Memorandum 32
Submission from Conservatoires UK (CUK)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This submission raises concerns about the damage
that will be inflicted on UK Higher Education in the performing
arts, and the serious and disproportionate damage to small and
specialist vocational institutions such as the UK's leading music
conservatoires. The training process for performers at the highest
level typically requires several years of increasingly specialist
postgraduate study, and because the professions these students
enter are supported by public subsidy, co-funding from these employers
is unrealistic. One consequence of the ELQ policy is that the
"best" students will seek more affordable training outside
the UK, thus undermining the substantial reputation of UK Higher
Education in these areas.
The small specialist performing arts institutions
also depend on the recruitment of a "critical mass"
of students across a range of disciplines to support their larger,
corporate activities (operas, large ensembles, etc.) such that
an inability to recruit the best students who are nearing the
completion of postgraduate, pre-professional studies will also
impact negatively on the rest of the student body. The proposed
timescale for implementation is problematic, not merely in financial
terms, but also in relation to the recruitment of students which,
for 2008, is now all but completed within our sector.
We urge very careful reconsideration of the
proposals in light of the damage they will undoubtedly cause in
our sector and, if it is decided to progress the policy, we respectfully
request a delay in implementation to enable the small specialist
institutions to plan strategically with HEFCE for the way ahead.
SUBMISSION: TEXT
OF LETTER
TO RT
HON JOHN
DENHAM MP (4 DECEMBER
2007)
1. I am writing, as Chair of Conservatoires
UK (CUK)—the umbrella organisation representing the UK conservatoires[44]
—to draw your attention to the serious damage that the changes
proposed in your letter of 7 September 2007, to the Chairman of
HEFCE, David Young, will inflict on the institutions in membership
of CUK.
2. I have, on behalf of CUK, submitted our
response to the HEFCE consultation on these proposals, but I am
mindful that the consultation focuses on issues of implementation,
not on matters of policy or principle. It is with this in mind
that I would like to draw your attention to a number of issues
which I and my fellow CUK Principals and Directors regard with
the gravest concern. You will note from the points I raise below
that our focus is not merely one of financially-driven self-interest,
but rather rooted in a concern for the damage that will inevitably
be inflicted on performing arts education at the highest levels
within UK Higher Education.
3. It is, for instance, our belief that
the proposed implementation of the ELQ policy will cause seriously
destabilising and disproportionate damage to the small and specialist
institutions whose primary focus is rooted in vocational training
in the performing arts—in the case of the institutions in
membership of CUK particularly, in music, drama and dance. It
is a specific feature of the programmes offered by these institutions
that they are driven by employer engagement, and are highly vocationally
orientated in order to meet the training needs of the sectors
they serve. The notion of co-funding from these employers, virtually
all of whom are themselves in receipt of public subsidy for their
existence, is unrealistic.
4. The training of performing artists at
the highest level is a process that cannot be hurried. In the
case of singers, for instance, the acquisition of the broad range
of skills required for a successful professional career also requires
a physical maturity—the voice is, in effect, the "instrument"—meaning
that often the training will begin at a later stage: eg after
an undergraduate course in a complementary discipline such as
a modern language, or indeed music in a university context, both
areas which can inform the necessary preparation for a high-level
"gear-change" to become a successful professional singer.
At postgraduate level, several years are commonly required to
reach the level necessary for a realistic career in a highly competitive
profession—often a journey from Postgraduate Diploma level
to Masters level and beyond. The ELQ proposals in relation to
this level of training for such students will hit hardest in the
UK's front rank conservatoires, whose track record in producing
graduates who have subsequently reached the highest levels in
their chosen profession is internationally acknowledged. The inevitable
danger is that those seeking the very best vocational education
and training for the music profession will seek more affordable
alternative training in institutions outside the UK.
