The landing technique is the same either method.
But as for the approach yes I tell them if they ask. If they don't and are getting on well I don't bother even mentioning it. If they don't "get" either one of them I will swap to the other method. I have inherited just as many PnP students having issues as I have Pitch for speed, if the basic skills are there (ie the intial lessons) I swap to the other one and see if that one clicks. 90% of the time with both methods its because the student has been rushed into the curcuit and needs to do some refresher training.
Its not a case of there is right way and a wrong way of doing it. Both methods are right. Some situations PnP is best ie rough air approaches, ILS etc. And other times, calm air, visual, NPA pitch for speed is best.
Now as I teach for visual flying in relatively calm air the pitch for speed suits me best as a starting point. Now if you did a check on one of my old students you wouldn't have a clue which method they were using because just because they have gone solo doesn't mean the approach teaching has stopped there. It is refined and polished until they go for the skills test so that adjustments to profile are a combination of simutanious control inputs (which is actually what experenced IR pilots do on the approach its not PnP but a combination of both methods)
The PnP or Pitch for speed is just the starting point. But I do like the idea that I have trained my students to be able to operate without working instruments if god forbid they had a pitot system failure.
I really don't care what other instructors use for thier starting point. It can be either method. I am sticking up for Pitch for speed because it does have some good points.