Again, discussion as per the forum rules, no personal attacks, snide remarks and so on.

We have been dancing around the subject for a bit so here goes (gulp). Im not asking for me, I am happy where I am at this moment.

What qualifications do you think a 1-on-1 and small group music teacher should have? (Not classroom teaching as that is just a PGCE unless private school).

Please comment on any qualifications, but try to be as specific as you can so do not just say a degree as there are atleast 3 types of music degree.

If you like you can also comment on the level of the pupil under grade 5, grade 5-8, grade 8 plus inlcuding degree level, if you think that the teacher's qualifications change according to the level they are teaching.


General discussion but play nicely please or I'll close the thread.

This is the third thread you've started like this, MusicSong. I hope you're not out to cause more rows here.

I hope not. I have just noticed other talks go off topic. It seems there are some people who thing there is a 'golden path' to being a music teacher. I am very interested to hear peoples opinions, and I would start discussion. I am sensing that this may have been a wrong judging by your reply? Is there something that I should know- I can always get the thread shut down from the posting board if we have arguements of great size?

How do I delet the discussion?

I think qualities are more important to parents than qualifications. Having a good knowledge of your instrument or discipline is more essential having a bit of paper to back that up may not be.

Good communication skills with both students and parents are essential. Understanding, vision and direction. Not to mention organisational skills. Love of the subject and a willing to develop own learning. Recognising your own limitations and improving those areas, supporting students regardless of ability.

If someone without a qualification can do the job I'd rather have that than someone with who can't.

I think that the danger is that, when you post three new topics which are very similar in their nature and on an emotive issue which, as you acknowledge, has caused several rows around here, and repeatedly lay it on the line that there are to be no rows here, it almost looks as if the threads are out to cause problems. I'm sure that's not your intention at all but, seeing some of the disagreements on this subject on here of late, some people could interpret it a case of lighting the blue touch paper and retiring.

Let's hope we can all be sensitive and considerate here.

I don't think I've ever been asked what my qualifications are, and that's in just about 40 years of teaching!

Me too - I was asked a couple of weeks ago by a prospective 'new' family what training I had done - so mentioned the years at music college, (and trotted out my qualifications of course, although that wasn't exactly their question). I think this is the first time (apart from job interviews of course) that I have been asked that question.

I've never been asked for my qualifications either. I've had a lot of surprised looks at work when I've said I've got a PGCE - I think it's because I'm still quite a young teacher and in my first year of working as one full time! I don't think my teaching style has changed dramatically since gaining my teaching qualifications apart from it's provided me with more information on the theoretical side of education/teaching - which I don't think is a neccessity anyway. I agree that it's more about a person's qualities and how they communicate rather than what certificates they hold.

Vital qualifications are proficiency at the instrument and an ability to communicate how to achieve this.

Many people with bits of paper are teaching instruments they have little ability to play (normal for the school music service), nor ability to teach in an thoughtful and encouraging way which spreads an infectious enthusiasm. Many even feel the world owes them a living.

Obviously what someone is like and how they teach is more important than qualifications they have, but I would think twice before going to a teacher who listed their highest qualification in the instrument as less than about grade 7 or 8.

If this was what they advertised their standard as then I would be wary. The person my be capable of playing at a much higher standard and not taken the qualifications. After being with non-specialist teachers daughter got a specialist (someone with G8). I'd take the non-specialists anytime.

When I started teaching piano "properly", ie with a view to making it a long-term occupation, I had a science degree, and a PGCE related to that, and the ALCM performance dip which I had acquired as part of my serious "hobby". Essentially I'm a teacher - that's how I'm made and I'm quite good at it (though I say so myself).

However. I decided to take the CT course after it had been going for a while, because I felt a bit vulnerable working in a school without a specific music teaching qualification, and now I have a colleague who's doing the same kind of thing, and some-one else took the teaching dip for the same reason.

I've only ever been asked once for references from prospective pupils (and that was some-one who'd been recommended to me!) so I'm not sure in the greater scheme of things that qualifications are greatly regarded by the rest of the world - certainly the enquiries that I've had recently are from people who've come along by word of mouth, so clearly many people out there go by recommendation.

I do think though myself that, for my own children, I look for both qualifications and teaching ability combined and in an ideal world that would be the best combination. (I have come across some extremely well qualified people who are absolutely hopeless as teachers.)

There is already another thread with an almost identical topic - if you do a search, you'll find it - people were posting in it fairly recently......

