Preparing to Apply for Taught Degree Awarding Powers: Quality Assurance and Enhancement Dr Nick Holland – Academic Registrar Conservatoire for Dance and Drama

Preparing to Apply for Taught Degree Awarding Powers: Quality Assurance and Enhancement Introduction to the Conservatoire for Dance and Drama background on our preparations for a TDAP application CDD Quality Handbook student representation ‘student-facing policies’ future degree regulations

Taught Degree Awarding Powers (TDAPs) “Guidance for higher education providers: criteria and process for applying for taught degree awarding powers and research degree awarding powers” (DBIS September 2015) HE Bill proposals? Working to the QAA Quality Code and other key sector guidance

Conservatoire for Dance and Drama (CDD) Founded in 2001 to locate professional training in dance, drama and (later) circus arts within the publicly funded higher education sector, alongside music and art CDD exists to train young artists who will match the world’s best and, on entering their professions, shape the future of dance, drama and circus arts HEFCE review of specialist institutions in 2016 confirmed CDD as a provider of world-leading teaching originally two schools, from 2005 eight schools 1343 students in 2015/16, mostly full-time

The Eight CDD Schools Bristol Old Vic Theatre School (UWE validated) Central School of Ballet LAMDA London Contemporary Dance School National Centre for Circus Arts Northern School of Contemporary Dance Rambert School of Ballet and Contemporary Dance RADA (King’s College London validated)

CDD’s Structure CDD is a designated HEI (without degree awarding powers) schools are legally-independent charities school have validation agreements in place with Kent or another validator validators have responsibility for the standards of awards and ultimate responsibility for the quality of learning opportunities provided as an HEI, CDD (amongst other things): is expected to provide annual 'assurances on quality' to HEFCE under its new framework for quality assessment is a subscriber to OIA structure of collective decision-making: CDD has a Board of Governors, Academic Board and Leadership Board with representation from each of the schools

HEFCE ‘Assurances on Quality' ‘The governing body has received and discussed a report and accompanying action plan relating to the student academic experience and student outcomes, including the evidence from the institution’s own periodic review processes which fully involve students and external expert advice.’ ‘The governing body has received the outcomes of continuous improvement activity relating to learning and teaching and challenged the executive where necessary.’ ‘The methodologies used as a basis to improve the student academic experience and student outcomes are, to the best of our knowledge, robust and appropriate.’ [from 2017:] ‘The governing body has received a report that confirms that the provider continues to meet the Standards of Part 1 of the ESG (2015).’ (HEFCE 2016/03 para 124)

CDD Strategic Plan Objective 1: “To deliver the organisational change and development necessary for the achievement of Taught Degree Awarding Powers thus offering students the opportunity to graduate with Conservatoire degrees…”

Implementing the CDD Strategic Plan Four workstreams: Governance and accountability framework Academic quality assurance, student support and representation Information strategy and systems Staff development and learning enhancement

Workstream 2: Academic QA, Student Support and Representation Four key strands of activity under this workstream: CDD Quality Handbook Student representation development of student facing policies and procedures preparing future degree regulations overarching workstream targets are: to work as effectively as possible with the validating institutions to the benefit of the validating institutions, CDD schools individually and CDD collectively for CDD to be ‘TDAP ready’

CDD Quality Handbook CDD Quality Handbook developed in 2009 covers core cross-CDD quality framework and processes, including programme approval, monitoring and review substantially revised in consultation with the validating HEIs during 2015 principles of the Quality Handbook revisions are: for CDD’s QA to work efficiently and effectively alongside the validating institutions to the benefit of the validator, CDD schools individually and CDD collectively to ensure CDD’s alignment with the current QAA Quality Code to build capacity and expertise in peer review across CDD to develop processes which could transition into those of an HEI with TDAPs

Development of Conjoint Periodic Review for 2016/17 Kent has agreed to a ‘conjoint’ periodic review process for three CDD schools undergoing PPR this year panel chaired by Kent member of staff, comprising Kent staff, a student, external experts and CDD staff single set of information single event joint report presented separately to Kent and CDD Kent’s policy is unchanged as already allowed for an expanded review panel CDD’s policy separates ‘principles’ from ‘processes’, enabling it to work alongside the policies and processes of other validating institutions in the future with some flexibility

Advantages of Conjoint Panels Avoids duplication of processes and documentation broadens the experience of CDD staff of HE peer review activities CDD panel members can contribute through their knowledge of conservatoire-style training Generates CDD track-record in a process which could be developed and brought ‘in house’ to CDD once TDAP is acquired.

Student Representation CDD has strengthened its cross-CDD student representation by establishing a Student Advisory Committee: student representatives from all schools, one staff member student chaired includes the CDD student governor sends representatives to CDD Academic Board reports to and from Board of Governors and CDD Academic Board makes proposals for and advises on cross-school student activities

Student-Facing Policies and Procedures conducted self-assessment of alignment of ‘student-facing’ policies and procedures with QAA Quality Code and other key sector guidance established an action plan of areas for cross-CDD development of policies at school level developing a ‘common core’ approach, where efficient and appropriate to do so, with the ‘core’ being tailored to the local needs of the school development requires continuous dialogue across CDD and with validators over proposals some areas which have been considered so far: student terms and conditions student complaints policies

Future Degree Regulations set up a working group initial report prepared, focusing on ‘what we would like the regulations to be like in the future’ second phase of activity being developed

Questions, comments… Nick Holland (nick.holland@cdd.ac.uk)