I don't think lesson length is that important. If they were hour long lessons, I'd say this teacher is insane rather than overworked! If they were all half hour, probably overworked - teachers who are really investing in their teaching and their students' needs will experience fatigue, regardless of lesson duration.

If they were all 20 minute lessons, I'd doubt the sincerity of the teacher. That's mass production teaching without regard to student requirements.

Don't get me started on group lessons! That is something I just don't respect, unless it's one or two lessons here and there for a particular reason. I don't believe in group lessons because it greatly compromises everybody concerned. No two students are alike, they never learn at the same rate and their problems/issues are never the same. It will always result in holding one or both of them back - even over a 6 month period. It's one of those things that sounds good in theory, but in practice is riddled with problems. I'm not just making this up. When I was a young teacher, I tried very hard to make group lessons work. In the end I concluded that they were not sound on a pedagogical level. They might be "fun" but they are not value for money in a learning sense. I concluded that the main reason for ongoing group lessons is that they are for quick cash for the teacher - assuming the lesson length is not extended. In which case, I still think group lessons doesn't work. Student focus becomes a problem when a teacher is only addressing one of the students.

So, any way you slice it, teaching 60 students a week will involve some sort of problem, in my opinion - whether it's exhaustion or quality of service. I don't believe teaching is something that somebody should be doing if it's about getting seriously rich. You can earn a very comfortable living, but you can't apply ruthless economic rationalism to it, nor can you duplicate yourself. If you want to run an ethical teaching enterprise that makes money (or you want to duplicate), you can start up a music school which holds individual teachers to the same standard - but that means the individual teachers won't be getting rich.

I've met teachers and schools who operate on appalling principles - all based around making the maximum amount of money. Music was just incidental - they could have been operating a steam-cleaning business for all it mattered. I happen to think that being a music teacher is a unique profession that involves a very unique mixture of respect for the teacher's time and skill, but also understanding of the need to be somewhat flexible for students. It can offer a very satisfying life, and comfortable standard of living, but ultimately it isn't a job for entrepreneurs. When policies get too strict on the basis of money, to the extent where the teacher is offended at the mere thought of losing a sum of money or earning less than what is theoretically possible, I believe that teacher has crossed over into another world that isn't about teaching anymore. Such people should probably be on Wall Street trading commodities or running slick corporations.

By all means, value your time and put a price on your talents, but keep it reasonable. The student is equally as valuable as the teacher. The money they pay you balances part of the equation. The rest is about fair treatment between two people and both sides need to be reasonable to each other.

Policies should be about upholding fairness, not about capitalising on a situation.

Thank you for the very comprehensive post, John. On a couple of things.


I am not sure that this is true in either of our fields, and it's something that concerns me. A bunch of things.
- Some of the things required in musicianship are difficult and take time, and a teacher who asks for them may find her students drifting to the teacher next door who goes faster and makes it "easier". Students and parents can get fooled by impressive sounding things without much substance. They don't know what to look for or listen for.
- Again, we don't know what is involved and may look for the wrong things: fast progression through grades, winning contests (plays choreographed, but has not learned to read, understand, interpret music.) Especially through the Internet, these people may draw students into their studios by dazzling via shiny things.
- The "instant success" packages: lessons via the Internet with people who can play piano being trained to teach them - or in schools or institutions of various kinds.

In every case, if we are informed we won't be dazzled by them, but if we aren't, we can be.

It is especially insiduous for adult first-time learners, because "markets" are springing up. The adult portrait is as follows: wants to learn favorite music quickly and superficially without putting in the work, and so needs some superficial skills. There is no way that we can reach any kind of musicianship that way. These things are well marketed, and it's a major industry. Again, if we are not informed we won't know what's missing. Enough people like that kind of thing that it grows.

The superficial, instant, hyped, dummied down, is everywhere in all disciplines, and it is experiencing success. Teachers operating in the right surroundings may be in pockets of informed people who know what to look for. But not everywhere. We as a society must educate ourselves and support those who offer quality, as well as know where to look for it.



