1. Martin
We introduce ourselves

2. Content General introduction
Information on ‘quality’ in higher music education and the latest developments
What do we mean with ‘quality’ in the field of music?
Some examples and methodologies from higher music education
What does this mean for you?
Martin

3. Who am I? Trained as a cellist in NL, USA, GB and CZ
MA degree in musicology Utrecht University
Cellist, founder of junior department Utrecht Conservatory and initiator ERASMUS exchanges in music
Chief executive European Association of Conservatoires (AEC)
Vice-principal Royal Conservatoire The Hague
Chair Board MusiQuE – Music Quality Enhancement
Martin

4. What is MusiQuE?
A European subject-specific organisation for quality enhancement for music in higher education
Partners are:
European Association of Conservatoires (AEC)
European Music Schools Union (EMU)
Performing Arts Employers Associations League Europe (Pearle* - Live Performance Europe)
Does evaluations and accreditations based on peer-review, NOT an inspectorate

5. The situation in higher music education
For a long time: academies/conservatoires/music universities focused on artistic quality
Bologna process since 1999:
Bachelor – Master system
Introduction of credit points
Introduction of quality assurance - > ‘quality’ defined in certain way
Subject-specific response needed

6. Concept of Quality
Tension between ‘(musical) standards’ and ‘(educational) quality’
Music sector has been strong on musical/artistic standards
‘Educational quality’ fairly new: organisation of the curriculum, student feedback, facilities, assessment rules, etc.
Crucial for our type of institutions to bring both together
This makes more sense to the daily work of teachers

7. Example 1: our exams
‘Artistic quality’ main purpose: to test artistic and instrumental/vocal skills of our students/pupils
‘Education quality’: assessment criteria, fair assessment regulations, equal treatment, relevant circumstances in terms of facilities, relevant assessment panel -> internal/external?

8. Example 2: our teachers
Artistic standards – they should be great artists: artistic skills and competencies, reputation, professional practice are central
Educational quality – didactic skills, ability to work in teams, need for continuing professional development, understanding of the academy as an educational institution and not just a cultural one

9. Another dimension 1: internal/external
Important aspect on how to reach an objective view on your own quality: balance between internal and external forms of evaluation or assessment
In higher music education:
Exchange of external examiners for (final) examinations
‘Critical friends’

10. Another dimension 2: formal/informal
Music education has strong informal feedback and communication methods
But then: how about feedback that requires confidentiality?
Strong individual connections
Formal feedback mechanisms needed

11. Another dimension 3: qualitative/quantitative
Qualitative feedback mechanism can be very effective, but lack confidentiality
Quantitative feedback can provide students/pupils with possibilities for anonymous feedback
Both qualitative and quantitative forms are needed, but the balance is crucial

12. Yet another dimension: international evaluation
To increase objectivity in small subject areas in small countries
Brings other perspectives that will help you see things in different light
Will help in establishing your reputation

13. Martin – 09:10
Many - if not to say almost all the AEC member institutions were not amused when they were confrontated with the bologna accreditation rules: programm accreditation and so on, a lot of paperwork, to give an insight to external experts on the work they are doing and how they do it. To be judged on the basis of rules which were mostly adapted from the world of business and management. Most music academies feel that these rules don’t fit to their needs. What to do so? The AEC member institutions have adressed to AEC the wish to find different, that means: subject specific = music specific solutions. We have been working on it, together with other WGs and committees.
The result = MusiQuE
MusiQuE and you…
MusiQuE has developed a procedure for the evaluation of pre-college level music education institutions - > more about this during the presentation of Orla tomorrow
For procedures in higher music education we are looking for qualified and trained experts from the profession

