Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Commercial Music Studio at Shopping Center and their boss

What is the difference between that and picking a piano teacher from the want ads?

I would suggest that in the customer's mind, the store has provided a level of quality control.

If I go to Sears Auto for a brake job or oil change, I know I'm not getting the same level of expertise as at the Volvo dealer. But I'm also confident that the service will be above the level of the neighborhood fixit guy, that the store manager knows who is good and makes some effort to ride herd on the crew, that the store has insurance in case the mechanic gets hurt working on my car, that the store will ultimately have to stand behind the work at some level.

People go to an established business though the cottage industry service will always be cheaper for all of those reasons.

By logical extension they probably assume music teaching is the same.

And probably at some locations it is, and at others totally not.

Sure - my daughter's music school is not part of any professional organization. But they don't participate in festivals or competitions. Testing is only through ABRSM.

If we went in to her lesson and were told that her teacher was no longer teaching and who would we like instead, I would have no problem with leaving the studio. I doubt even if we contacted her teacher, that she would be able to teach in home (I'm sure her contract would prevent it). There are three local teachers who I would contact who work out of their own private home studios. I wasn't aware of them before I signed her up. Reading here prompted me to look several months ago.

Bingo.

I can't help but smile reading that.

Made me wonder if I could teach the world to sing, in per-fect har-mo-ny.

I agree that there are teachers out there that take money without teaching anything worthwhile, that is a fact. I also agree that trashing another teacher's bad teaching reflects poorly. But I think the difference for me is between this teacher's teaching and his lack of morals. I made it very clear at the end of my review about him that "he might be a decent piano teacher", but that's not what the review is about, it's about his dishonesty in treating parents and teachers.

I agree with everything you said about Christians. Also, just because somebody IS a Christian, doesn't mean that they'll have high morals; it's sad, but true and I'm very well aware of that. My intentions weren't to take digs at non-Christians at all, it was only meant to imply exactly what you said.

Would this be better?
"Lastly, because of my Christian background and upbringing, I hold myself to a high standard of ethics and quality."

...I feel like somebody can still read into this and find it "extremely offensive".

I think this is the most accurate part of your last post.

In an ideal world, good teaching would lead to good word-of-mouth and many referrals for the teacher. But from what I have observed in the last decade or so, a lot of uninformed parents simply want what's cheap and/or convenient. I think we've had many previous threads on parent education, but how do you educate parents about the low quality of institutions without resorting to comparison?

I think we piano teachers might have to re-evaluate the mindset of our clientele, and then adjust our way of recruiting students. It's very hard to stay positive and objective when you see how the slimy and unethical people keep on getting more and more students, like an open flame that attracts moths.

Starting with the Coca Cola-Pepsi analogy. This involves large companies that sell a useless and somewhat harmful product through imagery. A lot is false - sometimes even the rivalry among large companies is fake. Entrepreneurs are often given business practice information drawn from these large enterprises, and what is given is unsuitable. It is especially unsuited to professions. Doctors, accountants, and engineers might be a better model, because if they mess up, you have death and illness, financial ruin, and collapsing buildings. Their service provides something real - not "happiness by guzzling fizz".

Teaching music is about guiding a student in acquiring skill in playing music on an instrument. It entails certain things both in skill and knowledge, and how to acquire and attain them. This has to be the goal of teacher and student or it won't work. They have to do what is necessary, or again it won't work.

When imagery, false promises, wrong goals etc. are fed to the public, and these things are then pursued, then the real purpose of music lessons won't happen. This is not "success". It's as empty as the old Marlborough cigarette commercial showing a gorgeous hunk and hunkette smoking in the great outdoors. It is "success" only in the sense of making money for somebody, at the expense of others. Usually that somebody is not the teacher. And the damage from this is real.

For as long as I have been a member here, I have preached for students and parents to become informed, so that they can set the right kinds of goals and ask the right kind of questions. This thing is not isolated to music teaching, either. If we start looking at what real things are, beyond the imagery, then a lot of things can get turned around, starting with us.

I'm not American. I have seen depictions of snake oil salesmen in old Wild West movies, so I know these existed historically, but I don't think that either of our countries was built solely on such attitudes. The snake oil is a useless thing that is sold on imagery and emotional need. Music Man with the "think system" was a more sophisticated version of that - is that character partly admired? Haven't our countries (worldwide, in fact) also produced some solid, useful, long lasting things which come from a different code of ethics?

