Why are funding organisations — student loans, DaDA and so on — so fixated on courses meeting a fifth birthday criterion before participating students qualify for financial support?
Yes, of course, we need safeguards and cannot go pouring what is effectively public money into the pockets of doubtful, fly-by-night exploitative, soi-disant training providers who don’t deliver the goods. But that does not, in my view, mean that only students in a handful (22 to be precise) of CDS schools and dance trainers accredited by CDET should get funding.
‘Accreditation’ is a very blunt instrument. I could take you to half a dozen impressive ‘unaccredited’ schools - usually dedicated to music theatre - which have started in the last couple of years or are launching this year. A school such as Music Theatre Academy, for example, is doing an outstanding job. I have seen its students in action several times. The standard is astonishing and 25% of its first intake is already signed up by agents four months before they graduate. Few accredited schools can match that. Yet MTA’s students get almost nothing in funding support because the college falls short of the five-year rule.
Why cannot each school be independently assessed for funding eligibility by people who really understand the requirements of training which is fit for purpose? The number of years the course has been running, or whether it ‘belongs’ to a CDS school, should have nothing to do with it.
As it is, the only hope for schools such as MTA is private sponsorship, altruism or scholarships provided by the schools themselves. Some - Herbert Justice Academy, whose full-time vocational course starts in September, for example - have the resources to help students in this way. Most do not.
Enter the new 2011 arrangement for the BBC Performing Arts Fund which has helped over 160 students with grants totalling more than £630,000 since the fund’s inception in 2003.
Recent Comments