Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Bad Teachers

Is this what you tell your students?

If you fail sight reading, you can still "pass" CM if:
1) your technique is average,
2) your repertoire is average, and
3) you pass the theory/ear training test at 70% or higher.

Back in 2009 I got a truckload of these awful students transferring to me from three teachers. These students were passed along from level to level, scraping by at the bottom of the barrel. Alas, there are only so many miracles I can perform.

No.

I tell my students:
What is the good for going to CM test and receive everything "Average" or less? So, we are going to focus for "Excellent" and "Good" in all areas. As far as theory test, anything less than 90% is considered "not good" in my standard. On the top of CM syllabus we also learn composition, reading sheet music, playing popular music etc as part of the curriculum.

The irony is that beginners are harder to teach than intermediate students. To a degree, the well-trained students at the early advanced level (easy sonatas, Bach Inventions) are probably even easier to teach.

But, of course, all teachers who start teaching inevitably start with a bunch of beginners.

I have seen the idea put forth in a number of music forums for new teachers to begin with intermediate students, and quite possibly apprentice with a teacher who mentors them into it. If a new teacher does start with beginners, that teacher should know enough, and also think it through.

There is no irony there. That's where you set the foundation for everything that comes after.

Yes, but who does the "good training"? If you don't do it yourself, you are dependent on what has been taught by other teachers, and then it gets hard because you have to fix things.

I WANT those beginners, because if they stick with me they are my best students.

That's all well and good, but what incentive do kids have for getting better than average? They still get the same certificate. Branch Honors is a complete joke. Even Convention Honors is a joke nowadays. By the time kids get to Panel, they're so busy with high school, they stop lessons altogether, or they stop doing Panel.

After some consideration, I pulled a couple of my more talented students out of CM this year because the program doesn't foster excellence; it promotes "passing." I try to tell my students' parents that CM is aimed at the average student, so if your kids are clearly above-average, then why would they do CM? Passing Level 10 doesn't mean the student is playing at level 10. It just means the student passed a test.

True. But there are degrees of "damage" that need to be undone. Some kids just have a posture problem. Some don't know any theory. Some have very lousy scales and arpeggios. Some are slow readers of notes. Every transfer student is unique. Sometimes it doesn't take very long to fix the bad habits. In some cases, the damage is beyond repair.

That's the reason for this thread. It's an open letter to all those posers and incompetent piano teachers who OBVIOUSLY should stay out of the profession. Their gross incompetence is making other teachers' job that much more difficult.

The person who understands what is involved in music and piano, what needs to be taught, what learning is about etc. - that person will also catch when these things are not present. But a person (teacher) who does not yet have these things will not know what it is that they are missing. Will they know they are doing harm, or that anything they are doing is wrong? Probably not. Whatever is their everyday reality with their students is "normal" to them. If a student is struggling, they may put it down to "poor student attitude" - maybe all of their students have "poor attitude".

What about the teacher who is extreme in teaching for exams or other papers of recognition - the ones who teach only three pieces a year, write in finger numbers, or heavily choreograph etc. That teacher will have all kinds of statistics about them being a "great teacher" - will that teacher be aware of their own lacks? Same thing.

They may tsk tsk along with you, and never realize that they are among those you are addressing.

Now, I think, is the time to ask you guys...

I do private lessons only. Flourished with love of music, all kinds of games, to younger and older students and various programs. Still I allow my students to be quite free in their choice of repertoire up to a point. If they do not like Bach, let it be... no Bach. If they don't like Mozart either let it be... no Mozart either.

This has worked out fine, because there certainly comes a point when they are having trouble with all the Chopin they want to play and I go "Hem... try this one... It will help you out". But this may take years. Same with scales! In fact yesterday I had a lesson with a 16 year old, who's not doing scales (her choice). And we were doing the amazingly lovely Incognito (Jazz Nocturne) by our own [/b]Jason[/b] Kreisler. Well there's a part with a Gm harmonic scale and she was struggling a bit! That was it. She's on several scales for next week!

I'm also composing for them on the fly, so sight reading is also prevailed...

However with this system, if Kreisler's piece hadn't arrived that student wouldn't have wanted to do scales. and that would be a huge loss and I a bad teacher???

AZ: She's the one I sent you the Chopin Prelude video in a PM...

No. You're just not a perfect teacher. You have not yet found a way to be all things to all people.

If today you decide to stress scales more, you students probably will be better at those scales in the future - but something else will fall.

No one does everything equally well, and that includes both students and teachers.

The worst teachers are often those who DO think they can teach everything to everyone, and that there is nothing they could do better.

