Perhaps the professionalism - or lack of it - that you bemoan about light aircraft instructors is why there are now more microlight schools than light aircraft ones (according to FTN).
Of course, to be a microlight instructor your hours after becoming an FI count for nothing - even with 3,000 hrs on a microlight C42 I could not become a CRI to check people out on a light aircraft C42!
The reverse was also true, even with a full light aircraft licence, our C42 instructor had to fly 60 hours in a C42 microlight before he could start a microlight AFI course.
Even with 3,000 hours I'd also still need 30-odd hours to get a JAR licence.
Means three things:
One - as a microlight instructor, you are doing it for the love, or for the money to make a living (or both!). There is no "golden future" beckoning! And if you enjoy your job you keep working on how to improve - because you them get even more fun out of it.
Two - as a student, you are having to pay nearly as much for your microlight lesson as in a light aircraft, because although microlights are cheaper to run, the instructors have to earn more if you want to retain them (because they have families etc to keep in food and clothes).
Three; as a microlight flying school, you have to ensure your instructors get a living income - or they will give up or leave, buy their own aircraft and set up a rival school (it is very very easy to set up a microlight school). One way to stop instructors leaving is to ensure the existing students get the best possible service, since word of mouth is the cheapest advertising.
Gosh! That raises a whole lot of points about the flying training industry!
Very best,
XA