In addition to this, and possibly more importantly:
Everywhere in all forums people talk past each other. Teachers also talk past each other at times. The reasons: There is way too much information and the medium gives a false sense of intimacy. People skim posts, form vague impressions, and have not really taken the time to understand what has been said. They often go by their own experiences and project them onto the speaker. Participants are strangers from all over the globe. It takes time to listen and understand what a person is saying and we don't have that time. But misunderstandings waste even more time.

I think that gaining some understanding of each other's worlds can have an effect in real life: parents cooperating better with their child's teacher, teachers having a better idea about the other side and so on, new solutions.

This is exactly the kind of response that forces me not to take you (and your sympathizers) seriously. Try responding to my post by infusing more logic and reasoning into your response than by argumentum ad hominem tactics: "Oh geez, yet another..". Don't think you can fool people with these kinds of well studied fallacies.

I repeat: You don't get to blame your students 9 times out of 10 AND at the same time say that you simply don't have slots available (thereby invalidating the first argument because there ren't 10 instances of this to begin with since you do not offer make up slots simply because these aren't available according to you yourself). The two are mutually incompatible.

If you want to write something in support of Minniemay, argue against this bit (previous paragraph), without making judgments about my character or whatever. You might be a piano teacher but you have no right to make (flawed) judgments about my character hoping that it would convince people that you are right and I'm not (somehow trying to convince people that I'm this person who disrespects all piano teachers alike and therefore anything that I say here doesn't have merit. That way, you wouldn't have to answer difficult questions). If you REALLY wanted to argue a point (and were sincere in explaining why you do certain things), you wouldn't resort to such cheap tactics.

Of course, you don't have to explain anything but if that's what you want to do, just say so. You don't have to resort to "Oh geez".

Also, if I didn't take piano teachers or their business seriously, I wouldn't pay 600 euros for 5 days (1-2 hrs each) of lessons (all of my summer savings that year) nor would I pay $60 per hour for lessons currently (I'm sure its slightly higher than the average market rate here in Ohio, correct me if I'm wrong). I earn less than $1500 a month with a wife to support who cannot work due to visa restrictions. We barely get to buy all the grocery we need every month. I still somehow budget to pay for my piano lessons because that's how much I value what my teacher has to offer me in return. So please do not insult me anymore by saying that I don't take piano teachers and their business seriously just because you don't like what I say and you don't want to address the issues that I bring up. It only reflects poorly on you. I hope you understand that.

Several of us have answered (in depth) your questions.

My statement said:



You don't like this explanation. Oh well...

No, I don't like it because there was no explanation in it at all. All you did was state what's in your policy. This is what most people have done here. If you don't want to address the issues brought up, don't do so. You're not obliged to by any means but then, why bother at all? Your posts are just a distraction then.

Here is some interesting reading that just posted today. The author is an economics professor:

http://www.mvpianostudio.com/apps/blog/show/5758387-do-you-ever-wonder-why-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ? Nice try.

dumdumdiddle isn't guilty of that fallacy. No where in his thread is it stated that he just proved his point with support from that economist.

He simply presents another example, in the same viewpoint, from the 'opposite' side.

John Rawls, in his influential theory of justice, suggests that one way of determining whether something is fair or just is to adopt a "veil of ignorance" in evaluating a certain outcome; that is, would you think an outcome is fair if you did not know whether you were the teacher or student in the interaction?

Teachers reasonably enough think that a stringent "no makeups no matter what" policy is fair (perhaps in large part because most of the teachers here profess a kind-hearted willingness to reschedule under extenuating circumstances--which is, after all, not a stringent rule any longer). The question would be whether that policy would be considered fair if you were under the veil of ignorance and didn't know if you were the student or the teacher.

I personally am very sympathetic to the notion that lesson fees are tuitions, not hourly wages, and that they reserve a time slot, not a guaranteed number of lessons. On the other hand, I would not favor a teacher who had no flexibility at all regarding sudden emergencies or illnesses.

Different people, educated differently & with different conditioned expectations, will have varying opinions on what is objectively fair in this situation. Therefore, from my point of view at any rate, it is necessary at the outset to draw up an agreement that declares what is going to be considered fair, and give the participants an opportunity to negotiate, or to refuse to enter into the agreement. When an agreement is made it has to be taken for granted that the participants accept it as sufficiently fair, regardless of the opinions of an external observer (excluding criminal activity etc of course).