5. The "corporate" aspects of
the training process within our sector also create certain demands
in relation to issues of critical mass. Thus, for example, orchestras,
brass bands, jazz ensembles and the like, depend upon the availability
of a mix of the right individual disciplines in order to be able
to function properly. An inability to balance the recruitment
of an appropriate "mix" at the highest levels of professional
performance training will impact not only on those unable to afford
the inevitably higher ELQ fee level, but will also impact upon
the "non-ELQ" students whose training will be limited
by the lack of appropriate critical mass at a high professional
level.
6. The proposed timescale for implementing
these proposals intensifies the already destabilising impact of
ELQs on HE in a general sense, where there are already huge uncertainties
within the sector with regard to the future arrangements for the
funding for teaching.
7. Furthermore, the institutions represented
by CUK have, without exception, already begun their recruitment
processes on the basis of student number planning undertaken immediately
following the September registration period. Unlike university
music departments, the conservatoires plan their student numbers
and the balance and mix of disciplines needed for recruitment
purposes much further ahead due to a range of issues, including
critical mass for particular discipline streams (as referred to
above) and because of the relatively small "window"
of student numbers within which they work. To impose the further
uncertainties of the ELQ proposals at (for us) this late stage
will present—funding issues notwithstanding—huge logistical
problems for CUK institutions. For us, the vast bulk of auditions
will be completed well before the outcome of the ELQ consultation
is made known.
8. In terms of the "student experience",
this makes it impossible for us to offer advice to potential students
about fees, and invalidates much of the detailed information that
has already been made public through our prospectuses, etc. about
the likely fee levels for 2008 entry. In this sense, the proposed
time-scale for the implementation of ELQ will force us into a
position where we will be in breach of the principles of good
practice expected within the sector for strategic planning processes.
9. The sweeping proposals of the ELQ policy
also pose particular problems for the small specialist institutions
as a result of the very narrow tolerance bands within which we
all operate. The academic and financial structure and success
of our operations is premised on a highly precise distribution
of limited funded student numbers across a very small range of
professional training programmes in order to achieve optimum efficiency.
Unlike larger multi-faculty HEIs, we have little or no ability
to adjust numbers at the margin, given our particular combination
of fixed infrastructure and semi-variable teaching costs; even
a single figure reduction in cohort size will significantly compromise
both the student experience and the financial viability of our
courses. Potentially, this will put at risk high quality provision
which has been consistently demonstrated to meet employer needs,
to the detriment of all students, not just those studying for
an ELQ.
10. In summary, the ELQ proposals will have
the effect of destroying our current competitive edge in an international
marketplace, which is based on the quality and depth of our provision,
and will diminish the standing of UK higher education in the performing
arts. The financial gain to HEFCE of implementing these proposals
for our sector will be relatively small: the impact on the most
talented students who inhabit the small number of specialist performing
arts institutions affected by these proposals, and indeed, the
impact on the professional world of music, is huge. For these
reasons, CUK would ask that, as an ideal, the performing arts
be granted a general exemption from the ELQ proposals as set out.
Should this prove impossible, then we would respectfully request
a full and detailed assessment of the implications of the ELQ
proposals as they will affect the institutions in membership of
CUK, even at a purely operational level, through a joint endeavour
with HEFCE, aimed at finding a solution which avoids permanent
damage not only to whole areas of provision, but also to the international
standing of English conservatoires. In the meantime, we would
request a delay to the implementation of the policy for these
institutions for a minimum of two years. This should enable our
members, with HEFCE, to plan strategically for the way ahead,
particularly for instance, with regard to preserving the broader
viability of our training programmes in terms of instrumental
and vocal balance, or "critical mass", and thereby minimise
the potentially catastrophic consequences of premature implementation.
January 2008
44 Birmingham Conservatoire, Guildhall School of Music
and Drama, Leeds College of Music, Royal Academy of Music, Royal
College of Music, Royal Northern College of Music, Royak Scottish
College of Music and Drama, Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama,
Trinity Laban. Back
|
