I recently listened to an interview with Suzuki violin teacher Winifred Crock released on the SAA podcast series “Building Noble Hearts.” While studying the Suzuki method at the graduate level with John Kendall, Crock received a Rotary scholarship to study with Dr. Suzuki in Japan. Crock reflects on the official application she submitted to the Talent Education institute in Matsumoto, complete with recordings of violin sonatas and concertos.

On one of her first days in Japan the secretary handed her a bundle and the following exchange took place…

Secretary: Here’s your tapes… We weren’t quite sure why you sent them.
Crock: What. Why?
Secretary: Oh no one will ever listen to them.
Crock: What? You accepted me as a student didn’t you?
Secretary: Dr. Suzuki will accept anyone who is willing to work and willing to learn.

In the interview, Crock went on to say, “There wasn’t an acceptance in terms of my playing level. I was shocked. I was just accepted. I was accepted.”

The idea that Suzuki would accept anyone into his teacher training program is at odds with our competitive environment and culture of scarcity.

If we want to take on the radical work of acceptance which Suzuki championed, I think we need to understand the “willing to work and willing to learn” side of his acceptance.

In a blog post published a few weeks I grappled with the question, “Does being selective about which families I take on make me a bad Suzuki teacher?”

As a teacher who believes every child can, determining if whether a new family is ready to join my studio can be challenging. I previously outlined the approach Carrie Reuning Hummel uses to make the challenging decision about readiness with brand new students.

In a first meeting with a new family, Carrie is looking for maturity and a certain capability of growth by allowing the student a first interaction with the instrument, inviting them to stand closer, gauging their independence from the parent, and seeing how the parent responds to instruction.

If a three year is not capable of following directions, or if a parent is so set on a certain methodology that they couldn’t open their mind to another approach then Carrie waits to start them, or recommends another teacher entirely.

Her selectivity is not based on ability or pre-developed skill, rather a willingness to work and to learn — just like Suzuki.

Today I want to explore how this selectivity can be practiced with transfer students, especially when a foundation of skill (or perhaps bad habits) has already developed. Here are just a few ideas…

Just as with beginning students, it is essential prospectives families know what the Suzuki method is and what your studio policies surrounding the method are. Especially for students transferring from a different approach, you must name your expectations around rigorous listening, review, and parent involvement. This can happen via a phone, email, or in person conversation after a family has reached out to you.

Have an in person meeting with the student and parent which involves much more than violin playing. Ask questions about the student’s general interests outside of violin playing, where they go to school, who their previous teachers are, and which aspects of violin playing are their favorite.

As you watch the student play and give feedback, do a scan of pre-existing habits around (1) posture, (2) tone, (3) musicianship, (4) ability to play notes. Note how far back you would need to dip into their development in order to ‘correct’ to your philosophy of violin playing. For example, if a student is playing without a shoulder rest at the recommendation of their previous teacher, ask yourself if this effects their playing negatively enough to justify returning to the fundamental step of learning how to place the violin on the shoulder.

Once you have thought through the various aspects of their playing through a ‘remedial teaching’ lens, communicate the sort of work you will be doing with the student if they were to join your studio. If they don’t have a repertoire of review pieces, are you expecting them to relearn Book 1, 2 and 3? Will they need to return to basic open string plucking exercises to develop a new understanding of tonalization? Are you going to completely rebuild the bow hold, keeping them from learning any new advanced repertoire for a year?

Whatever your plan is, communicate it in the trial lesson. In other words, if a student is “upside down”  in technical development, don’t beat around the bush and pretend like they are great players just because you need to enroll students in your program. And the converse, not allowing a student who is a hard worker and committed to changing join your studio just because they are “upside down,” is equally unethical. Clear communication is key. Invite the student to do hard, remedial work with you, but if they choose not to that is their own decision.

If, after the trial lesson, the student is still interested in joining your studio, contact the student’s previous teacher. This allows you to ask pointed questions about the family practice dynamic, learning styles, and overall attitude. If the family is transferring due to a conflict with a prior teacher, having a conversation with that teacher will allow you hear the other side of the story and be wary of any conflict that might arise with your style of teaching. Finally, you need to watch out for families who are switching without talking with their teacher first. The last thing you want is for another teacher to think you are ‘poaching’ their studio. Make sure teachers are open to the transfer and there won’t be any hard feelings.

—

I plan to follow these steps with any prospective families transferring from another studio. I’m sure I’ll learn more strategies as I go along, but I think this is a safe and healthy way to begin a new relationship with an older student.