"it Isn't Necessary To Touch Children In Order To Demonstrate Options

[Dulciana]

What particularly worries me though is;
"the teenager's family became suspicious when her playing did not improve." (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Bloo&y h?ll! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) That's most of us teachers under suspicion then... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ill.gif)

[Jane S]

Last week, a very very young pupil, was caught short. Fortunately the mother was present and dealt with the necessary proceedings. If she hadn't been there, should I have left the unfortunate youngster to have an accident under the strict no touching rule? If necessary, I would have been prepared to usher the little child to the bathroom, and I get a bit annoyed when people who don't know me, suggest otherwise.

[Dulciana]

Last week, a very very young pupil, was caught short. Fortunately the mother was present and dealt with the necessary proceedings. If she hadn't been there, should I have left the unfortunate youngster to have an accident under the strict no touching rule? If necessary, I would have been prepared to usher the little child to the bathroom, and I get a bit annoyed when people who don't know me, suggest otherwise.

I've certainly ushered small children to the bathroom, and not thought twice about it. I would, however, think twice about doing any wiping. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) I've sent them in and closed the door behind them, and then when they've come out I've taken them back in again to make sure they've washed their hands. I'd have no qualms about helping roll up sleeves and make sure soap was properly rinsed, and so on, but if other little bits and pieces are not properly wiped, then that's the parents' problem, to be discovered when they go home! I honestly think this is a matter for instinct and pragmatism. On the other hand, I did have a child in my house once (a neighbour who was a friend of my own child) who had bad diarrhoea and didn't make it to the loo, and in that instance it was a case of 'needs must'. (One condition that one would hope would mean that a child wouldn't be sent to a piano lesson... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

[briantrumpet]

1. Teacher A touches Pupil B; Pupil B complains Teacher A has touched them
2. Teacher A doesn't touch Pupil C; Pupil C complains that Teacher A has touched them

...in the end, a 'no touch' policy makes no difference to either scenario.

Actually, I think it does - if a teacher can demonstrate that he/she never (or extremely rarely) touches pupils, I think that it is more likely that the teacher (rather than the accuser) will be believed in scenario 2.

I find this thread very interesting, as I do consciously have a 'minimal touching' policy - I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've felt it necessary to touch, and then it's only been minimal (finger tips on finger nails).

I remember vividly being told by an inherited pupil how his old teacher said that laughing was the best way to learn to breathe properly, so the teacher used to tickle him. Probably innocent (certainly perceived by the pupil as being so), but it still surprised me. I prefer to use langauge combined with physical demonstration/copying.

I suppose that this is partly because it's impossible to manipulate so much of brass technique: like the internal elements of singing technique, the only access is by language, especially analogy and metaphor. And if I can get pupils to sort out their embouchure, tonguing, throat and breathing through language, I reckon I should be able to sort out the exterior techniques in a similar manner.

[Jane S]

Don't worry, by taking to the bathroom, I mean pretty much the same as you Dulciana! It is interesting, though, that you wanted to be clear about what is and isn't acceptable. And yes, with young children, reminding them to wash their hands, before they return to the lesson is pretty essential. It's only when normal behaviour is treated as something questionable that I get so very fed up.

As for touching or not touching regarding instrumental teaching, personally I think touch is unavoidable, necessary and not something which should be marginalised as unhealthy or potentially deviant.

Yes, there those out there who misbehave, and worse, and they deserve to be caught, tried and punished. But please, will the rest of us be allowed to get on with our jobs?

[BerkshireMum]

The only time my son told me about a teacher behaving in a way which genuinely concerned him, was when his clarinet teacher started poking his head with a pencil to get him to adopt a different posture. After the lesson he said it had felt really weird, and why couldn't she have just put his head at the correct angle? Fortunately, I had read the music service's child protection document forbidding touching, so was able to explain to him (he was 13 at the time). But he found not touching much more scary than touching would have been on that occasion.

I think the world has gone mad!

[Seer_Green]

1. Teacher A touches Pupil B; Pupil B complains Teacher A has touched them
2. Teacher A doesn't touch Pupil C; Pupil C complains that Teacher A has touched them

...in the end, a 'no touch' policy makes no difference to either scenario.

Actually, I think it does - if a teacher can demonstrate that he/she never (or extremely rarely) touches pupils, I think that it is more likely that the teacher (rather than the accuser) will be believed in scenario 2.

I suppose it's OK so long as the teacher can demonstrate they never/rarely touches...I can't immediately see how that's possible?

[Jane S]

I think that however well-intentioned child protection workers are when they advise no touching, they run the risk of completely missing the point. Trying to create a world where children or vulnerable adults are never touched is simply impossible. Sadly, there will always be sick individuals who take advantage of those around them, but insisting that avoiding touch is ever going to solve that nasty problem is completely unrealistic.

[briantrumpet]

I suppose it's OK so long as the teacher can demonstrate they never/rarely touches...I can't immediately see how that's possible?

You ask the teacher's other pupils. I would imagine that would be one central part of any investigation if there were an allegation, to see if there's any pattern.

Sadly, there will always be sick individuals who take advantage of those around them, but insisting that avoiding touch is ever going to solve that nasty problem is completely unrealistic.

Quite so. It is incredibly sad that touch, which can be such a powerful thing, is (and probably will always be) misused by a tiny minority of people. I guess it's misused partly because it can be so potent.

