A little input please - ARCT or no?

[deirpg]

This has been bothering me for quite awhile, and I'm hoping to get some input or opinions from you all.

I have been studying piano since I was very young - I'm 30 now, and I have been teaching for about 7 years (including the time when I was a teenager and I taught a few kids.)  Anyway, my teaching is going wonderfully, other than the typical issues with a few students/parents.  I love doing what I do, it gives me total and complete satisfaction, and I truly think that I'm good at what I do.  I relate very well to kids especially, and most of my students have developed well.

I finished taking exams at grade 9.  I was planning to do my grade 10 exam and then do the ARCT, but I wonder if this is really necessary.  I have two children, so finding the time to take lessons and prepare for these exams at this point is pretty unrealistic - my youngest is only 4 months old.  When I'm not taking care of them, I'm teaching, so there isn't much spare time for anything right now.  Also, after looking into the exam fees, I was hesistant to move forward with my exams due to the huge cost.  While I feel confident that I'm a good teacher, I worry that I will be unable to prepare my students for RCM exams and that perhaps I'm not qualified to teach.  Deep down, I feel that I am qualified to teach, but a part of me feels like I'm not a REAL teacher because I don't have the grade10 and the ARCT.

Can anyone relate to this or give me any input please?

Thanks,

Deirdre

[fred smalls]

Hi. You must be from Canada? Me too. I just completed my grade 9 exam in January. I am pretty sure you are allowed to teach once you have your grade 9, but I am not sure that you would be part of the Regestered Music Teachers Association or whatever it's called. If you have all the theory pre-requisites I think it would be wise to take the grade 10 and teachers ARCT exams, if you are good with children you would probably do very well, and being a regestered music teacher, associated with the Royal Conservatoy, would probably help bring in more students. I think paying for the exams would probably pay off in the long run and help you feel more sure of yourself as a teacher. It would also help you prepare your students better for the exams as you said.

 I hope what I have said makes sence. 

[Vivers]

I'm sure you know that if you are to get your grade 10 and ARCT,  you'll also need to do all of your theory in order to get the certificate and put it on your wall. And there's also a huge difference between the teacher's ARCT and the performer's ARCT. I'm working on my performer's right now. Originally, I wasn't going to finish all of the theory for it because I'm just interested in the practical (I'm not so good at memorizing little facts about Fair Phyllis and Josquin Desprez), but my theory teacher convinced me to go for the certificate because she found herself wanting a stay-at-home job after she had children, and she had to go back and do her ARCT in order to get students. I think she also did a liberal arts degree in order to get licensed by the provincal board and qualify for perks. So now I'm doing my Analysis 5 in May.

I'm not sure, but I think if you do your ARCT, you have to finish the theory with it within 5 years, or else you don't get your cert. I think it's worth it to do the ARCT, and if you plan on teaching long-term, go for the teacher's ARCT. It's a lot more work than the performer's, but since you're already a teacher, it should be simpler. You have to write 2 written exams which have to do with music history, pedagogy techniques, and stuff like that. There are practice exams you can get. And then for the practical, you'll have to put together 'teaching programs' for each grade (list A, B, C, D, E, and studies), and they can basically ask you anything from playing scales, to teaching scales, to explaining the time period of your pieces. There are two examiners, and at one point, one of the examiners will pretend to be a student, and may play one of the pieces from your teaching program very badly, and you'll have to "teach" them.

It's a lot of work, but if you have the time, I think it would really help to have a more solid, recognised foundation as a piano teacher. Think of it as continuing education... And if you're worried about the money aspect, just make sure you're totally prepared before you register (repeating exams is really a hassle).

[deirpg]

Thanks for your responses.  Also, knowing about what the ARCT exam is like really does help.

Do I need to do the grade 10 exam in order to get the ARCT?  Is there a lot of performing for the teaching ARCT or is it all teaching related?

I'm also a little nervous about the music harmony and history part of theory.  I did one music harmony exam and found it pretty tricky.  Is the history mostly a lot of memorization?  Is it possible to prepare myself for these without the help of a teacher?

Thanks again for your input!

Deirdre

[fred smalls]

Yes, in order to get your ARCT (teachers or performers) you must have your grade 10, it's kind of like a grade 11. Yeah, theory is difficult (harmony in perticular), but if you really apply yourself it shouldn't be that bad. Just think of the reward of having it all done at the end.

