<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. I've got some catching up to learn the history of all of this, but the more I can understand from the instructors' points of view, the more I can do to try and contribute toward future solutions that would make for an Institute with maximum benefit for attendees and instructors alike. I would strongly encourage that anyone who feels strongly about this issue take it to the PTG-L list, where your opinions will have much greater potential to influence change (and that is the more appropriate place to discuss these issues). On 6/30/2011 11:05 AM, Delwin D Fandrich wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:002a01cc3750$47abbb10$d7033130$@fandrichpiano.com" type="cite"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> <div class="WordSection1"> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> ddf<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Delwin D Fandrich<o:p></o:p> Piano Design & Fabrication<o:p></o:p> 6939 Foothill Court SW, Olympia, Washington 98512 USA<o:p></o:p> Phone  360.515.0119 — Cell  360.388.6525<o:p></o:p> <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:del@fandrichpiano.com">del@fandrichpiano.com </a>— <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ddfandrich@gmail.com">ddfandrich@gmail.com</a> </div> </div> </blockquote> </body> </html>