Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: <A440A@AOL.COM>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: July 19, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Saying "No" (was Convention is focused)


> >This is the direction our organization has decided our conventions should
> >take and as long as that is the case we're pretty much stuck with the way
> >things are.
>
>    I see a circular logic there, and would hope that "we" aren't "stuck"
> unless we want to be.  Changes come in pairs, so a task is waiting for
those
> that want a different style of convention, (see below)

There is quite a lot of momentum working to keep things the way they are.
And, for the most part I am only taking issue with the way all of the
various volunteers--including, but not limited to, instructors and
authors--are treated by PTG. It borders on contempt. None of us would be
willing work for our customers what we are willing to pay to those who work
to bring us the conventions and conferences, the Journal, etc.

We speak of the warm fuzzies we get from giving--and there is some truth to
that--but think what we are really saying. We are going to give our
instructors the honor of sharing their hard-earned knowledge with us so that
we can better compete against them in the free and open marketplace. We tell
them we owe them nothing, or at least very little, for thier efforts; the
experience of teaching will make them better known and will help them
generate more business. So, in addition to equipping the rest of us better
compete against them, they are now expected to take even more time away from
family and friends and work even harder to pay for the privilage. While
we're all off enjoying the fruits of their knowledge and labor.

Kind of lopsided thinking, it seems to me.


>
> >And we know from experience that there will be enough folks
> >willing to devote substantial portions of their time and energy
throughout
> >the year to provide a reasonably high level of technical content even if
> >they are not compensated appropriately.
>
>   Agreed, but with a question.  Are the conventions as valuable as
possible?
> I personally know of two instructors that presented work-changing classes
> (for me), that no longer teach because of the cost.  There are probably
> others, as well.  What quality are we missing because of this?

There probably are. I know it is an issue for me every year as I try to
justify the sometimes considerable time and expense to my wife and to my
business partner.


>
>     Without some tangible suggestions, not much will happen, so here is
mine:
> Since it is impossible to teach a topic at a level the beginner will grasp
> without boring the experienced veteran, there should be some classes
> restricted to "RPT-only".   This will allow an instructor to target their
> audience.  I think a higher quality of presentation could be had .  It
will
> also provide some impetus to the associates to upgrade their status.

This already is the case. Instead of labeling them "RPT-only," however, they
are labeled by the level of technical content. That is, Beginner,
Intermediate, and Advanced. Or something like that.

It would be most unfair to restrict any class to just RPT's, since that
designation really says very little about one's level of technical
knowledge. For the most part it indicates that one is qualified to tune a
piano with reasonable competence. The technical portion of the exam is
rather limited and elementary.


>
> Possibly there could be associate versions of these same classes, taught
by
> the same instructor but aimed at the tech with less background.
>       I know that there are ratings in place to describe the classes, but
> that doesn't stop the newbie from asking elementary questions in what is
> supposed to be an advanced class, thus dragging the whole room backwards.
A
> class that is more equal ,(what a political word for me to use...) allows
the
> instructor to go deeper into the specific area, without needing to give
all
> that background.

I teach relatively advanced classes and have found just as many elementary
questions coming from RPT's as from Associates. This is a situation that
comes up in nearly every class that is aimed at a more advanced level. We
can label a class 'advanced,' but what are the prerequisites? Should we then
require that the student take certain other classes before attending this
one?

It is really up to the instructor to handle this problem in a reasonable and
tactful way. If the question can be dealt with quickly and easily, it should
be answered. If answering it would detract from the flow of the class it
should be deferred to a break period. Or it should simply be explained that
this is an advanced class and, since it is assumed that everyone attending
has a certain minimum level of technical knowledge, it would be unfair to
the rest of the class to take the time to answer that question during class
time.

Writing about this is easier than doing it. Doing it is difficult and it
takes some practice and experience to be able to handle it well. Very few of
us are trained, professional teachers and instructors. And, remember, no
instructor training of any kind is offered by PTG. Some guidelines, yes, but
no training. Each instructor hopefully has a grasp of the subject to be
presented, but getting up in front of a group of one's peers and acting like
an expert can be very difficult for some. I taught my first class at a (in
those days we called it 'the National') convention in 1972. I've long ago
lost track of how many conventions, conferences and one-day events I've
done. And it is still not a natural thing for me--I rely heavily on the good
will of the folks attending to pull one of these classes off successfully.
Perhaps because of this I tend to have a great deal of tolerance for the
occasional stumble of another instructor.

Incidentally, the instructor evaluation forms--if properly used--can be of
some considerable help in this. Accurate, honest feedback is, or at least
should be, welcome by any instructor.

Regards,

Del