We are speaking in terms of attendance, finances, and termination.

In the legal system, conclusions are often drawn based on what a reasonable person would expect in a given situation. The example you give goes light years beyond what a anyone should read into what I said - unless you perhaps take it totally out of the context of this topic. Then perhaps we could speculate about all sorts of unsavory things would be inappropriate to incorporate in a studio policy..

In the context of this topic I hold to exactly what I said. And the student has the choice of whether he/she wants to take lessons at that studio based on the teacher and the policies. If enough students feel the policies are out of line, there won't be any studio.

I think there is plenty of debate going on in the topic without introducing highly unlikely and illegal scenarios into the debate.

Ken,

I did state that I made an extreme example. What you consider to be outside of the scope of a teaching studio may not necessarily be so. Depending on location, there are laws governing how you can penalise somebody for non-payment, late payment, withdrawal penalties etc. These are EXACTLY the types of things that are discussed on this forum all the time. They are discussed in a quasi-legal sense by people with no legal experience or knowledge - other than the assumption garnered from pop sources that you can set any rule you like down, and as long as somebody agrees to it, it is an enforceable contract. My intention was simply to point out that policies are not the same things as notarised contracts, and whilst most people will abide by the spirit of a policy, it may not be legally binding at all.

This becomes relevant when trying to chase people up for money that you feel they owe you, but you may not be technically entitled to. It varies from region to region in terms of how it works so I can't state concrete examples that work in every location. I think most teachers here might be surprised if they actually looked into the legalities in their region. They may well find several point of contention with their own policies. I hope this seems a bit more relevant to the thread to you.