Well I'm pretty disillusioned by the ability and knowledge of some of the recently "qualified" teachers I've come across. It bothers me greatly - and I'm not just talking about music.

The Director of Music at one of the schools I work in is equally frustrated by the ever-diluted standard of education and believes peris should be granted QTS on the recommendation of a Director of Music. As he put it "I could really use you in the classroom, Bag." (No doubt he needs someone to clean the desks...)

Ho ho.

Thick-on-Paper-Bag x

Well quite. If a second year music undergraduate can't pick out the key of a piece she's hearing what does all this music higher educaction actually mean half the time?

I don't have a music degree yet was asked today (by the Head of Music in one of my schools) to spend an hour each week next academic year giving an A-level student composition tutorials - for the simple reason that I'm actually quite good at both composing and teaching even though I have had no actual formal training at either discipline except for the CTABRSM (for teaching). Being qualified doesn't always seem to mean as much as it should.

I can speak as a one-on-one teacher and as a small-group teacher.

One-on-one: can play enough to know enough to teach the individual I am working with.

Small group teacher: to know enough about the activity the group is engaging in to be able to pass on the requisite knoledge. In my case, 'A' level music, which primarily requires a knowledge of Classical harmony and a decent grasp of analysis. A decent outline knowledge of music history helps. The ability to put up with wayward teen behaviour helps a whole lot more.

Per se, my qualifications are irrelevant but the skills I acquired in gaining them helped a lot. Subsequent experience helped a whole lot more.

Playing devil's advocate, though, I remember once being told "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king"!

I suppose part of the debate stems from the fact that there are so many qualifications out there that it's difficult for potential students and their parents to know what they all mean.

Anyone can set up as a Driving Instructor but most of the decent ones are part of the official body (whose name escapes me). They are graded in their abilities by this body, I think it goes up to level 5 for the best instructors and people looking for instructors can see clearly who is the best.

So my questions are:
Should there be a single official body for music teachers?
Should there be a method of accrediting existing teachers based on their skills (through lesson observation) rather than their qualifications?
Would parents appreciate this?
Would teachers be willing to pay such a body to accredit/license them?

If the accreditation could be linked to QTS all the better.

I suppose it's all theoretical really because there are official bodies out there already, ISM, ABRSM, MU and various colleges, but it would be interesting to know what people think.

Hehe. Good thing the ability to type 'knowledge' isn't one of qualities I need to possess.

It always seems to me as if the instrumental teachers with qualifications get a bit huffy about the instrumental teachers without them, and the instrumental teachers without them are well aware they can be just as proficient as the teachers with them.

The facts are these:

There are great teachers with qualifications, middling teachers with qualifications and dreadful teachers with qualifications.

There are great teachers without qualifications, middling teachers without qualifications and dreadful teachers without qualifications.

There are probably more great teachers with qualifications because they've necessarily spent a lot of time studying the instrument and ways of teaching it, but a lot of non formally trained teachers have done that too.

Yes, I agree that there are so many qualifications out there. These are misleading for obvious reasons, but also because they can be USED misleadingly. For instance, I know of one person advertising themselves as a singing teacher, whose qualifications (licentiate diplomas) are in organ and piano. This person leads a church choir, but frankly knows diddley squat about singing technique.

To answer the driving instructors paragraph - you may not set yourself up as a professional driving instructor without being suitably qualified. People who have passed exams 1 and 2 may operate "under licence" as a PDI (Potential Driving Instructor) for a period of a year following the second exam pass. If they don't pass in that time they must start the proceedure over again. If they do, they become ADIs (Approved Driving Instructors) The first exam is Hazard Awareness, the second on your own driving skills, and the third giving a lesson to an examiner, who may assume any persona. You are allowed three gos at this, then you have to take all the other exams again. The body which accredits instructors award points partly based on QUALIFICATIONS - there are other exams which may be taken post qualification, which boosts the score. Other than that it is based on exam passes or failures, which is unpopular with instructors because they frequently lend their cars to colleagues whose car is out of action, or who are ill, and failures get logged against the lending instructor's record. You may say it's swings and roundabouts, as so do their passes, but nevertheless it is inaccurate in its present form.
It's one thing to be taught by a family member where no money changes hands, but I think anyone who pays someone unqualified to teach them is daft. People often employ the services of a qualified driving instructor just before the test. My daughter (an ADI) often spends much time undoing all the bad habits and out-of-date proceedures taught to them by unqualified people.


