Music instrument lessons

[haypole]

Ds has had instrument lessons for couple of years at school. They have a band but ds is not interested. This summer when it was asked who continues in autumn ds said yes. Now the music teacher told ds that he can only continue if he joins the band. School subsidies the fees so they say it's their right to insist joining the band. Ds said no and therefore he can't continue lessons.

Is this fair?

If lesson provision is subsidised by band funding then yes, they can require you be the boots on the ground of that. Of course they can.

If you don't want to be in the band just pay full price for the lessons.

If it makes you feel any better, most instrumental teachers and school/LA ensemble leaders are living hand to mouth. So whatever you're paying, it's not funding Buckingham Palace levels of luxury. Or even semi-detached with shared ownership on the edges of a fairly shit market town levels of luxury.

But you are paying for the professional expertise of musicians who have worked and studied hard all their lives including at degree level and beyond to reach the level of skill they are at now and who are not yet jaded enough to jack it all in and get a secure job in a supermarket. Which is probably a bargain and something worth hanging onto.

You could get him lessons outside school, as an alternative.
If he wants the school lessons, that's the deal.

There might be grounds for arguing about it if there's a reason other than "I don't want to" for not joining the band - for example if it is after school and he hasn't got means of getting home afterwards, or if it clashes with rugby practice and he's a star player.

Yes that seems reasonable. School wants its music students to be in the band after all. Why doesn't he want to? Isn't it a bit like training footy but never playing the match?

I agree, music instrument teachers are highly skilled and badly paid so it must be a good thing to support them. Or yes, pay more for lessons after school.

Edited to remove hideous typo!

Totally fair.

DD has music lessons paid for by school as part of a scholarship - in return she has to take GCSE music and participate in the life of the music department.

In DD's school, it's in the contract for the subsidised lessons that students will participate in school ensembles when they reach the required standard.

The music service also offers private lessons which are not subsidised but can be taken in school time if the instrument teacher also teaches the subsidised lessons in school. Alternatively, you could fund private lessons for your DS if you prefer.

That's. Amazing the school is covering the cost for music lessons. They want those who learn an instrument to contribute to the cultural life of the school. Perfectly reasonable and slightly surprising question.

I agree with most of the posters above.

Another angle from my perspective as a classroom music teacher who also has a few peripatetic students is that for every hour that individual music lessons are taught, we lose a practice room/breakout space. My school has 6 such rooms which are in use 5 days per week, for most of the school day. The school is funding the heating, lighting and piano tuning as well as organising the peri teacher's timetable. My KS3 and KS4 kids have nowhere to work other than the main classroom and I think that's unfair, especially if the kid does not want to join in school groups; why are they learning an instrument?