My own personal approach is that I think I can teach effectively without touching. So I do. And in doing so I reduce the (extremely unlikely) risk from a malicious allegation, or one deriving from a misunderstanding.

[Dulciana]

Children (and, in fact, people - and children are small people who should not be given a different set of rules, in my opinion) are so very different from each other. I was thinking my way through today's pupils. In one instance (I sit on the right) I reached over with my left hand to demonstrate what he should have been doing with his right hand, and could feel his defensiveness of my invading his personal space. Another (MUCH younger) pupil looked at me helplessly in the hope that I would move his fingers onto the right notes, because his concentration was flagging. They are all so different. Can we not be allowed to be human and judge each scenario on its individuality? If I was to make the former pupil feel uncomfortable regularly, it would only be a matter of time before he left. But if I was to make the latter pupil feel that I wasn't a caring individual who would do what was required to help out when he was in a quandary, he might say to his mum that he wanted to pack it in. Which would be a real shame, because he's the best 6 year old that I've ever had. But a 6 year old needs a little nurturing as well as boring instruction, and I don't want him to feel that I'm uncomfortable touching him. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) What does that say to him? I mean, Good Grief. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[Jane S]

To me, that teachers are advised not to touch, or feel that touching should be avoidable at all costs, is nothing short of depressing. I completely respect those teachers who feel that avoiding contact is the correct way to approach teaching, and also accept that I could learn from such an approach myself. But to me, it feels completely unnatural. I only move fingers, hands, arms, shoulders or backs when demonstration hasn't worked, and plenty of times it doesn't. The example of a youngster needing to rush to the loo is perhaps an extreme one, but not at all unusual. I've had parents assume that because I'm female, it follows logically that I'm safe. It is also unfair on male teachers to make a blanket presumption that men are somehow inherently unsafe. Some people are out to take advantage, and they appear in all walks of life, so why should teachers be singled out? I've bought up to children myself, and remember the dilemmas that parents of young children face. And what mustn't be forgotten, no matter how many CRB checks, ISA registrations or whatever system eventually prevails, it is still not possible to eradicate the threat to vulnerable students. Carrying out checks shouldn't be written off as a waste of time, but it is not the only consideration for parents, students and teachers.

[briantrumpet]

It is also unfair on male teachers to make a blanket presumption that men are somehow inherently unsafe. Some people are out to take advantage, and they appear in all walks of life, so why should teachers be singled out?

Re the male teachers - yes, I agree - I think that it might be one of the reasons that there are so few males primary school teachers. But if there is a statistically a significantly greater likelihood of cases of abuse being committed by males, then it's not surprising that they are more under the spotlight. (All this ignores the fact that much (most?) abuse is perpetrated by family members.)

As for why instrumental teachers should be singled out - it's because we both develop a significant personal/professional relationship with pupils, and because we are regularly alone in a room with these children unsupervised. There are few jobs where this is happens. I think that we need to accept that this places a greater burden on us - at the same time, I accept that this is immensely sad.

[Mad Tom]

Diane Widdison, MU National Organiser for Teaching, says:

"When allegations are made against music teachers they are suspended immediately while an investigation is carried out and their careers are damaged or ruined even if they are declared innocent."

Er? ... Why? This creates a perfect way to ruin the career of any innocent person that you have a grudge against. What we really need is strong legislation to protect the falsely accused.

"In one recent case the parents of a child learning the guitar complained that the teacher had touched their child's finger to pluck a guitar string."

One would hope that any tribunal, investigating body, court, judge, ... would tell the parents not to be so stupid.

"It should not be necessary to touch children to teach them how to play an instrument and in many cases having to be more creative and find alternatives to touching reinforces the learning process because it ensures that children are thinking for themselves. This is a more effective way of teaching and means that children remember the correct posture and positions when they are practising alone."

This is a sweeping generality. We all know that there are always exceptions.

"... but instrumental teachers are still free to make their own decisions about how to teach their instruments ...

Well how kind of the MU to grant me that freedom. But I don't actually NEED the MU's permission (or the Governments) to choose to teach in whatever manner best suits me.

Crispin Woodhead, the Director of MusicTeachers.co.uk, the largest online database of UK music teachers, says:

"It is a great shame that polemic over this issue of whether to touch children is clouding the fact that this is a very valuable initiative by respected organisations who are providing essential training to instrumental teachers who do not have access to the same information, training and support that is provided to classroom teachers."

What b******s (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

"The video in question is part of an online course with five separate videos providing vital information and training on how to deal with a wide range of issues and the organisations involved should be applauded for extending such training to instrumental teachers for the first time."

Please Mr. Woodhead, do not tell me what I should and should not do. I will decide whether or not I applaud.

[muzikalbadger]

On a related note... If you were asked in an exam (say a teaching diploma.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ) about your views on the "no touch policy" what would your response be? To go along with the boards view because you know its the "correct" answer, or put your own views across (obviously only applicable if you disagree with the recent policy) at the risk of your exam?

[Seer_Green]

On a related note... If you were asked in an exam (say a teaching diploma.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) ) about your views on the "no touch policy" what would your response be? To go along with the boards view because you know its the "correct" answer, or put your own views across (obviously only applicable if you disagree with the recent policy) at the risk of your exam?

I would have no hesitation in putting my own views across. I'm sure that the Board's view is not the same as the examiners (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)