Teach the golf swing in increments and charge accordingly. A Golf pro says I can teach you the grip and set-up for a stated amount, (whatever the amount), and at the end the student will have the grip and set-up perfected. Then charge another stated amount for the backswing, and at the end the student has perfected it, for that price, however long it takes the Pro.
Verses, the Golf Pro charging a per lesson fee, and fixing whatever the student erring that day. I do not know how it would work out but it is interesting. My wife is an educator and at the end of the year her students are tested against the other teachers students and the scores are compared. This is how they can tell which teacher is effective and weeds the ineffective ones out.
Of course, you have to have a clear definition of "perfected." Who determines that? The golf pro would tend to define perfect too early and the student would define it rather late--I'm not saying who's correct.
So, maybe we can put together a tribunal of sorts that determines whether the student has perfected a specific piece of the swing, for which the pro is awaiting payment. But there needs to be a commitee to elect the members of the tribunal, as well as another commitee responsible for oversight of the the tribunal. The conflicts of interest must be eradicated to the best of our ability.
But, even having access to the tribunal and oversight commitee, we must put in place a process that allows either the pro or the student to submit an appeal, if the initial judgement of the tribunal is felt by one of the parties to be unjust.
And, of course we must pay all the members of the comittee and tribunal, which could be taken out of the lesson fee's.
But, that will create a whole other conflict of interest because the tribunal will tend to side more often with the pro, in the interest of revenue generation.
So, then maybe instead, the entire organization can have fundraisers that ask for donations from prospective students that have an interest in continuing proper oversight and removing corruption from the lesson giving process.
Obviously, the big donners would expect the benefit of the doubt when they submit a case to the tribunal.
I think this system would work if everyone acted reasonably.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt to have a small staff of people that could officially define "reasonable."