[Vivers]

History is pretty feasible without a teacher... that being said, the new system's syllabus is pretty scattered, and you can't just use the 'Enjoyment of Music' textbook. But when I have time, I'm typing up all the notes for History 3 and 4. You can also get practice exams and the Frederick Harris "Exploring Music History" series is kinda useful. I hate studying history. I did very well on History 3, but it's so time consuming, I think it would be hard for me to prepare for the exams if I didn't have the pressure of having to regurgitate facts to my teacher. History is basically memorizing all the little facts ever. You have to memorise the terms associated with the eras, stuff like Sonata Allegro Form and its features, the features of Mass, the instruments of the time, how the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution led to the Romantic Era, and other stuff like that. That's the easy part. The second hardest part is memorizing composers' lives. You have to know numbers. For Bach, you need to know when and where he was born, when he composed for certain churches, what he composed while he was at which institution, how is compositions evolved, and what major pieces he wrote, and his style in general. For me, the dates are the hardest. Then the worst is learning the pieces. For something like the Four Seasons, you'll have to know which instrument plays which theme, what the themes represent, whether they're disjunct or flowing, or arpeggiated, or other really ridiculous stuff like that, and then the worst is memorising key modulations. The exam doesn't actually test you on all the stuff that you memorise, but you never know what they'l ask. History 3 is basically an overview, with some of Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and 20th century. History 4 is early music, Baroque, and Classical, and History 5 is Romantic and 20th Century, including pop music trends.

Of the harmony exams, I think Counterpoint 4 is the worst. I'm proud to say I passed, but I ran out of time and just wrote in random stuff for the inverted counterpoint one. There were so many 7ths and 2nds and 5ths and octaves that if I actually played it, it would have made me gag. Harmony 4 is easy (for me, at least, I just don't like History). It's just writing chords, following rules, and naming keys. Harmony 5 is counterpoint and harmony, and I found it rather challenging, but maybe that's because my teacher loses her train of thought easily and forgets what she's trying to teach sometimes. Analysis is perhaps the easiest of the bunch. And you even get to use creative words to describe sonatas (The bass line moves in an ascending pattern of alternating solid thirds and accented octaves while the treble presents a flowing, chromatic melody of ornamented eighth notes - this isn't any piece in particular. It's fun making them up).

If you're creepy and are good at improvising, you can do keyboard harmony 3, 4, and 5 instead of the written test. There, they give you a melody, and 30 minutes to think, then you play for them that melody supported by a bass that makes sense and has the proper cadences. Basically, it's the written test, but you play it instead of writing it. I don't know anyone who can actually do that.

For History, you can get away with doing it yourself. For Harmony, unless you already have a strong background in composition, get a teacher. And you don't have to do Harmony 3 because if you can do Harmony 4, they assume you know your harmony 3.

And in order to apply for the ARCT teacher's, you have to get 70%+ on your grade 10, but you're comfortable playing in exams, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

I think the ARCT exam is split 50/50 between performance and pedagogy, but I'm not certain. It should be written in the syllabus.

[IanT]

Hey Vivers - I take issue with your remark about the keyboard harmony exams.  I did all three (grades 3,4, and 5) and I don't think I'm in the least bit creepy ;-)  Actually I thought it was a good way to go.  You actually need to know a lot less theory with the keyboard harmony, and the exams are way shorter - I'd much rather spend 15 or 20 minutes playing the piano than 3 hours writing dots.  If you are a confident pianist then it's well worth investigating.

I agree with you about the Counterpoint IV, I didn't enjoy it at all (more dots!).  I hadn't done any of the theory so I had to work through the whole lot (from Rudiments II!) onward.  It was a real slog but worth it in the end.  I also agree with you about the history.  It used to be really easy, just read 20 chapters of the standard textbook a few times and you're done.  Not any more.  There is no standard text anymore so you have to do a lot more general reading and research.  Apparently they revised the format specifically so people couldn't get through by just reading the standard text.

One thing to remember with all of these exams is that they are geared to the intellect level of teenagers so they are fairly easy for adults.  Also, the examiners seem to really enjoy seeing an adult take the exams so they are very friendly and helpful.

So, my opinion Deirdre, is: go for it!

Ian

[keys]

Counterpoint was my second favorite! Right after History, which was awesome. When I did grade four history, they covered a huge amount of material, it was the hardest of the history exams. But my teacher told me that with the new syllabus all of the grades are more equal. What I hated was Harmony Soo boring. But it doesn't matter anymore! I'm all done! Woot! Oh, word to the wise, do not write your Gr.5 History, Harmony and Analysis all on the same weekend. Trust me. Not fun.

Deirdre, don't look too far ahead. Start with Gr.10. If you look at all of the material you have to cover, it can be intimidating.

[abell88]

I got my Teacher's ARCT in 1986...looking back, I can't believe I did all that work! But it has been well worth it. The knowledge of history, theory, harmony and analysis have really helped my teaching. Also, preparing for the Viva Voce, although intimidating, was really valuable.

By the way, the Conservatory is revising the ARCT Teacher's Diploma...starting in fall 2006 (I think), it will be divided into three parts. For the first part, you only prepare for beginners, and Introductory, Grades 1 and 2 piano levels (again, this is what I remember, maybe it goes to Grade 3 as well for this level).  Second level is intermediate, third is advanced. I think this is a good idea --  although it will possibly cost more in the long run, it's much less to do at once, and gives you a chance to focus on a more manageable area.

Another thing about working towards your ARCT is it can be very inspiring for your students (and their parents) to know that you are constantly striving to improve yourself and your abilities.

Whether or not you choose to go the ARCT route, I highly recommend a book called The Well-Tempered Keyboard Teacher, by Uszler, Gordon, and Smith. It will really help you think about your philosophy of teaching, different teaching styles, etc.