Kwaliteitszorgtraject
A quality development programme for arts centres and schools of music in the Netherlands
In the second half of the ’90s, the sector of extra-curricular art
education has professionalised itself in terms of a more commercial method with
an increased attention for personnel and equipment management. This change was
necessary due to a number of factors. First of all, customers are offered a
wider range of possibilities for cultural development and they make their
choices more consciously. In addition, authorities link financial expenses to
the achieved results rather than to the made effort. And lastly, managers and
employees increasingly feel the need for getting insight into the extent to
which the made efforts have yielded to the desired results. As a consequence
the then system for quality assurance, the so-called Recognition Scheme (Erkenningenregeling) did no longer
fulfil the needs.
The Erkenningenregeling,
designed specifically for schools of music, primarily linked quality to a range
of input factors (staff, supply and policy documents). However, clients and
public authorities alike are more focused on the final results than on the
effort which was made to achieve them. An integrated quality assurance system
offers the possibility to respond more effectively to expectations harboured by
the institution’s environment, i.e. the clients (students) and society at large
(subsidisers). Moreover it provides insight into management responsibilities
and views on the content and quality of the programmes offered.
Quality standards are never absolute and tend to be products of their
time. A system for integrated quality care is aimed at continuous improvement,
which enables it to reflect the shifts of emphasis that occur in music and art
education over time.
Financing and regulations
In the Netherlands, extra-curricular music education is provided by arts
centres and schools of music. These are foundations or public law
organisations recognised and/or subsidised by municipal or provincial
governments. Subsidies account for 67.7% of their overall income, while they
generate the remaining 32.3% from tuition fees and other income items. In all,
there are 119 schools of music in the Netherlands and 121 arts centres; of the
latter, 56 also offer music courses.
In 2001 the reorganisation of the national art education infrastructure
came into effect. Since then, the interests of the centres of art and music are
taken to heart by the especially erected Kunstconnectie,
the sector association for art education and participation in the arts. Prior
to the reorganisation, the Vereniging
Kunstzinnige Vorming, VKV was the sector organisation. The VKV is currently
the Association of Arts Centres, an employers’ association responsible for
labour negotiations and collective labour agreements for all personnel at
schools of music and arts centres. Membership of De Kunstconnectie is subject to certain conditions.
The authority responsible for supervising the quality of arts centres is
the Education Inspectorate, which forms part of the Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science. Prior to 2001 this was the responsibility of an
independent body, the Art Education and Amateur Art Inspectorate. A Collective
Labour Agreement for Art Education sets out the teacher requirements.
In the 1990s the Erkenningenregeling
supervised first-line quality care. It established minimum quality standards
for artistic training, and was monitored by an independent (national)
inspectorate. Institutions applied for
official recognition in individual disciplines and on a voluntary basis. Such
recognition allowed them to become members of VKV (the sector association for
art education at the time). The last
version of the Erkenningenregeling
appeared in 1997. That year also saw the introduction of the integral quality
assurance system for schools of music, the Art Education Quality System (Kwaliteitssyteem Kunstzinnige Vorming,
KKV), specifically established for art education institutes. It was VKV, in
cooperation with the Consultative Platform for Terms of Employment in Art
Education (OAKV) and supported by management consultants KPMG, that initiated
the development of an integral quality care system in art education. The
development of the KKV system was established in a very interactive manner by
which many parties concerned were involved. Several working groups, consisting
of directors, teachers and inspectors contributed ideas. In between, results
were discussed at a conference, and the practical applicability was evaluated
in four pilots. A steering group with representatives from the OAKV and the
Inspectorate was set up to guide the process.
The discussion on the position of the Erkenningenregeling in respect of the KKV led to the formulation of
new minimum quality requirements for access to the sector association. While
those requirements recognised the role of integrated quality care, the
institutions themselves were free to select the quality system of their choice.
After the reorganisation of the national art education infrastructure,
when quality monitoring tasks were transferred to the Education Inspectorate of
the Ministry, this Inspectorate and VKV signed a covenant on 15 March 2001. The
convenant laid down the rules of cooperation between the Inspectorate and VKV.