Should there be an official body for music teachers?
Possibly - I would have no objection and would be happy to join.

A method of acrediting skills by observation - isn't this what the teaching diplomas do? Would you be belittling qualifications by insisting on another observation based method of monitoring? Or would this be for those who haven't already spent out on training and exam fees to achieve it?

Would parents appreciate this?
I don't know that SOME parents of beginners or adults take much notice. Some students say they don't care about qualifications - they are being taught a good technique. How do they know? I've lost count of the number of students who have come to me with poor technique, but have assumed that their "great" teacher has taught them well. I get my most advanced students - diplomas, etc. - because of my qualifications.

Would we be willing to pay?
I already do via the ISM.

I'm not interested in QTS status as I have no intention of undertaking classroom teaching.

Back to the driving thing - instructors are moderated every two years (unless they score a low mark, in which case it's after a year). Is there a case for this to be carried out for music teachers? Over to you!

Quite. Perhaps the people who bang on about qualifications (because they have them, usually) should take heed of the fact that to get onto the AB's own CTABRSM instrumental teaching course demands only that you have 3 students - they don't expect you to have any grades in the instrument at all! What you get on the course though is a rigorous examination of your teaching skills plus access to a very experienced mentor specific to your instrument. I know people with both a teaching diploma and the CTABRSM and they tell me they got more out of the CTABRSM as far as teaching skills are concerned.

As an instrumental teacher I think what you need is

a very good knowledge of your instrument and the ability to play it to at least Grade 8 standard
a very good knowledge of every aspect of your instrument and how to teach it effectively
empathy applicable to the type of students you're teaching
a good understanding of different learning styles
a genuine love of music and the ability to impart that to your students and inspire them into a musical life

Neither a teaching diploma nor any other qualification including the CTABRSM will necessarily furnish you with these skills and the best teachers will continually do their own research into the best ways of teaching their instrument in any case.

You also need a huge stack of money and a lot of free time. If you live outside of the UK you need to pay flights and accommodation for all the weekends (for which you are losing money, because you're paying someone to take your classes).

These things are not possible for everyone.

I've got grade 5 singing - a bare pass at that, and that was a fight, and yet my singing teacher (a senior member of AOTOS) has suggested I teach singing. I guess she must think I know about singing technique. I guess I do know a little but I was quite flattered. No I'm not planning to teach singing. Maybe I'll take grade 6 first

I wouldn't even let it bug you... results are what matters. If your students are doing well and it makes them (and you) happy, then what's the problem?

Not sure why you would feel the need to justify yourself... your postnomials are..um..intimidating!

I thought carefully about whether to go for a teaching diploma or the CT course. I am so glad I chose the latter. One of the strengths of the CT course is that it is very up-to-date concerning music-making and teaching. Gone are the days when music tuition revolved almost totally around classical music - a whole new range of styles and challenges need to be addressed if, as a teacher, you want to have a wide range of skills. In addition, a huge amount of research has been done into the workings of the brain within the last 10 and 15 years and a lot has been discovered about how people learn best. The CT course really addresses this.

I think I am right in saying that at the time I made my choice, the teaching diplomas I looked at only required one actual observed lesson. Bearing in mind that all the head knowledge in the world is useless if you can't actually transmit it to your pupil, this seems to be a surprisingly small requirement! In contrast the CT requires lesson observations staggered throughout the course, taking place in your home or place of work, and also a video project.

As Violinia says, you also have the benefit of a mentor throughout the course. I'm still in touch with mine and consult her at times if I'm unsure of anything.

David, from what I have seen you are very passionate about what you do. You are diverse in your training and experience, and have a steady stream of students who return- more than some people on here seem to have! Let your students results speak for themselves!


And to whoever said about the CTABRSM- I read that you needed 5 students, and had to have been teaching for a year? Has this changed to 3 students? (Not that it affects me, but just curious)



True!

A very well-considered post, in my opinion.

Sorry I didn't fully understand that whole Driving Instructor thing when I wrote the post, it was just something I'd heard and I wanted to open up the debate.

I don't think there's a single answer, maybe thing are better as they are because great teachers are not prevented from teaching because they don't have the bits of paper. It's strange though how this profession of ours which means so much so to many people remains largely un-regulated.

To return to the point of accreditation through observation I think it would be valuable for all teachers to undergo an observation every few years, after all schools are inspected regularly and all the class teachers are qualified.

