[pianotech] teaching money,(was Irritated )

[Delwin D Fandrich]

My involvement in PTG and PTG conventions and conferences is now coming up
on 40 years. I'm sure there are folks out there who have taught, instructed
and/or otherwise participated in more of these things than I have but there
aren't many. So, perhaps I might be allowed a few observations. 

 

This discussion goes back a long way. When I joined PTG in 1972 (the first
year I presented a class-it was on a new method of hanging grand hammers)
the organization was much smaller and not yet what could be called a mature
organization. Volunteers did everything and were happy to do so. There was
an organization to build. 

 

As time passed and the organization grew and became more professional the
demands on the instructors also grew. And the time required to prepare a
reasonable presentation began to take a significant amount of time. As Dale
says, preparing a new, high-level presentation can easily take a week's
worth of time. And that does not include the non-compensated time it takes
for the inquiring mind to ponder the next technological step, to prepare and
conduct experiments, to try (and often fail) at developing new techniques
and processes. This is time that must come from somewhere; it either comes
at the expense of time available for business (earning money) or from
family. Usually both. In either case it is a sacrifice. Sometimes a
significant sacrifice.

 

Fortunately for PTG there have been enough people doing this kind of thing
and who are then willing to share information and knowledge that would
otherwise give them an exclusive competitive edge to keep the Technical
Institute going. But, even though the organization has grown and matured and
the requirements placed on the instructors to produce ever-more professional
presentations its attitudes toward and treatments of those instructors has
remained, at best, constant. From whom much is expected little is given. 

 

Dale's remarks are not unique. Nor are they new. I, and others, were voicing
the same concerns thirty years ago. And then twenty years ago. And ten years
ago. And for all that, here we are again with Dale bringing up the same
issues and getting the same inadequate answers. With respect, Mark, to say
that offering at least some reasonable compensation for an instructor's time
and contribution is a "slap in the face" is, itself, a slap in the face. 

 

The arguments used to avoid adequately compensating instructors are not new.
Indeed, they are so old as to have long ago become tiresome. Certainly the
instructor has some free time to attend other class offerings. And this is
certainly an incentive for the relatively new convention attendee. But
relatively new convention attendees are rarely instructors. Few of them have
the experience or the skills to be instructing about anything. So, after
attending five or ten conventions, just how much more is one going to get
out of yet another-however enlightened-action regulating class? I'm not
suggesting that there is nothing for the experienced instructor-obviously
there is-but as time goes on those offerings become fewer and fewer. And,
Murphy's law being what it is, the classes any given instructor finds
interesting will invariably be offered at the same time he or she is
standing in front of a classroom filled with expectant students.

 

To be sure, there is a social aspect to our conventions. The instructor does
have the opportunity to meet, greet and spend time with his or her peers.
This is a part of the exchange that does have value. The question many of us
have to ask, however, is just how much value. Sadly, for at least some of
the outstanding instructors I've known over the years, that value has just
not been enough to compensate them for their lost work and lost income. The
same holds true with the exhibit hall. After attending a few conventions
even exhibit halls lose some of their charm. An attraction, yes, but is it
compensation? 

 

Yes, we learn and grow when we teach. No question. But the technician who is
motivated to learn more about some aspect of our profession is going to do
that whether or not they then pass this knowledge on to others. It is in
their nature. At issue is whether or not we, as an organization, are willing
to encourage them, and help them, to share this knowledge. Some-at least
initially-will be willing to share this knowledge with little or no
compensation. But as time passes and the thrill wears off and they see just
what the real costs have become to both business and family many drop out.
To be sure, there are usually new folks ready to step in but we also lose
the experience and knowledge of those we burn through in the process. You
see, the instructor we've burned out doesn't stop learning and growing they
just stop passing on what they've learned. Do we, as an organization, really
think that Dale is going to stop learning new things worth sharing just
because we have made it unattractive for him to teach us? Are we so flush
with instructors offering this depth of knowledge and experience that we can
afford to simply write them off because they've grown weary of trying to
swim upriver?

 

In essence what we have long told our instructors is this: We want you to
take time from your business and your family to acquire the knowledge and
learn the skills we want and admire; we want you to spend more time and
effort to put together a professional presentation; we want you to spend
more time and effort-and now expense-to travel to our convention and share
this knowledge and these skills with us. In exchange we will not compensate
you for your travel expenses, we may or may not compensate you for your
lodging and per diem expenses (this has changed over the years), we will not
compensate you in any way for your time but you are free to go home and work
even harder for the privilege of doing all this. To many, over the years, it
is this attitude that has become the "slap in the face."