===================

By the way, every time I see this thread I am SO tempted to start a new thread: "Bad Santa "

I don't get how that would make you a bad teacher. Just for not teaching scales? Your student sounded fine.

I live with a whole family of teachers (wife and her relatives, they all teach) and it's always the same discussion.
Teaching well is very difficult, and you have to put your soul on it, but too many times that job is not a first choice in life, but a compromise instead.
I don´t know how it works all around, but here there's no teaching degree in the Conservatory, anymore. There was a time when you had to be specially qualified if you wanted to teach at a pro level. Nothing ideal but something, at least.
Nowadays, you just have a glance at it (a couple of subjects, perhaps), complete your degree and start looking for pupils to earn some money (to pay the rent while you are in the university, or whatever).
I'm just a year old as piano student, and so far what I've seen is: "old school" teachers, poor methods (if any), hand-writers (no tablet or laptops in the room, scribbled sheets), not a clever use of e-mail, no clear short/medium/long therm goals, Hanon and Czerny everywhere...
A few days ago I met a music teacher from a public high school and we were talking about this much, and how I'm always searching for webs to build up my own practice method, and so on.
I asked him for a good book in spanish, that taught how to practice. There aren't! Yikes,teaching music is like a secret sect!
Luckily, us motivated adults can surf the net and fill the gaps, and some of us can even read in other languages but, what about the kids?

Thanks...

It's just that she's missing the scales part of the practice and study all together (until recently at least).

Same with Mozart. she's played that Chopin prelude, yet just got her very first Mozart! So obviously my teaching is unbalanced to a point (though I AM aware of that... So at least I'm not ignorant).

There is a difference between being an unbalanced teacher and a completely inept one.

But who is balanced? And it is your definition or mine? Or someone else's?

Who gets to make the judgment?

That's what makes it all so difficult.

In my opinion, experience and life experience (being taught I mean) the far most important thing is for my students to LOVE piano. Scratch that: TO ADORE IT! This is why I've turned to a much more flexible teacher for the past couple of years.

I was taught Czerny, Bach, Haydn, etc... All of which are fine and dandy, only did not impress me at all. I would even argue that I ended up a composer, because of the lack of anything interesting to play.

I want my students to love piano, to love music and to sit on the piano bench when one is found in public! (which has happened in more than one occasion).

If the above works correctly, then the students on their own will visualize their limitations and attempt to fix them eventually.

This is far from a balanced plan, but it's the best I can think that works in the long run.

______________________________

Further explanation:

My wife and her sister, both got soloist diplomas in Greece (same that I did). Especially my wife's sister performed Rach 2 in her exams. Since then (about 15 years ago) she's not touched the piano ever again. My wife was lucky to find me, but her sister doesn't have me!

This has made a big impact on me: How do you spend 15 years of your life, ending up playing Rach 2 and then ditching everything...

So forget balance, forget exams, forget scales until the students want them!

Nikolas, one thing that jumps out at me is that you are writing about different approaches from the angle of choice of pieces: Czerny, Haydn, scales etc. vs. a different choice of pieces or the fact of having a choice of pieces. Taking off from there:

A while back I talked with a (retired?) teacher who is not on PW and who had also been asked to observe lessons of different teachers as a kind of consultant, during his career. We were talking about teaching approaches, and also the history of it. He described a "traditional" approach he had seen, and it matches what I think you got.

In the old "traditional" that he described, it was almost as though the pieces did the teaching. You did Czerny, Hanon, etc. in a particular order, and then you "had" the skills you needed. Merely by doing those pieces, you had them. I suppose if the teacher was intuitive enough and could guide the student toward skills along the way, then this worked. But as he described it, often the teachers just said "Correct your rhythm", "improve measures 30 - 45" week after week - without the student having a clue how to do those corrections. The goal was all about making the piece sound right. It was focused on the piece.

An alternate focus is to consider what skills go into piano playing, what kind of mindset (how to approach the music, how to practice) that you want to foster, and what knowledge the student needs to have. How does one build on top of the other, and what can come in more randomly? Pieces are still in there, because you can't learn to read music unless you have music to read; you can't learn legato touch unless you play music that requires it. But it shifts. And I think at that point you also get that flexibility of repertoire because you are not locked into the old fashioned mindset that says a given chain of pieces in a given order will "teach".

Nikolas, we are on a similar wavelength. It's a successful pedagogy for real life, beyond the conservatory.

Interesting question, but the situation is not unusual. Seldom explored, though, because there is a suggestion of failure behind the closing of the piano lid.

There are similar stories in all fields of endeavor. I suppose a more positive view is to say: life changes, and people change.

It seems to me that very few bad teachers probably know that they're bad.

This article may have some relevance. Or not, I've seen it work both ways:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?_r=0