I don't know how it can be done, but if people know what music learning is about, then they can use that knowledge to weight what is being presented by such institutions (and lesser teachers). For example, my priority is skills which I know take time. So if an institution says that they'll have me playing advanced music in short order, that goes against what I know - that is my point of comparison.

I wouldn't consider the word "institution" appropriate for a "strip-mall" music school, which is just a business. I would be surprised to see any institution claim to have you playing advanced music in short order.

i can't help but smile reading that!

Before arguing about what someone writes, please check that you understand it as intended. You are inserting a meaning to the word, and then arguing against that meaning.

I am differentiating between a private practice, and a practice that is done in a place organized for that purpose, involving more than one individual engaged in that practice.

Between cheap, good, and convenient, you can have only two:
--You can have cheap and convenient but not good.
--You can have convenient and good but not cheap.
--You can have cheap and good but not convenient.
I think it is rarely you can get all three: cheap, good and convenient. So, I think it is really depends on parents which factor they emphasis and which factor they can live without.

Thank you, Journey..

Thank your for the clarification Keystring. The word institution does not have to do with private, individual teaching versus more than one teacher. Naming as an institution a "strip-mall music school" might lead to confusion for some people.

Your implied definition is incorrect, and nobody else was confused. Regardless, this seems a strawman tactic, Landorrano, where you take a post full of ideas, pull out one word which gets redefined, and make the discussion about that word rather than what has been posted? What about the ideas?

I'm losing focus on what the ideas were, after ten pages.

I do see two modela for teaching being discussed.

One is the self employed cottage industry individual teacher.

The other is the teacher as employee for a business operation, which may be a music store, music teaching studio, or even a college or university. I think we'd want to consider the college as a separate category and just consider more obviously commercial operations.

There are problems with either approach.

There are superb teachers on the cottage industry side, but there are no entry requirements and no oversight, so there are also large numbers of unqualified and poorly qualified teachers. It is truly buyer beware, with the additional problem that most buyers CANNOT tell the difference.

There are also superb teachers within the business operation system, at least one of whom has posted here. There are also horror stories, some of which have been discussed here. It is buyer beware here, too, with the additional problem that buyers are conditioned to think they have some protection by going to an established commercial business. Managers may have policies more designed to maximize profit than learning - or they may feel offering a quality product brings in business and increases their profit long term.

keystring,
I get the impression you think the commercial industry model is inherently flawed, but that may not be what you intended.

I tend to think that the root cause of problems with either system is the same: there is no easy way for the customer to judge the quality of the product, so market place forces cannot result in good teachers getting paid what they deserve, which is a lot more than they get now, or poor teachers being driven out.

I pay my teacher quite a lot per lesson, as well as driving 3 hours one way, but there was a specific reason to go to someone with a demonstrated expertise in that area, and there was no doubt about his skill. That's a case where the market forces work, but it's far from the normal.

I also realize I'm using capitalistic terminology rather than musical or educational, and that may rankle. Sorry.

Apropos of nothing, I gave a first lesson today, in his home, to a 51 year old adult. (guitar)
He told me that he got more out of today's lesson than he had got from the local music store's 'Studio' in many months.

In his words: "I felt like I was being taught by a 6th grader, just wanting to show off"

Tim, what you said here is very logical. I agree that both situations has good teachers and bad teachers.
Here is my viewpoint of two situations (piano teachers that function as sole-proprietor and piano teachers that function as contractor or employee at an established school)

Piano teacher as sole-proprietor:
Relationship of student-teacher can establish because there is only one teacher. As Kevin said, parents might want a piano teacher more than just a piano teacher, parents preferred someone to establish relationship in their children's life. In case of conflict, piano teacher, which is the only "employee or boss" in this case has to solve the conflict. If the conflict is not solve, then parents has to seek new piano teacher. In fear of losing students, usually piano teacher will try his best to find out the problem and to solve it.

Piano teacher as contractor or employee at established school:
Relationship between student and teacher has a "director" (which is the boss) in between. In fear of losing students, the director has to be in between this relationship. In case of conflict, even piano teacher wants to solve the problem, the director can just easily change the teacher. In this case, the problems is not solved. The piano student will have the same problem with new teacher. In surface, it seems that everything will go good with new teacher. It is like changing the label of the medicine with another new label and resell it. So, every year or every time when the problems come, the director change teacher to cover up instead of really focus to find out the problem and provide a solution. In this case, student not really improving. After changing to five different teachers, I am sure the parents give up piano and never wanted to deal with piano again.
Just my thoughts.