I've discussed this on here before, but I'm rather curious if any peri teachers in the state system have been able to teach only their specialist instrument, and not get forced into 'generic' teaching. I'm thinking mainly woodwind and brass, as somehow upper and lower strings often get recognised as needing seperate teachers, and piano is different altogether.

For the county I work for, all woodwind teachers are expected to teach all single/double reed and flute, theoretically from beginner to above grade 5 on any. As a clarinettist I seem to be doing OK teaching flute and bassoon (not asked for oboe yet), but I know I can't be as detailed as with the clarinets and saxes. Co-incidently the majority of my pupils are clarinet, which obviously suits me. (also I believe the teacher I am covering for is a flautist, so that evens things a little for my current pupils)

I would rather just teach clarinet but it generally doesn't happen around here. I don't mind teaching the others, just curious if peris (outwith the independant sector) ever get to stick to their specialist instrument, that they took all their main training in.

I'm just a teenager, but I know that it would be very helpful if I got to a reasonable standard on other instruments for that very reason. I havn't heard of anyone being able to teach just one instrument in the state sector.

Most of my teaching is on single reeds (more clarinettists than sax players), I have some flautists, and no double-reeds. I don't want to have any double-reed pupils (I have been asked before) - I wouldn't be able to do oboists/bassoonists justice.

I think it a wise choice that you have refused double-reeds if you do not know enough about the mechanics of, or have practical experience of playing them yourself. Why on earth teaching services think that if you play one or two woodwind - flute and sax for example, then you automatically know how to play and teach all other woodwind instruments. The assumption is ludicrous. I think it's probably got something to do with cost cutting, than not being able to find teachers of the instruments concerned.

It would seem this idea pervades through the curriculum subjects as well. Trained biology teachers are frequently expected to teach physics - a subject many of them didn't study beyond GCSE (or O Level) themselves. The reason is more likely to be a shortage of physics teachers, but even so, it's daft to think teachers can teach a subject they really know nothing about.

I cannot work for my county music service because I do not (and don't want to) offer another woodwind instrument. However, I do work in the state sector, at the local sixth form college, who specifically didn't want their flautists taught by a non-specialist, and therefore opted out of the Music Service and employed me directly.

As a brass peri for my local music service, I am required to be able to teach cornet, trumpet, tenor horn, french horn, baritone, euphonium and tuba - these are all the instruments that we offer tuition on.

Bizarrly, I do not have to teach soprano cornet or flugelhorn as we do not have them - yet these instruments (along with cornet and trumpet) are my specialist area of expertise!

I work as a peri for my local music service (although only in one school, for two days), and also in an independent school, and I only teach flute and piano. The music service here only requires us to teach our own instruments - except that I think the brass teachers do all brass up to grade 5, then they specialise.

Ah, well, if it's the one I'm thinking of, Juze, then it is one of the very BEST music services that you work for!

One of the specific reasons I won't peri-teach is because I feel totally inadequate to teach flute or clarinet. I can get sounds out of both (even simple pieces) but I don't have expertise that you need to do each justice. Despite bassoon being another double-reed instrument it's so different to the oboe, I feel much the same about that.

I often pick up oboists at around grade4/5 level who've been taught by peri teachers (some of whom are good friends and excellent musicians) who aren't oboe specialists and it usually means going right back to basics. This is frustrating for my new pupil and for me.

I agree about the science teacher comparison - the worst I have heard recently is the Head of Music in one of our local schools being asked to coach games and teach geography to Year 8 pupils. She never did geography even to GCSE level and by her own admission "hasn't a clue". It's called "cost cutting". No wonder the music provision locally isn't that good if quality music teachers are being diverted to teach geography and plenty of other subjects besides in other schools.

One day "the world" will wake up to the importance of good music provision and treat the subject with the love and care it deserves. In that respect, I am pleased to see ABRSM continues to bang the drum about the poor provision of music in education.

On that happy note, I'm off to bed. Sleep well all!

Oboist

I think you and I may be thinking along the same lines Cyrilla....



I hope so oboist, I hope so.

Hear, HEAR, oboist and barry-clari!!

Double hear hear ' d

I only have to teach violin and viola. The schools I teach in have different teachers for cello and double bass. Do any violin teachers here have to teach cello and double bass as well??? I do have to write parts for cello and bass for my string group and obviously help with tuning up the instruments etc but without having learnt cello and bass properly I don't really see how a specialist violinist could be any good at teaching them.

Expecting teachers to teach more instruments than they're really good at is just a money-saving exercise, nothing else.

If only we could be like Scandinavia where they plough huge amounts of money into music tuition in schools. The result is the current spectacular flowering of experimental music up there.

Violinia