Just reviving a topic that I know has been covered aplenty in the past. I have just begun reading Sheila Oglethorpe's book Instrumental Music for Dyselxics, and in the Notes at the beginning in states:-

"Teachers will [also] be aware that it is illegal to touch a pupil".

Am I misunderstanding this? I didn't realise it was actually illegal- unless different rules apply in Scotland and England. My understanding was that one should obtain the permission of the pupil to cover oneself (although I don't always do this with kids who I have been teaching for a long time) and obviously care should be taken that it is kept to a minimum and cannot be misconstrued - but does the law now go further than this?

This is the second edition of the book, published in 2002. Please can anyone confirm?

Utter nonsense.

Balderdash. How could it be? Supposing pupil falls over in a faint or something, is teacher supposed to be hands off then? I doubt there would be the means to enshrine that one into law even if it were attempted in any case.

What is illegal is to beat your pupils, or seduce them*, and those are rather more generally applicable than just in the teaching scenario.

*talking about the underage here. Not very professional to do so with an adult, but that's moving on and out of the realm of this forum.

Nonsense.

'Illegal to inappropriately touch . . . ' perhaps

(or should that be 'illegal to touch inappropriately' for the split infinitive sensitive ones).



Even better reply :

see the government Department of Education's 'Use of reasonable force' document

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/e...0-%20advice.pdf

dated 2011

which goes on to state :

9 What about other physical contact with pupils?
(i) It is not illegal to touch a pupil. There are occasions when physical
contact, other than reasonable force, with a pupil is proper and
necessary.
(ii) Examples of where touching a pupil might be proper or necessary:
a. Holding the hand of the child at the front/back of the line when
going to assembly or when walking together around the school;
b. When comforting a distressed pupil;
c. When a pupil is being congratulated or praised;
d. To demonstrate how to use a musical instrument;
e. To demonstrate exercises or techniques during PE lessons .............


It therefore CLEARLY states that, in normal circumstances, it is deemed 'proper and necessary' to touch a pupil when demonstrating how to use a musical instrument.

End of .........

Thanks, folks! I did have a brief moment of panic, but am relieved to know that I haven't misunderstood previous guidelines about this. I wonder if it's a typo; the Notes go on to say that "it is very important that permission to [touch] is first obtained, both from the pupil and also from his parents". In my book, "important" and "illegal" are not synonymous with each other!

Hope the rest of the book is better, since it was rather expensive!

Yes, it is difficult to understand how that (incorrect) sentence got through. Poor show - there is enough scaremongering about this topic without writers and publishers wrongly jumping on the bandwagon.

It doesn't bode well for the editing that such a glaring inaccuracy got through. The only mitigating circumstance I can think of is that maybe in America it is illegal (the book is published there too).

I wonder if she says the illegal thing on her lectures? - She's a guest lecturer on the Associated Board?s Certificate of Teaching course. http://www.abrsm.org/parents/advice/item.html?id=252 see bottom of page.

I think it's very irresponsible to be adding further confusion and anxiety around the touching issue and can't understand how the publisher let it get through the proofing process.

While not illegal, touching children is not encouraged, and many teachers have a policy of not touching children, even to demonstrate technique.

The ABRSM's website has some useful child protection videos: http://www.abrsm.org/en/help/safeguardingVideos.html

I did have to remove a wasp from a student's hair recently. I was more worried about touching the wasp.

Oh god, I've seen that 'inappropriate demonstration of technique' video before, and it definitely falls into the category of scaremongering, suggesting that any physical contact is as creepy as the teacher shown.


The explanation is unlikely to be that simple, because it would be legislated on by individual states.

Touching is more necessary with some instruments than others. I have more physical contact with my violinists than with my pianists for example.
But it's not something I particularly think or worry about. I do what's needed in any given situation depending on what will help that pupil at that time.
No one has ever mentioned it to me.

I doubt that after reading these forums for a while. Last time this came up - in response to the creepy, scaremongering video - very few teachers (in my recollection) had a no touching policy. Lots of them said they always asked the pupil if it was OK first and explained what they were going to do (eg adjust a bow hold).

I suspect the editor missed that the word "not" is meant ot be in front of "illegal"

OK, maybe I only know all the paranoid teachers. Is there a difference with teachers who work in schools? I also remember once being at a workshop where the teacher demonstrated on a student. Someone asked how you would do that without touching them, and the entire room agreed that this was a valid question.

I do agree that the videos are a bit basic and the issues are extreme. I'm also not saying that you should never touch a student, just that it's not quite that simple an issue.

Schools, music services and local authorities can and do issue their own policies or guidance, which may or may not deal with the issue rationally. Some are like that ABRSM video, saying 'touching is never necessary', with the implication that to do so is always a bad thing to do. On the other hand, I've come across ones which talk sensibly about how it depends on the context - group or individual lesson, explaining what and why you need to touch, whether one could use one's violin bow rather than a hand to nudge a wrist into the correct shape, etc. With this approach, they then are able to talk about the wider issue of avoiding other ways in which lessons or teachers can unintentionally be interpreted as intimidating, for example with how to make use of the space in a small practice room.

And that's the problem. The no touch policy and videos like the one linked to breed paranoia. As you say, Splog the video over-simplifies things into touching bad, not touching good and so tars everyone with the same brush as the weirdos.

I feel really sorry for the children growing up at the moment who are in effect being told that anyone and everyone is a potential weirdo. And I feel sorry for the teachers who don't know whether to comfort a crying child, or whether to pick them up if they fall over, or stand there frustrated when any number of verbal instructions to change a bow hold doesn't get the desired correction in hold that a two second adjustment of the thumb would achieve.

As Owain says there are better ways to broach the issue.

More recently I had a young girl round for a lesson and I thought she did so well I gave her a pat on the shoulder as a form of praise/encouragement. She just smiled and so did her mum. My own mum who happened to be around at the same time thought I was wrong to do this and told me so on our own. I begged to differ. But you get a feel with each pupil how they will react to things. There are some pupils I think twice before touching even their fingers, generally the more moody/unpredictable ones.

Like others I do exercise caution using any touch and keep to a minimum. Common sense is what is needed. Incidently has anyone had trouble from shaking hands with a child? That may as well be banned if we go to such extremes.

If this actually appeared in a book, I would question much else in it for that reason alone. It is wrong, plain and simple.

In general, I agree with your approach, especially when parents are a part of the lesson, but the issue of misinterpretation is when you don't realise the potential interpretation of what you're doing. A pupil doesn't need to be (externally) moody or unpredictable in order for them to be very sensitive about physical contact.