A quality programme (Kwaliteitstraject)
was subsequently initiated.
The new Education Act, effective since 1 September 2001, has led to a
number of innovative adaptations to the Inspectorate’s working method, which
now incorporates what are known as supervisory frameworks. The supervisory
framework records the Inspectorate’s actual working practice and the contents
of supervisory activities. De latter is described in the so-called Valuation
Framework (Waarderingskader), which
represent the various quality aspects in the form of indicators and standards.
The minimum quality requirements mentioned above served as the basis for the
development of the indicators and standards of the Valuation Framework for First-Line Institutions (Waarderingskader
Cultuureducatie eerstelijns instellingen) in 2002. Membership conditions
were formulated in a separate arrangement.
Selection and development of an integrated quality
care system
The reorganisation of the national art education infrastructure has
diversified the set of tools that make up the Dutch quality assurance system
for this sector:
·
Art Education
Quality System (KKV)
·
Valuation Framework
for First-Line Institutions
·
Sector association
Membership Conditions (Lidmaatschapsvoorwaarden)
·
Programme
eligibility requirements (Traject
Benoembaarheidseisen)
One disadvantage of the old Erkenningenregeling
and student progress reports was that they afforded little insight into the
overall educational process. KKV, in contrast, ensures that the quality of all
components and processes within an organisation is monitored and, where
necessary, improved within a coherent vision. That requires descriptions of all
products, departments and processes, as well as corresponding quality
requirements and measurement techniques. Moreover, the need to involve all
staff in quality monitoring calls for general agreement on the quality requirements
concerned. Those requirements should be formulated with due regard for the
wishes of clients and other groups within the organisation’s environment. The
management has to take care of the preconditions.
KKV is based on the Institute for Dutch Quality (Instituut voor Nederlandse Kwaliteit, INK) model and comprises two
elements:
The KKV provides nine fields of attention to formulate objectives with
measure points and standards. The nine fields are related to each other. Five
of those are the Input factors or fields of attention (aandachtsgebieden) and
four of them the Output factors or fields of results (resultaatgebieden). The
concept of ‘quality’ is expressed in features that provide certain indication
about an organisation’s products or services. The corresponding Audit List
shows for the input factors the phase the organisation is in:
activity-oriented, profession-oriented, client-oriented or innovation-oriented.
For the output factors one can read off the level bij answering the questions
citated in the boxes below (Output aspects).
|
Input aspects |
phase 1 |
phase 2 |
phase 3 |
phase 4 |
|||
|
1 |
4 sub aspects |
Activity-oriented |
Profession-oriented |
Client-oriented |
Innovation-oriented |
In de Audit List (matrix),
the features are preformulated in every phase so that boxes merely have
to be ticked, in order to find out which phase has been achieved. |
|
|
2 |
5 sub aspects |
||||||
|
3 |
5 sub aspects |
||||||
|
4 |
4 sub aspects |
||||||
|
5 |
2 sub aspects |
||||||
|
Output aspects |
Relevant data available? |
Development positive
or negative? |
Achievement with
respect to objective? |
Comparison with other
suppliers? |
Formulate your standards for
every sub-aspect and fill in the level questions with --, + or 0. Add
up all the + and divide that by all the standards. |
||
|
6 |
3 sub aspects |
||||||
|
7 |
5 sub aspects |
||||||
|
8 |
2 sub aspects |
||||||
|
9 |
5 sub aspects |
||||||
|
Output aspects |
level 1 |
level 2 |
level 3 |
level 4 |
|||
This is all described in the Manual KKV including suggestions for implementation
and an option to drive a score using a spider web.
The introduction of such a system obviously requires investments in time
and money. The great advantage is that it enables an organisation to take
account of the wishes and expectations of all parties involved, including
students, subsidisers and trade unions, as well as music societies, amateur
choral societies, amateur orchestras and music academies, which have certain
expectations regarding the musical skills of their students.
