Pedagogical Ethics, Power, and Adult Responsibility in One-on-One Music Instruction

By Dr. Antonella Di Giulio

Published in the MusicaIQ Blog

Abstract

In the context of private music instruction—particularly with adolescent students—the line between mentorship and over-familiarity can be easily blurred.
As communication increasingly occurs through digital platforms, and as minors initiate contact directly with potential teachers, the ethical responsibility of the adult becomes even more central.
This article explores the pedagogical and ethical implications of such scenarios, identifying common pitfalls, analyzing the teacher’s role in boundary-setting, and offering a framework for responsible, student-centered interaction, also based on my personal experience.

Introduction

One-on-one music teaching holds unique pedagogical power. Unlike classroom instruction, the private studio centers around personal interaction, artistic identity, and sustained mentorship.
While this can create profound learning experiences, it also places heightened ethical responsibility on the teacher—particularly when working with minors.

In recent years, the dynamics of teacher–student communication have shifted. With adolescents now contacting teachers directly via smartphones, social media, and personal email accounts, the burden of ethical framing falls squarely on the adult.
The fact that a student initiates contact does not imply peer-level engagement. Rather, it requires the teacher to establish clear structure, boundaries, and purpose from the first interaction.

The Case: When the Frame Shifts

A typical scenario might unfold as follows: A 14- or 15-year-old student messages a teacher to inquire about lessons.
The teacher, experienced and eager to connect, responds warmly—but quickly moves into a space of self-disclosure: sharing recordings, discussing their own performances, and reflecting on their artistic career.
The conversation centers on the teacher’s journey rather than the student’s goals. No clear schedule, pricing, or pedagogical structure is outlined. A parent is not contacted.
The interaction ultimately becomes confusing or uncomfortable for the student.

Although this may appear as enthusiastic engagement on the surface, it represents a significant breakdown in pedagogical ethics and professional boundaries.

Teaching Is Not Neutral

In music pedagogy, every interaction carries semiotic weight. The teacher models more than technical skill—they embody artistic values, relational dynamics, and ethical stance.
When an adult teacher engages with a minor, their words, tone, and focus create implicit lessons about authority, safety, and communication.

This means that who initiates the contact is irrelevant to the ethical demands of the teacher.
A message from a teenager—however casual, enthusiastic, or articulate—does not absolve the teacher of professional framing.
In fact, it heightens the need for it.

The Teacher’s Role Is to Contain

At the core of pedagogical responsibility is containment. The teacher sets the frame:

• Clarifying the purpose of the interaction
• Asking student-centered questions
• Defining roles and expectations
• Establishing communication channels (and involving parents, when appropriate)

When that containment is replaced with self-exposure—especially emotionally or artistically charged content—the teacher displaces the pedagogical frame with a personal one.
The student is then left to interpret, decode, or manage emotional dynamics they did not consent to.

Redefining Boundaries in a Digital Age

Digital platforms create an illusion of equality. A student sends a DM, a teacher replies on Instagram, and the interaction feels mutual. But pedagogically, it is not.
Power, age, and responsibility remain asymmetrical.

Teachers must resist the casual tone encouraged by digital spaces. Even if the student appears confident or curious, the adult must retain professionalism, clarity, and emotional discipline.

Questions Every Teacher Should Ask Before Responding:

• Have I identified who I am speaking with (student vs. parent)?
• Is my tone professional, or overly familiar?
• Am I focusing on the student’s needs or centering my own experience?
• Would I be comfortable sharing this message thread with the student’s parent, another teacher, or a supervisor?
• Have I clearly communicated how lessons work,

Pedagogical Red Flags: When a Teacher Is Seeking Something Else

Sometimes teachers—especially artist-teachers—project unprocessed emotional needs into their teaching. This may be unconscious, but it still carries impact.

Common signs include:

• Shifting attention to personal achievements or struggles
• Sending performance videos that are not pedagogically relevant
• Sharing romantic or emotionally intense repertoire without clear purpose
• Avoiding structure or formal scheduling
• Responding to compliments or admiration with personal disclosure

These behaviors suggest the teacher is using the student as an emotional audience, rather than guiding them as a learner.
With adolescent students, this can create confusion, discomfort, or even harm.

Framing the Relationship: A Pedagogical-Ethical Framework

To prevent over-familiarity and ensure safety, teachers working with minors should adopt a structured, reflective framework. The following elements are essential:

1. Initial Contact Protocol

• Require a parent or guardian’s involvement for students under 18.
• Use studio or institutional email addresses—avoid DMs or personal texts.
• Provide a welcome document with lesson structure, goals, and policies.

2. Professional Tone in All Communication

• Even when informal, maintain clarity, boundaries, and purpose.
• Avoid compliments, jokes, or disclosures that could be misread as personal interest or familiarity.
• Assume messages may be reviewed by a parent, colleague, or supervisor.
• If possible, include parents in a group chat.

3. Pedagogical Relevance

• Only share content (e.g., videos, recordings) that supports the student’s goals or shows a clear pedagogical path.
• Avoid emotionally charged or romantic material, especially if not directly tied to curriculum.

4. Self-Awareness and Supervision

• Reflect on your own emotional needs—are you seeking validation, admiration, or closeness?
• Engage in professional development, mentoring, or peer feedback to ensure ethical alignment.

Pedagogy is not simply the transfer of skill—it is the transmission of values, safety, and structure.
In one-on-one teaching, particularly with young students, the ethical responsibility of the adult must be non-negotiable.

We live in an era of blurred lines—where students can initiate contact, admiration can feel mutual, and digital platforms encourage informality.
But it is precisely in these spaces that clarity is most needed.
Not rules for the sake of control—but boundaries that protect the learning environment and honor the vulnerability of those who step into it.

When a student reaches out, it is not an invitation to connect personally. It is an invitation to lead professionally. May we answer accordingly.

Further Reading & Professional Guidelines

• NASM Code of Good Practice
• NATS Code of Ethics
• ISM Code of Conduct (UK)
• MTNA Code of Ethics