The Instrumental Music Teacher: Autonomy, Identity and the Portfolio Career in Music by Kerry Boyle . International Society for Music Education (ISME) Global Perspectives in Music Education. Abingdon: Routledge, 2021

Abstract

In a publication that explores the intriguing nature of conflicting professional identities in music, freelance singing teacher and choral director, Kerry Boyle, enables the voices of over 300 instrumental teachers working in a variety of educational contexts in the UK to come to the fore via a national survey and 18 case study interviews. In the book description, Boyle highlights ‘a lack of regulation and curriculum’ where ‘individuals can teach with no training or qualification’. This seemingly negative assertion is juxtaposed with the notion, expressed positively for the most part, that instrumental teachers enjoy ‘high levels of personal and professional autonomy’ (p. 1). The majority of participants in Boyle’s study identify as musicians as opposed to teachers, a phenomenon the author can relate to from an autoethnographic stance. Ambiguously, multiple-choice options vary across Survey questions 2: ‘Which of the following most accurately describes your main professional occupation?’ and 18: ‘Which of the following terms would you suggest is most appropriate in describing your professional identity?’ (see Appendix 1). Given the classroom-based practice associated with the word ‘teacher’, it is potentially problematic that it was not possible for participants to select ‘instrumental teacher’ in response to the latter question. This may have been intentional, however, to highlight the notion that instrumental teachers are ‘unable to claim the status of teacher attributed to professionals working as qualified classroom teachers’ (p. 92). Set against a wider research context where instrumental teaching is surprisingly perceived as ‘non-musical or non-creative activity’ (p. 102), participants’ teaching is evidently informed by a portfolio of broader musical activity. Despite this, much compartmentalised thinking is prevalent amongst participants, many of whom seem to view performing and teaching as separate entities involving the switching of roles. There is scope to tease out the interrelated and complementary nature of these activities a little more, especially in response to a conservatoire tutor’s suggestion that three years of performance training had been ‘wasted’ (p. 68) following their student’s decision to undertake a music-focused Postgraduate General Certificate in Education (PGCE) in lieu of a final year of specialist performance training. Indeed, Boyle suggests that ‘musician first then teacher’ models (p. 6, resonating with Huhtanen, 2008) emphasise hierarchical roles in music where musicians who choose to train as music educators are perceived as inferior to those who sustain a performance career alongside teaching. The striking statistic that over 50% of participants in this study had never received any ‘organised training or guidance’ (p. 20) before they began teaching suggests that they only had their own previous teacher(s)’methods as a foundation for their own practice. It is interesting therefore that participants perceived that training in the master-apprentice model of teaching would be the most beneficial for their needs. Debatably, this view adds another dimension to Boyle’s ‘hierarchy of roles’ thread, implying that certain ‘types’ of teaching and/or teachers are ‘better’ than others. As Boyle suggests, it has long been argued that the master-apprentice model, prevalent in private teaching and the ‘performer-teacher’ culture of university and conservatoire education, serves to perpetuate existing teaching practices. In addition, I question whether a perception that instrumental teachers should have significant performance experience may in fact be harmful in deterring numerous teachers from pursuing training. Crucially, it appears that at present, many