But then on the other hand I've inherited pupils who have been taught by teachers who have a list of letters after their name that's so long, you need to turn a piece of paper to landscape to fit them all on, but their teaching has clearly been appalling judging by the dreadful technique of the pupil.

Teaching is not just about knowing what to teach, but also how to teach it. Treating all students the same is the worst thing any teacher could do - everyone learn in a different way, we won't all understand a one-size-fits-all explanation, everybody has different a physique and these need to be taken into consideration.

Don't ever think teaching a beginner from scratch is easy. It is something that should not be taken on lightly and only after several years of experience teaching those with a little experience, or sitting in on lessons with a teacher who really knows how to teach beginners. The teacher's own technique needs to be 100% rock solid as does their understanding of how to explain things, or the rot will set in very quickly and the progress of the pupil will grind to a halt.

Being a good performer is not in itself indicative of being a good teacher.


I can second all of that. One very good reason why I am trying to work my way out of peri teaching.

I'm sure it is harder to teach as a peri, and have never said, anywhere, that all peris are bad or that it's easy to be a peri (I wouldn't fancy doing it). I know from experience that some are exceedingly good even given huge group lessons and no specialised music teaching area.

I still don't think it's any excuse for a teacher to teach bad technique, and would hope that a good teacher will do their best under whatever conditions they find themselves in. Clearly, some teachers, peri or otherwise, do not. And saying that this is because the teacher is a peri, is clearly also not true when some teachers teach well and get good results in a wide range of circumstances, and some teachers teach badly even when circumstances are fine.

To get the thread back to the original question, of course, anyone can teach, sorry, anyone may teach, which is what makes it such a potential minefield for pupils and their parents. For all that we occasionally have a good old moan about pupils and parents, a lot of them are in a vulnerable position. How on earth are they supposed to be able to tell if the teacher about to teach them or their offspring is going to be any good?

A lot of people have said that playing qualifications do not necessarily guarantee that the person can actually TEACH. This may be true, and the easy answer would be to get a teaching qualification. But even for those who "only" have a playing qualification, at least this gives some indication that the teacher him- or herself has a certain level of technique. Pupils can readily say whether they get on with a certain teacher, whether they understand what the teacher says to them, and indeed whether they find said teacher inspiring, but they will be much less able to assess what, if any, technique they have been taught. Now, of course,having letters after one's name is not a cast iron promise, and we can go on debating the merits of certain types of teacher "jusqu'a ce que les vaches viennent a la maison" (as Voltaire might have said).

I'm surprised that the ABRSM has not published a guide for parents and pupils on how to find a teacher, to go alongside the very good "These Music Exams" (please correct me if such a document exists.) Some might doubt the usefulness of this, but think next time you are completely at the mercy yourself of some other professional, (builder, mechanic etc.) OK, it may not be quite the same, but think how vulnerable you feel!

You can't blame bad teaching on conditions. If the teacher teaches bad technique and doesn't have a clue what they are doing, they will teach that wherever they are.

Also - having seen the type of posts a genuine troll makes on other forums, I will argue that Sarah-flute is definitely NOT one of these contemptable creatures. She is simply making some very valid points, and I think I have summed them up above.

I do a lot of peri work. I really enjoy it & I think most of my pupils do -there's a very small drop-out rate & they generally do well. I think I'm lucky in that I work for a good music service & there's plenty of support. I think my colleagues generally enjoy it, too - they're usually very enthusiastic when I meet them. I don't have any real problems with peri work - most pupils turn up & there's plenty of notice about trips, exams etc. so I can usually work round them, but if they do miss lessons without notice they have to pay.

I teach individual piano lessons - the minimum in this area is 20 mins individual or 30 mins small group. Large groups only happen in the Wider Opportunities scheme.

Ok, I've been reading loads of posts with this in it and I can't take it any more. Someone has to tell me what a peri is!

Peri - short for 'peripatetic' - ie, someone who goes from place to place. In schools, a visiting teacher (often of music) who goes from school to school carrying a load of music, and sometimes a few instruments.
After a few years of this, some teachers decide to stay at home and have pupils come to them, in peaceful and congenial surroundings. But others seem to enjoy the peripatetic life..
So now you know! (Do they have them in Aberdeen?)

We do, but I think they are called locum or supply teachers. I don't think I could cope with flying about with my head up my ###### all day like that!

Hi
This is my first reply in a forum!!

Can anyone teach? - well yes they can or can they?

I am currently a instrumental teacher doing the school rounds.

I have two thoughts.
1. I did a GCSE which was called 'history and appreciation of music' this included an option for the course work of teaching an instrument. So my first real experience was at 15, and I was giving a 30/45 minute lesson to a fellow student. (and I had to write a whole lesson plan and analysis each week!) Can I just say that I was grade 8 by this time and didn't charge.
My other thought, I had a pupil that wasn't more than grade 5 and he thought he was competant enough to teach and get paid for it. My thought is this, if he struggles counting simple crotchet/quaver rhythms, then how can he teach it?

Something to think about...

I teach privately, but am about to entrust my 8 year old son to the school Peri to learn the flute. I know the level of training she had; she went to the same college as I did. She's primarily an oboist, but did take flute as a formal second study, and is a highly experienced able musician. I also know peris in other counties all with sound backgrounds.

The instruments I teach are the ones I took to college. Singing - 1st Study, Oboe - auditioned as 1st study and nearly joint first study, but ended up as a 2nd study. Piano - joint second study.

But its not just the technical skills you need. I have developed a range of interpersonal skills in the workplace and as a mother that help.

When working one-on-one, I try to work out motivating factors and make the lessons very enjoyable and full of constructive criticism. I also see the role of teacher as senior learner. No two lessons are the same even if every pupil does have an overall scheme of work.

Peris are working within very tight constraints, and the fact they achieve what they do is remarkable, please don't knock them.

I would discourage an 18 year old who has just got their grade 8 starting teaching, unless it is clear that they are a natural at the other skills, and they were continuing their training.

How did I start, I started to advertise and built up a portfolio. I had a business plan in place, and things have gone from there.

I don't want too much in the way of regulation, however it is true that there are some real charlatans out there.

.

I found this course for singing teachers and though it might interest someone - http://aotos.org.uk/teacher.php - I guess there must be others out there for other instruments? It's something I'd like to look into one day. But I haven't taken Grade 2 Singing yet so it will be a while off.

I have just had a completely new experience learning to sail this weekend.

The first day an unqualified guy (in his 30s) was there to help the 'instructor' (17 yrs old) as he is starting his instructor course tomorrow. He was such a good teacher because he knew what I needed - which was lots of reassurance and encouragement and talking through the moves. By the end of the session I was loads more confident. The girl was of little use, even though she was qualified.

Today I had a different instructor in his Gap year. Again, he may be a good sailor and 'qualified', but he was not such a good teacher. In fact all he did was criticise me, so I promptly lost all confidence in my ability to do it.

What's the point? Qualifications don't mean a lot if you don't have the ability to teach in the first place. The guy about to do his training course can already teach. In the music world he wouldn't need to bother with a teaching qualification and his students would be very lucky. But how are we, as punters who may not know anything about sailing or music teachers to tell who is good and who is bad?

People wanting to teach anything really do need to have the interpersonal skills, learn more about how to teach (i.e. put the same thing across in many different ways and really be able to explain why everything they say is necessary - both only possible if they've really been forced to reflect on it themselves), have good technique / subject knowledge and be able to prove all of the above by having a robust qualification that examines all aspects of teaching.