I think the Suzuki method is just a method. like any other.  All methods attempt some sort of a formalized approach to acquaint students with certain information and to allow them to gain certain skills.  They usually work to some degree or another.

But in the end, the results owe more credit to the student and teacher(s) than to the method.  No method is going to teach anybody anything if the student isn't putting in the work.  So the student always gets the first credit for any result.  The teacher comes next.  A good teacher can motivate even mediocre or poor students and maybe find a diamond in the rough there.  But even with a bad teacher, a student that really wants to play will learn even if it is in spite of the teacher.  They will hunt out things the teacher may miss or skip and teach themselves those things.  

One can also think a teacher isn't good, and be wrong.  One of my guitar teachers (not beginning guitar), we all went in expecting to learn a lot of neat licks and chords and etc.  What we got was nothing but finger exercises for the whole first month.  Basically doing chromatic scale in one position, then shift up a position and do it again, and so on up to the octave and then work your way back down, over and over.  About 45 minutes of that, with one short break.  Then he'd lecture a bit and talk about playing in general.  After the first couple of weeks, he'd talk while we did it or pick up his own guitar and jam a bit over top of that chromatic mess.  The next month was about half a class of finger exercises and then it was scales.  About a month of just major and minor.  Then.. No, it wasn't songs or licks.. it was some simple chords and using dynamics and techniques like hammer ons and pull offs while doing the finger exercises. LOL

The only thing he graded us on was attendance and some very simple theory that a baby could have passed.  He said he wouldn't even give a written exam, except the college required them.  

I thought he was a really crappy teacher most of that time.  The classes were easy, but mostly pretty boring so far as what we actually did on guitar.  But I was wrong, because what it did for your actual playing was good.  Once you got past the sore fingers and cramping hand muscles you got so you knew where every sound was and just how to get it, and moving from one note to any other was easy.  When we went into major and minor scales, no key was any harder than any other, and always, your fingers knew where to go and you didn't have to think about shifts or transitions. 

Over 30 students started that semester.  About 10 of us finished it.  And the next semester, for the "advanced" class, only about 5 of us signed up for that.  That was where we learned riffs and runs and how to put some stuff together and how to use some interplay between scales and modes and what chord forms to pick to support a melody and so on..

He was a really good teacher, in his way.  I just didn't like the first few months where I was acquiring the skills.  But my playing outside of class improved from I'd say probably the first or second week.  Things that had been hard became easy and when playing lead or a fill, I started playing more the notes I thought would sound best than what was easy to reach.  That makes a big difference. 

But again, out of about 30 students, only 5 took the next class, and 3 or 4 of us finished that one.  Most of us complained about the class a lot.  A lot of people found it frustrating or pointless.  But it was a very methodical and sensible approach to "fix" anything you'd learned wrong, and if you were a player, it got you comfortable with that fretboard and easy anywhere on it.