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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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…”

9. 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

10. 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’

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Questions, comments…
Nick Holland