Not to diminish the excellent nuances and analytical distinctions made above in this thread, many (or most) of which I understand and agree with, the 800 lb gorilla in this whole issue, touched on by Nightcat above, is simply this: 70 bucks to ski at a really big famous mountain, scaled down to 55 for a less famous big mountain, to maybe 42 for a medium to 32 for a small.
A sport is not gonna grow with supply-side price realities like that regardless of teaching philosophy. Conversely, if it were growing, there would, IMHO, be plenty of room for friendly, healthy and mutually beneficial competition between PSIA, PMTS, and anyone else, which would be to the long-term benefit of teachers, learners and the industry.
As with any industry, a contraction of resources and opportunity elevates (and even potentially exaggerates) perceived risk and tends to starve the system of entrepreneurial innovation. And then the very natural risk-averse motivations of SAM take over, and those motivations are unlikely to have anything to do with the cultivation of teaching philosophy.
Let's face it: we do this work because, due to our makeup, we can't not do it--none of us minds teaching never-evers, but we want to be appreciated for our ability to provide Cadillac, top-of-the-line teaching service. SAM is in it for the very natural purpose of making money. Hey, I'm in business, FWIW, and face every day the pressures of profitability. If I tried to survive on selling my Cadillac top-of-the-line service to the small market segment that could appreciate it, I would be out of business. This is, IMHO, why MRG is a successful shareholder operation, despite the ridiculous consumer economics of the single chair.