The art education Valuation Framework for First-Line Institutions
measures whether the organisation under review meets the relevant societal
objectives and expectations in the area of art education, from all relevant
parties’ perspectives. The framework covers three domains: Result, Primary
Process, and Policy & Organisation. Each of these domains is subdivided
into a set of indicators. The organisation is aware of which indicators need to
obtain a positive score in order to be listed as a quality institute (the
scores for the indicators are standardised). The criteria for these indicators
are included in an appendix.
The Membership Conditions centre around legal status, sustainability,
art education and participation, collaborative ventures, professionalism and
management, accommodation, quality care, staff establishment plan, and staff
skills. For each condition there are criteria for full membership or candidate
membership. Membership Conditions are tested by a committee composed of De Kunstconnectie members.
In 2002 the responsibility for issuing eligibility certificates was
transferred from the Inspectorate to De
Kunstconnectie. The Eligibility Requirements Programme was run for that
purpose, components of which include services to talented but unqualified
artists and the provision of specialisation courses to help participants gain
additional qualifications.
In the summer of 1997, various KKV pilot studies were conducted to test
the application and suitability of the quality assurance system within the
sector for art education. The experiences gained during the pilots were
instantly evaluated. The main conclusion was as follows: The users are highly positive about the quality assurance system. They
regard it as a great tool for raising people’s awareness of the quality of the
organisation’s output, and for staging and implementing improvement campaigns.
Then the KKV manual was published, containing an Audit List and a General
Profile. Training programmes and peer supervision groups are available to
support the arts centres in implementing KKV.
In the beginning of 2002, the use of the KKV model by arts centres and
schools of music was evaluated by the K+V consultancy. From this evaluation
followed that a relatively small part of the institutes (c. 20%) was using the KKV model integrally and systematically at
that time. Not applying the model integrally and systematically was due to the
negative perception of the terms “integral” and “systematic”. These terms are
associated with bureaucracy and a system of commanding rules and restrictions
of liberty. Additionally, the KKV model was experienced as being complex.
Often, only parts of the model were applied. Arts centres lack the time and
expertise, or lack the means to hire external expertise, which is needed for
using the system. Self-evaluation was generally seen as positive by the arts
centres and schools of music. The researcher’s recommendation to the sector
organisation was to choose for a realistic ambition strategy during the initial
use of the model and to periodically pay attention to single aspects of the
model. The researchers also expressed that a binding supervisory framework
would work positively.
In 2003, the Inspectorate has adopted the Valuation Framework (as part
of the supervisory framework) and completed an initial series of tests within
the Valuation Framework, following a number of pilot studies of quality
testing.
Neither the Valuation Framework nor the Membership Conditions include
the use of KKV as a basic requirement. The Valuation Framework contains,
however, indicators which correspond to the areas of attention in the KKV
model. As very desirable is noted: “The organisation itself carries out
selfevaluations frequently or let others do this”. For Membership of De Kunstconnectie, a methodical
attention for quality care is a condition, but the institutions are free to
select how.
Cultural education or the amateur
arts are not yet subject to content-related statutory regulations, and are
largely subsidised by regional and local authorities. However, the Inspectorate
requires a general statutory provision as a legal basis for its supervisory
powers.
The statutory quality standard for the Inspectorate’s supervisory
activities had to be formulated with due attention to the sector’s desired
level of responsibility and self-regulation in the determination of quality. In
this connection, the parties involved in the development of the Valuation
Framework decided that the sector’s task would be to monitor the content, while
it will be the Inspectorate’s task to check the manner of supervision. The
Inspectorate would ultimately determine the overall Valuation Framework in
order to safeguard its independence. Pending a legal framework, the test will
still be voluntary in 2003.
In the near future a Quality Committee will be established to support
the implementation process of the Valuation Framework. Its task is to monitor
the execution and effects of tests performed by the Inspectorate, and to advise
De Kunstconnectie on quality care
support for its members.
The Kunstconnectie also
intends to set up a Benchmarking-service. This service will organise a
programme of workshops in which the people of arts centres learn the principles
of the Benchmarking-system in order to be able to deliver the data to De Kunstconnectie. It will also carry
out research in the area of the conditions which are necessary to provide good
service. A steering group will be established to guide this service.