The first question is whether one can teach anything at all, in the sense of passing on learning and experience. Why not just say to people: read that? That is if one's own reading is considered to be even faintly comprehensive.
I make no comment on that as I have been teaching a long time.
The next question is whether the stuff that makes you a poet (the books are there so you must be one, and a few prizes too to suggest some people are willing at times to confirm you in your belief that you are one) - the 'stuff', whatever it is, that makes you a poet, is something you can pass on? And, while on the subject, whether passing it on is what you should be doing for, after all, it might be of little use to someone else, nor do you quite know what it is yourself.
The question that follows is whether the stuff you are talking about is actually the valuable thing. In this case, form. Everything does, after all have form or it would not be perceptible. Given that, is it of sufficient value to explore the idea of regularity or repetition, since that is what is commonly perceived to be form? Repeat this, move that into a half-predictable place, and you have form. Because expectation - as created by repetition - and the breaking of expectation - is the nature of the game.
And beyond that there is the world of received form, whether that is the standard verse forms, the ancient ones revived, the new variations on the standard and revived - those old warhorses: the sonnet, the ballad, the couplet, the sestina, the villanelle, terza rima etc etc etc - or the shift to classical metre, do actually do what we claim that they can do.
I am not going over the arguments for such things, as I have done so often enough. The arguments are good. But the point of them, the point perhaps of any argument, is not to convince or to justify, because at bottom we know argument is just argument, not the full and actual state of affairs. Arguments must be made because we have to see elements and processes clearly, not because they are the truth.
Do I believe that my years of formal writing are the product of an argument? No way! I do what I do because it seems to have been in my nature to do it. Not that I am arguing from a given nature: I am arguing from retrospect. Not so much Vonnegut's So it goes, as So it seems to have gone. Adding only the words: for better or worse.