Do your students actually graduate from your studio ?

[m1469]

I am going to be restructuring the way my studio works and I am just curious about a few things.  If you run your business in a way where students actually graduate from your studio, at what point do you consider them ready to leave ?  What do they need to be demonstrating to you at that point ?

If you do not run your studio this way, why not ?


Thanks,
m1469

[Bob]

I haven't heard of student graduating from anyone's studio.  I have heard of several teachers who were a little freaked out when the student advanced very quickly.  They sent them to their teacher or a uni prof usually.

From the teachers I've seen, most of the students are kids and they take lessons for a few years and then go off to college.  It's more of a leaving issue, than graduating.  Some end up with more playing experience, some less.

I would think you would have to have a curriculum set up and toward the end it would be pretty tough to know if they had made it.  Once they start playing more difficult pieces, the first one isn't that great, the fifth one is better...  Where do you draw the line?  And then if they can play the piece, but don't know ear training that well, then what?  I would rather leave them with a good feeling about what they did accomplish rather than tell someone "Sorry kid.  You almost made it to the end of my program, but you're short in these areas.  See ya!"

I've thought about doing a curriculum, but never about having kids graduate.  I've never had students for a long period of time though.  At some point, if they just plataeu, keep playing more difficult pieces, and I don't really know what to do with them, I guess I would send them to someone else who teachers high level students.

[hyrst]

I think it is nice to have a certificate of achievement at certain levels if students don't do exams. 

About graduating, I haven't heard of that system either - in a private studio.  I also think it would be more to do with the individual student and your capabilities as a teacher.  I think a teacher needs to let a student know when they feel they have reached their liimits as far as helping a student move further - some teachers speciliase in beginners and others are highly competent in advanced curriculum.  It depends far more on the teaching style and interests of the teacher than on their abilities as musicians - often the beginner lessons are with children and are more relational than the later lessons. 

In my obvservations, those few who make it all the way through the grades with one teacher are very loyal and value the relationship more than the teaching itself.  They tend to be reluctant to leave, even if they are going on to the con or something.  My choice is to recommend a teacher who can work with them, but not to cut them off unless they choose to go that way themselves. 

Was this what you were asking?  What sort of restructuring are you doing?

[mattgreenecomposer]

Wow m1469, you have two threads that have interested me today.  Your creative juices are flowing.

I think graduating from a studio is about being honest with yourself as a teacher basically saying, "can this student learn things from me anymore."  In some cases, Ive seen students better than the teacher and I say to myself "?!!!!"

I've had a few go to college and at that point its by by.

[dan101]

Hi there. Your question is dependent on the level of playing and teaching expertise that a teacher has. A student teacher will often give students to a professional teacher after a certain amount of time. A qualified professional will usually hang on to students for as long as the students are able and willing to learn.

[hyrst]

I read my previous post and realise I was assuming the teacher was at least LMus qualified. 

[m1469]

Yeah, I have been thinking.  I mean, if a teacher's goal is to teach people to learn (and to be "independent"), doesn't there come a time when they are doing that ? 

So, the kind of rearranging that I have been thinking about is running a program where they learn certain skills or so that I feel would have them become well-versed and able pianists.  Perhaps 3-5 years in this program.  And then, they graduate to another phase.  Either they decide to just play for fun on their own (and no longer take lessons with anybody) or they branch off into a more focused learning (depending on what they want to study) and meet with me less frequently.

[hyrst]

I can see some of what you are thinking, but I also think you are creating problems for yourself. 

I agree that it important to have a curriculum of target aims at all levels.  I think yo uahve to be very careful to keep centred on individuality if you do this, though.

I also agree that moving between levels is motivating for students - they have a token of their own progress.  (I have a similar system, with reports and attached goals and certificates and books I have constructed for each student with levels markings in each book.  Although partly guided on the Australian AMEB syllabus, I have called these levels differently.)

I also agree that students should be heading towards being independent learners - able to self-criticise and make choices about practice and repertoire, etc.  The teacher becomes mentor and coach rather than instructor.  Still, I think an accomplished learner needs a "teacher" as much as a beginner.  Yes, maybe less frequently, but again that is individual. 

I think the learner needs to have a large say in their decision about having a teacher at this level.  However, once they have decided they need the mentor, it is up to the practicalities and the teacher's decisions and convenience must be respected.  If you start seeing a student occassionally, it potentially becomes logistically difficult.  Your whole schedule then hangs on keeping time available for a lesson every few weeks.  I find this very frustrating.

Don't you find that different students have long before 3-5 years decided if they want to learn seriously/Classically or just for fun?  I think you might also find this a tricky way of categorising your programme.

Keep posted, m1469.  THis is interesting.  :-)

[m1469]

I can see some of what you are thinking, but I also think you are creating problems for yourself. 

I agree that it important to have a curriculum of target aims at all levels.  I think yo uahve to be very careful to keep centred on individuality if you do this, though.

Yes, that is why my program is the work of pure genius  .  Okay, but really, you are right, of course.  However, I have been developing a bit in my philosophy.  For one, just like there are general ways that our bodies move and therefore general principles to piano technic, there are also general things about music that I think everybody should know (like scales, for example).  I feel that this is the case for anybody who would like to be capable of playing the piano in some way for the rest of their life.  And, more than that, I have been feeling lately like I have certain things to offer and if that is not what people want, there are other teachers "out there" for those who don't want what I have.  So, yes, individuality, but I aim to attract a certian "type" to my program.   

Just like technique will develop in detail per each individual, though there are genearl principles applicable to almost everybody, it is the same with muscial development in general.   That is actually exactly where and why they graduate to their next phase of learning.

I also agree that students should be heading towards being independent learners - able to self-criticise and make choices about practice and repertoire, etc.  The teacher becomes mentor and coach rather than instructor.  Still, I think an accomplished learner needs a "teacher" as much as a beginner.  Yes, maybe less frequently, but again that is individual.

 

Yes, I am not aiming to "leave" the students and I am not sure what form this all would take (though in some ways it's already starting to take form "on its own" ).  And, yes, the point of the second phase is that they would like to learn in some very specific ways and by this point they will know how to learn, so I may assign them a book to read or so and check in with them on this in our lesson.

I think the learner needs to have a large say in their decision about having a teacher at this level.  However, once they have decided they need the mentor, it is up to the practicalities and the teacher's decisions and convenience must be respected.  If you start seeing a student occassionally, it potentially becomes logistically difficult.  Your whole schedule then hangs on keeping time available for a lesson every few weeks.  I find this very frustrating.

I agree that the teacher's time and convenience must be respected, this is fundamental in how I run my business.  And, that is why I would still have some very specific things laid out in how we go about these kinds of lessons.  For example, if they are meeting with me for let's say, 2 lessons a month for an hour, they would trade off weeks with another person in a similar situation.  I would probably reserve certain hours of each day for this type of student.   All of my rules would still be intact.

Don't you find that different students have long before 3-5 years decided if they want to learn seriously/Classically or just for fun?  I think you might also find this a tricky way of categorising your programme.

Actually, I am not really clear on what this means or how it would actually change my program.  For one, after 3-6 months I will review their work and possibly weed people out at this point.  If they don't fit with my program, we will figure this out and move on.  The main thing is that after a point, they will decide if they no longer wish to have lessons, would like to switch to a different teacher for a specific reason, or would like to continue with me in a specific manner.  This will not change my program in any way that it would make it trickier than it already is.