 

I don't have answers to all of these issues. It is something I've given up
trying to change. It is what it is. I think it is a good thing, though, that
folks like Dale still have the optimism and energy to push the issue. It
remains-still, after forty long years-an issue PTG has, in my opinion,
failed to adequately address. 

 

ddf

 

 

Delwin D Fandrich

Piano Design & Fabrication

6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA

Phone  360.515.0119 - Cell  360.388.6525

del at fandrichpiano.com  <mailto:del at fandrichpiano.com> - ddfandrich at gmail.com

 

From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Purney
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:41 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] teaching money,(was Irritated )

 

I think we need to look at the math. Most instructors teach an average of 2
or 3 class periods out of what is usually 18 to 20 total class periods.  Of
course, there are a small handful of instructors who might do 4 or more
class periods. The point is that most instructors will miss out on the
opportunity to attend around 10 to 20% of the other classes, with a small
few giving up as much as 25 or 30% of the overall class time due to
instructing. And then there is the time outside of class periods: The
exhibit hall, having lunch with fellow technicians you only see once a year,
evening concerts and receptions, and the chance to get away from the usual
grind for a week to do something different. When you add it all up, how much
does an instructor really miss out on, and is the compensation really that
terrible? My opinion is that it is quite reasonable if you consider it a
"stipend" or "honorarium," which is what the reimbursement was originally
intended to be - not payment for services rendered. But when you start to
give something as a token of appreciation, people take it for granted, and
then it becomes a slap in the face to them instead of a "thank you."

And what about the value of teaching. Is it not rewarding? Do we not learn
and grow when we teach others? We have to keep in mind that although some
instructors are unhappy with the compensation offered, and will stop
participating because of it, there are other instructors who feel it should
be a volunteer activity, and they actually feel strange accepting a check.
I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but it's important to
acknowledge the vast difference in opinions on this matter with people on
either end of the spectrum and many somewhere in between. Pleasing everyone
is simply not possible in matters like this.

And I really don't understand how vendor-sponsored classes is going to limit
the attraction of the institute or cause a downward spiral. Some of the best
instructors and classes I've attended have been vendor-sponsored classes.
Many of these instructors are sponsored specifically *because* they are
incredibly gifted as technicians and teachers. Often, these are the people
who get hired by major manufacturers because they are so good at what they
do, and are great communicators. Others are self-sponsored because they've
used their extraordinary abilities to become successful with their own
businesses. Vendors play an important role, and they do a lot for the PTG to
help make the Convention a success every year. But they don't run the
Institute or dictate how the PTG operates. It's a mutually beneficial
arrangement, and the members who attend are the ones who reap the most
benefit. 



On 6/29/2011 7:18 PM, Ed Foote wrote: 

 Dale and Mark write the following: 


>>All instructors that are willing to help perpetuate excellence in the
continued education of our membership are valued, regardless of whether they
are sponsored by a manufacturer or not.  
 Understood. But money still is the issue. The dues and convention fees
should be higher.  You get what you pay for.<<

 

    Agreed.   It is easy to say, as an instructor, I am "valued".  Of course
I am.  The PTG, in order to maximize the profit of the convention,  would
like me to prepare and teach a class for free, pay my own transportation and
room, and pay a full entrance fee to attend a convention in which I will
miss a significant portion of classes in order to present my own?  What a
bargain!   There is no way to justify that sort of expense unless I have
something to sell.  I don't have anything to sell, just some experience
gleaned from making mistakes for the last 35 years. If that isn't worth at
least the entrance fee and a room, then I can't afford to be a PTG teacher. 

   My last convention was full of classes taught by people that were
basically advertising their wares or services. Their cost of attending is
part of their advertising budget, and selling their services or wares can
make the convention a profitable venture.  Those techs that simply have
valuable experience to share will gradually become extinct. This is a loss,
since the original idea of the PTG was to have an organization of working
technicians that could share their expertise.  Now, we have an "institute
for profit", and the PTG doesn't want to pay for the content.   

   On this course, our future is going to be one of vendor instructors, and
I really think that is going to limit the attraction of the institute.  It
looks like a downward spiral to me.  

Regards, 

Ed Foote RPT

   

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20110630/cb7f4a83/attachment.htm>