I'm always mindful that when my husband was a student (at an extremely prestigious music college, I won't say which) his teacher was a member of a top London orchestra, but that certainly didn't make him a good teacher!

I think it's clear from this discussion that it would be almost impossible to regulate the profession.

I have been inspected by Ofsted twice - both times given an "outstanding" but these people wouldn't know one end of a flute from the other, let alone a "good" lesson from a "bad" one. In particular one-to-one tuition which is the majority of the peri's work is absolutely tailor-made to fit the individual. Obsession with box-ticking results in poor education. Good education lies with thinking OUT of the box.

Bag x

Excellent point!

Hey! H-G! I've just noticed you've got your 25 yards breaststroke certificate - that means you should be qualified enough to teach swimming lessons!!!! sorry! Couldn't resist in the light of all these similar threads being started at the moment!

You wouldn't say that if you knew just how slowly I swam! A drugged fly who'd accidentally landed on the surface of the water could probably give me a run for my money. The other week I was happily swimming lengths in my local pool (although it probably looked more like I was going through the motions due to the fact that my speed through the water was probably barely discernible to the naked eye; come to think about it - the last time it appeared as if I was going through the motions when swimming was when I made the mistake of swimming near to the local sewage outfall....) and I noticed this lady repeatedly overtaking me. I think for every length I did, she did at least a length and a half. And she was old enough to have been my mother too!

But you could get some pupils and learn on the job! Then you could take a course in how to teach swimming and lastly you could take a 50 yard badge to show just how competent you are.

Sorry HG! I am sure that you have the charm and personality to make a great swimming coach!

HG - charm and personality???

But it wouldn't do me much good if all of my pupils started drowning because I couldn't teach them proper technique, would it?

Even when I was a nipper swimming had a minimum qualification requirement to begin coaching. I think it was Bronze or Silver, but it's a long time ago

If HG can't swim too fast he'd be no good at life saving

Swimming teaching has a well established system of qualifications and you would not be employed by a local authority or a swimming club without one of them, though you might be allowed to gain experience by assisting a qualified teacher or coach.

There are two bodies in the UK that give courses and accreditation in swimming teaching and coaching: the ASA (Amateur Swimming Association) and STA (Swimming Teachers Association). The standard and requirements are roughly equivalent.

The only pre-requisite (at least back when I did them) was that you had to have at least the Bronze Medallion in life saving - so that you could pull out and resuscitate anyone that got in trouble during a lesson! And it had to be current - passed or refreshed within the last three years if I recall correctly.

The basic, standard qualification is the Swimming Teacher award (for which the Preliminary Teacher award is the pre-requisite). There are both theoretical and practical components. You are assessed on a written paper and on observation of your teaching skills. It can be gained by attendance at quite a short full-time course (as little as 2 weeks, intense residential course) but that is rather misleading. If you could not already swim well, teach effectively, organize a class, and keep pool-side discipline, then you would have no chance of passing. Most people taking the course have been competitive swimmers, or are schoolteachers, or both.

There is also an Advanced Teacher's award, and there are numerous coaching qualifications that are much more demanding in terms of knowledge and commitment.

The only quibble I had with the tuition for ASA teacher was that some of the reasons we were given for how the strokes generated propulsion were wrong, conflicted with basic physics, had been known to be wrong for years, and had properly explained in books by top swimming coaches that had already been in print for decades. But it didn't matter ... because the actual strokes and methods for teaching them worked just fine, it was just that our tutor didn't know why they worked.

Re the comparison with swimming, I suppose that one of the comforting things about being a music teacher is that if you get something wrong, it's unlikely that you'll put your pupils' lives at risk.

I think a level of pragmatism is important. A teacher needs to have a firm and demonstrable grasp of the technique required to play their instrument and a broad awareness of its repertoire, allied with knowledge of good teaching strategies and practices. While it's perfectly possible to gain these without having a formal qualification, it's nevertheless the case that many of the standard qualifications offered by various bodies provide a good way of gaining this vital knowledge and awareness, while giving the teacher some motivation to develop their skills and a formal recognition that can be very useful when advertising for new pupils.

Above all, the word demonstrable is key, I think - paper qualifications, no matter how impressive or how difficult to achieve mean little if pupils do not perceive that their teacher is a capable musician; when I hold end-of-term/year concerts, I always play a piece myself, to show that all the technical aspects that I impress upon my students also informs my own playing. It's also a useful way of getting around the problem of deciding which pupil goes first!