14. MusiQuE: European Standards for Evaluation
8 Domains of enquiry
Mission and vision /goals and context
Educational processes
Student profiles (admission to, progress through and completion of the study programme)
Teaching staff
Facilities, resources and support
Organisation and decision‐making processes and
Internal quality culture
Public interaction
I will briefly introduce you to the MusiQuE standards. The standards we use are at the core of our identity as a review body.
Three sets of standards have been designed to meet different institutional needs:
 A set of Standards for Institutional Review, to be used for reviews covering the whole institution
 A set of Standards for Programme Review, to be used for the evaluation of one or more programmes within an institution
 A set of Standards for Joint Programme Review, to be used for the evaluation of a study programme jointly developed by several partner institutions in different countries
All three sets of standards can be found online at the MusiQuE website, which we will show you later.
Depending on the context and aim of the review procedure, one of these three sets of standards will be used. A set of standards will be used by the institution to write its self-evaluation report. It will also be used by the Review Team during the site-visit to structure its assessment of the institution, or programme or joint-programme, and after the site-visit it will be used as a basis to write the review report.
There are 8 primary domains of enquiry. The domains are:
Mission and vision /Programme goals and context
Educational processes
Student profiles
Teaching staff
Facilities, resources and support
Organisation and decision‐making processes
Internal quality culture
Public interaction
Each of the 8 standards listed on the slide is broken down into concrete standards, 17 in total.

15. Key Principles of MusiQuE services
Respecting the special characteristics of higher music education
Bringing an international dimension to quality
Focus on quality enhancement instead of on quality control only and strongly mission-based
Encouraging institutions to reflect on their own practice, development and challenges
Making quality assurance more meaningful to teaching staff
Mist
MusiQuE review procedures are based on the twin principles of their being designed from a subject-specific perspective and conducted by peer reviewers with specific subject expertise.
The services offered by MusiQuE are conceived as offering an important service to higher music education institutions, aimed at assisting them in their quality enhancement activities. Although its accreditation procedures necessarily involve evaluating institutions in relation to a set of standards, this principle of assistance in quality enhancement applies even in this context.
The role of peers is at the core of the system. Their expertise is combined with an intimate understanding of the realities that apply in higher music education institutions. They are perfectly placed to engage with the procedures as ‘critical friends’, delivering their judgements in a spirit of constructive dialogue with the institution, its leaders, teachers, students and administrative staff.
The centrality of peer reviewers emphasises the peer-to-peer aspect of the procedures. They are not conceived as top-down, management-driven exercises but more as an engagement of equals where, in another context and with the appropriate training, the roles of reviewer and reviewed could potentially be reversed.
The expertise of the peer reviewers is primarily as teachers within their discipline, but many of them also possess significant administrative experience and understand the issues of higher music education from this perspective as well. In general, Review Teams will be assembled in such a way that the individual expertise of each team member complements that of the others.
The other most important constituency within higher music education institutions is that of the students. Students are systematically included as members of the Review Teams assembled under the procedures organised by MusiQuE. The role of students is the same as that of the other peer reviewers, and their perspective is equally valued.
MusiQuE conducts its review procedures in a manner that is characterised by the following principles:
 Respecting the special characteristics of higher music education and the contexts and traditions in which music is created
 Encouraging higher music education institutions to reflect on their own practice, development and challenges
 Assisting them in the enhancement of their quality by focusing on learning and experience-sharing
 Striving towards a higher level of objectivity (through the involvement of international review teams)
 Bringing a European/international dimension to the procedure
 Striving for the improvement of higher music education as a whole

16. Questions for you…
What is your understanding of the word ‘quality’ in your context?
Do you recognise the division of ‘artistic standards’ and ‘educational quality’ in your context?
What is your opinion of the internal/external dimension?
Do you see possibilities in the framework of EMU to exchange colleagues at the international level to do quality work?
Does an organisation like MusiQuE that provides international external evaluations sense in
your context?
MARTIN

17. MusiQuE – Music Quality Enhancement
Website : Request a MusiQuE review? Contact us! qe.eu
Martin
Flyer available.
We strongly invite you to request MusiQuE reviews.