Posts Tagged ‘NSPCC’

Gove: Music tutor no-touch rule is ‘wrong’

Sunday, January 9th, 2011

Education Secretary Michael Gove has condemned a campaign by the Musicians Union, ABRSM, NSPCC and Youth Music which instructed music teachers to avoid any physical contact with children while teaching them how to play an instrument.

The video in question is below:

In a formal response, Gove said that the campaign “plays to a culture of fear that any adult who touches a child is somehow guilty of inappropriate conduct”. His open letter states:

“There are many occasions when it will be totally appropriate, indeed positively right, for teachers or tutors to be in physical contact with a pupil. It is entirely proper and necessary for adults to touch children when they demonstrate how to play a musical instrument, when they show how to play certain sports, when they are leading a child away from trouble, when they are comforting distressed or disconsolate children and when they are intervening to prevent disorder and harm.”

He continues:

“Teachers should be trusted to touch children without feeling they are somehow transgressing the rules of appropriate conduct. If we stigmatise and seek to restrict all physical contact between responsible adults and children, we will only undermine healthy relations between the generations. If we play to the assumption that any physical contact is somehow suspect then we will make children more suspicious of adults and adults more nervous and confused about their role in our society.”

You can read the full letter here.

Readers of this blog will be gratified to hear that Michael Gove’s response was precipitated by a groundswell of anger by music teachers in response to my post on the ABRSM forum on this subject. The reactions from music teachers hit the headlines last month, and the government obviously realised that a dose of common sense was necessary.

Among music teachers, there is a general sense that there was a lack of consultation, that the organisations’ campaign (however well-meaning) fuels paranoia, that the video itself is both unrealistic and patronising, and that those behind the campaign have completely failed to understand what is required in music teaching. I haven’t seen a single comment in support of the campaign.

If you’re interested, the ABRSM forum thread that started it all is alive and kicking, and you can read it here: www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=44570

Of course child protection is important, but, as James Forsyth mentioned yesterday in the Spectator, society cannot function without some degree of trust. Campaigns such as this damage trust between adults and children, while at the same time fail to provide any evidence of their potential effectiveness in reducing child abuse.

“It isn’t necessary to touch children in order to demonstrate. There’s always a better way”

Friday, November 5th, 2010

Keeping Children Safe in Music is a new joint initiative between the Musicians Union, the NSPCC, Youth Music, and the ABRSM (Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music).

As part of this project, the MU now has 5 videos up on their Youtube site to help music teachers to ‘gain a better understanding of their child protection responsibilities and avoid situations that could lead to accusations of misconduct’.

Of course the aims are laudable, but I’m not convinced by these videos.

In particular, the third video in the series entitled ‘Inappropriate Demonstration’ depicts a caricatured version of teacher-pupil contact, and contains the statement “It isn’t necessary to touch children in order to demonstrate. There’s always a better way” (01:16).

Personally, I do not believe this is correct, and it reminds me of the issues that Jennie Bristow and Frank Furedi were so helpful in unpacking in their book Licensed to Hug (now in its second edition).

As an Alexander Technique teacher, I know that verbal instruction and demonstration are not enough to change habit patterns (in fact, we have a term for it: ‘unreliable sensory appreciation’). In this profession, ‘not touching’ is simply not an option, and I know that many music teachers feel the same.

***UPDATE***

Follow the discussion on this topic on the ABRSM forum here: www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=44570

Vetting and Barring: Up for Political Reform?

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

In a dramatic move, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s pledged today to “strip away government’s unelected, inefficient quangos” as he set out plans for political reform.

Along with scrapping ID cards, the most significant scheme to be dismantled will be the ContactPoint Database which was to hold the details of of 11 million under-18s. However, there has been no mention of the controversial Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) which was designed to prevent unsuitable adults working with children and vulnerable adults.

Will this scheme also be up for political reform?

Before the election, the Conservative Party promised to “scale back” the VBS to “common sense levels”. But we have no indication to date of what shape that reform might take.

Meanwhile thousands of organisations up and down the country are only just starting to get to grips with what the VBS means for them. Last week the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) and the Association of British Orchestras (ABO) ran a superb seminar on the VBS and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) which is administering the Scheme. Yvonne Spencer and Con Alexander of Veale Wasbrough Vizards must be commended for their clarity and patience in explaining the very complex issues which surround the implementation of the Scheme.

Admitting that the VBS is difficult even for lawyers in this field, it was suggested that with the change of government came a chance for organisations to make representations to try to simplify the system.

So how are organisations coping so far?

The overwhelming impression I had from the seminar was that accurate interpretation of regulated activity (i.e. who must join the ISA database) was so confusing that organisations would probably simply take a belt and braces approach and sign everyone they could up to the Scheme. This is despite the costs involved. To give a concrete example, a musician playing in a professional British orchestra would probably be compelled to sign up, because he or she may at some point have ‘frequent’ or ‘intensive’ contact with children during a community outreach programme.

Extraordinary details (at least to me) came to light during the seminar. For example, how, even with the ISA Scheme in place, performing an Enhanced CRB check on a new member of staff is currently a requirement (even Sir Roger Singleton has seen the absurdity of this, and has suggested that this requirement be relaxed). Moreover, with our attention so firmly focussed on the implications of working with children, there was a warning that many are likely to neglect the definition of ‘vulnerable adult’ – which can (amongst countless other things) include a person who is ‘receiving any form of healthcare’! One of the few lighter moments came as one questioner asked whether the £64 ISA registration fee might be tax deductable (well, why not?).

As the details of their statutory obligations begin to sink in, thousands of organisations are having to decide how to orientate themselves in respect of the wider issue of child protection. Not only must they make sure they’re not breaking the law, but they have to decide what other measures might be necessary to demonstrate their commitment to safeguarding and the promotion of child welfare. As far as I am aware, only schools currently have an obligation to put in place child protection policies and procedures, but organisations of all types are increasingly becoming concerned about reputation management. According to Veale Wasbrough Vizards, a safeguarding policy should cover aspects such as: roles and responsibilities; recruitment of staff; safe working practice for staff (including a Code of Conduct); definition and signs of abuse; procedures for reporting concerns; dealing with allegations against staff; and review and monitoring of policy. The Incorporated Society of Musicians’ (ISM) Code of Practice was held up as a very helpful example of good practice in this area.

It might legitimately be asked what relevance all this has to private tutoring when private tutors have no legal obligations to join the VBS? Well, firstly, a large percentage of private tutors will be affected because their work in schools and for other Regulated Activity Providers (RAPs) will mean that they will have to sign up anyway. But secondly, this legislation will have strong repercussions for the society we live in. As the Scheme is rolled out over the coming years, there may be an increased climate of fear surrounding private tuition. Tragically, this attitude would be in denial of all that’s known about the risk of child abuse from teachers and other professionals.  The most comprehensive study that’s ever been conducted into child abuse in the UK reported that, of those children who experienced sexual abuse outside of the family, very few (less than 1%) experienced abuse by professionals in a position of trust, for example from teachers, doctors, social/care workers or religious leaders.