It was obviously presented with the hope that it would strengthen the "evidence" in his favor, especially because he was quick to point out that "the author is an Economics professor". I bet you $100 (that I do not have) that he wouldn't have done that if the author was a plumber or a high school teacher or a football coach or whatever. So why did he include that sentence mentioning who the author was? Its anybody's guess (is it really?).

Goodness, what a lot of good discussion on this topic. My policy states that I don't do makeups, but I usually try to fit someone in if possible. As stated earlier, if it is in your policy not to do makeups, yet you try to fine time in instances of sudden illness, you gain a lot of goodwill.

Regardless, it does nothing to diminish the points made in that article, and he is basically correct in what he writes.

Ultimately, the expectation of a student for the teacher to make up lessons missed due to unforeseen circumstances is unfair, and is really nothing more than an attempt to transfer a problem from themselves to the teacher.

Now, it may just so happen that the teacher is in a position to offer an alternative slot - after all, it probably makes little difference if they have to endure a gap in their schedule on one evening as opposed to another. However, the idea that a teacher should be obliged to keep gaps in their schedule specifically for this purpose (as some appear to be suggesting) is nonsensical IMO.

This doesn't mean that I'm not prepared to cut people a little slack, however - I think david_a's approach to this is pretty much analogous to my own, in fact.

I'm not one of them and I frankly didn't see any post here that suggested that teachers were obliged to compulsorily give a make up lesson or to reschedule a lesson. In fact, I've stressed the point that no teacher is obliged to but it would make a huge difference if they made an attempt to if it doesn't mean a huge sacrifice on their part.

When I said that, people started talking about the "huge" sacrifices, a lot of them being ridiculous (eg: investment in reading emails and answering phone calls and what not). That is not to say that there aren't sacrifices involved in scheduling a make up. I understand that but my point is that a conscientious teacher would make that effort. They would weigh that sacrifice against the benefits to the student as well as to the self (satisfaction in having made that sacrifice..in fact, its my theory that all sacrifices, in the end, are made because they are in some ways or the other self-gratifying. So sacrifices, in the strict sense of the word, really aren't sacrifices. That's a discussion for another day however). I've seen a number of teachers here who have that kind of dedication. The others quote full studios and being in demand as justification for strict policies that they adhere to without exception. I think its a valid reason but I don't believe that its ALWAYS the case that they are unable to offer that make up lesson without a HUGE sacrifice involved. They just choose not to do it, I think because they can get away with it due to being in demand. One teacher specifically admits to it and says that their "explanation" for why the policy is fair is that parents wouldn't sign it if it were not and that they have a full studio.

Well, if they are really that good and can have a full studio regardless, why would they do it? I could only study with a teacher who offered more flexibility because of my sometimes hectic schedule, but some teachers might not consider students like me a big loss. On the other hand, some teachers might want to teach someone like me so they will compromise. Don't force a square peg into a round hole.

I was at a McDonalds once and a lady had dropped her hamburger after just purchasing it. The cashier was very kind and made her another one for free, but I don't think anyone would think that the cashier was obligated to give the lady another hamburger just because she didn't eat it. On the other hand, if all fast food restaurants did this as a routine, maybe the lady would take her business elsewhere next time she was feeling peckish if the cashier did not offer a replacement burger.

I don't know how that remotely connects with the issue at hand, but it's very funny nonetheless.

Since we're a little OT, I'm adding this.

An acquaintance told about recent travel with Southwest Airlines. Her flight was cancelled and they offered her a flight several days away on a standby basis. (They did not offer to pay hotel or anything either.) If she didn't get in on standby they offered another flight which would entail an additional 5 hour wait.

Yikes! I hope I don't have to rely on Southwest!

Generally, I'm pretty flexible, I prefer to be flexible, because I know students and families can have other commitments, plus I have rehearsals to attend for various which sometimes forces me to reschedule lessons, because one of our ensemble members drives to the city only a couple days a week here to teach her own students. And I've had to take a few weeks off myself the past year to take care of my husband.

Meri