How many wannabe actors or indeed their parents have ever read a casting brief? My suspicion is not very many. Let's face it, when you're young and naive you believe that your talent is so great that one of the great directors or producers is going to spot you in a school play/amdram production, pluck you away from your small-town sensibilities, and whisk you off to the 'bright lights'. As a supportive parent, it's unfeasible to think that your child won't succeed. After all - they clearly have 'it' (whatever 'it' is).
In reality, a casting brief is a set of requirements for a specific role/job - what it never asks for, is your qualification. No brief goes out requiring a BA(Hons) in theatre, or a BTEC in performing arts. So why are colleges flocking to hook up with universities in order to offer these golden pieces of paper then? Quite simply it's all to do with finance. All government funding streams or government top up streams require a college to prove via examination results that they are doing a good job. So when the drama colleges suddenly started to offer degrees just over a decade ago, it wasn't because they felt that it benefitted the future careers of their students, as they know (like we all know), that their degree isn't really the 'back-up' that parents seem to think that it is. If you decide on a career swap, you'll be going back to college anyway in order to be trained in the area that you've chosen your new career to be. However what they don't tell you, is that lots of colleges will also allow you to do these educational top-ups with proof of a different kind of education, and with proof of your career to date. Once you're into postgrad education the criteria for entry is more reflective of life. Of course, by this point you've used up all your government-supported financial help, so you are entirely funding your new career path on your own.
However, for many non-vocational colleges performing arts courses are a complete cash cow. We are in an oversubscribed industry, with everybody secretly thinking that their talent will be enough to give them a career, therefore it doesn't matter where they train. I once did some work with some 3rd years on a musical theatre degree course at a regular university. They had recently just finished a self-led project aka cheap to run as it required no staff involvement aka a waste of time. They were paying £27K to train themselves. I auditioned someone from another university who was preparing for their showcase. . . a student-directed showcase, which staff could be called in to assist them in should they have a difficulty. This particular student acknowledged that the showcase was simply an end of course show - there was absolutely no chance of an agent coming to see them in their student-led performance. They had been working on the showcase (and their showcase alone) for the whole of the term. They were also paying £27K to train themselves.
As drama colleges clambered to get affiliated to universities with the promise of better resources, more finance, infrastructure support, what some of them lost sight of was the training experience. As the universities saw the numbers of people applying for these courses they increased their intake, and indeed in a few instances increased the number of courses that they were offering too. What they didn't do though was increase the quality of the training.
I taught in HE when this was beginning to happen. I suddenly found myself teaching an acting to camera class with a cohort of students that included students majoring in things like graphic design, engineering, in fact, you name it, there was probably somebody in the class that was studying it. The module had been diluted from its specialism into a 'filler' module for anybody in the university. I resigned after 1 semester of teaching, having taught the course for 2 years previously. The students that needed that module were fighting to get on it but had to fight people that had no requirement of the skillset.
We know that we're in an oversubscribed industry. We also know that the situation has got worse,
with new courses and colleges popping up every year. The long-established colleges have also been expanding, be that with new courses or just by increasing their numbers. Courses that once operated with 20-40 students can now have in excess of 150 students/year. It's the simple economics of supply and demand, isn't it? If you're auditioning thousands of people every year for a handful of places, why wouldn't you expand your model in order to accommodate more students and create a bigger revenue? With a bigger revenue stream, you can build bigger and better premises, which will attract more students, which increases the demand.
And so it continues.
Suddenly training actors has become a lucrative industry for some. Alongside the weird and wonderful new courses that are springing up, we have the bread and butter courses which create a cunning revenue stream for the colleges. Students not actually ready for a 3-year training course, can now easily find a 'foundation course' which will charge them to get prepared for training. If you've done a degree where you've been primarily self-taught, you'll need additional (aka 'some') training, so pop on a post-grad course as well. The bread and butter of the already lucrative filling of the 'main course'.
Obviously having founded a college which pioneered the 2-year model I already have some questions about the traditional 3-year model (though also completely understand why lots of people need that time to solidify things, I just realise that not everybody does). So I have even more questions now that training to be a performer is taking some people 5 years - or to be more specific is costing people 5 years worth of fees. Yet those same colleges are being urged to think about the socio-economic diversity of their student intake.
It's a tough model to break though. Most wannabe performers grow up wanting to go to one of the 'main' colleges. The colleges that they've seen in programmes since they were little. They don't differentiate the fact that they're seeing that college's name so often because they've been going for 50 or more years, or indeed that they're seeing a college's name because that college is spewing out hundreds of wannabe performers every year, so if only 5% of them are doing well, it's enough to make an impact on the programme references. It's interesting to note that none of these established colleges readily publicise their long term stats. How many of the class of 2005, for example, have actually managed to have a sustained career? Instead, they'll (understandably) focus on the alumni that have the more popular public following, even though they might have graduated decades ago.
The market is cornered. You grow up wanting to be a performer going to the college that your idol went to. You're not good enough for that yet, so they pop you on their foundation course (and charge you for the privilege of course). You're happy to be there, as, after all, your idol went there so it's bound to be great, and surely the £10K investment in the foundation course will get repaid when you secure funding for their main course at the end of the year. Of course in reality that only happens for a few people, the others are still unsuccessful at their dream college, but now they're also £10k poorer, their parents have bought into the myth that they need a degree, so off they pop to the nearest university to get the 'golden ticket' degree. 4 years later and over £50K poorer (adding together living costs and tuition costs), they leave college, with no chance of working, haven't got a clue how to get work (as a lot of the university courses genuinely don't teach you that skill, just check a few internet forums for proof of the number of graduates asking really basic questions around working in the industry), are unable to sign up for Spotlight (which automatically limits their career. . . I mean as unfair as that statement is, it is also a fact) and find themselves looking for a new career, with their parents lauding the fact that their 'fall back' degree has proven to be a saviour.
And so it continues.
Meanwhile, for those of us that have resolutely stayed in vocational training, and have remained small by choice, in order to maintain a good staff/student ratio - our students are being hit from all angles. They have the 'grown-ups' getting concerned because they're not getting a formal qualification, financially they are not entitled to any government support at all - even though they are working in excess of 40 contact hours/week. As they scramble around looking for sponsors organisations like Equity and Spotlight, who are quick to take their money to join up to the union and the register, won't put a purely vocational college on their self assessed 'approved' list, which would allow us to at least submit our students for certain bursary awards like those funded by SOLT, solely because we don't offer a formal qualification. Yet we're the only college to maintain an open record of every single one of our graduates - proving that we're more likely to create a sustainable career for our students than a lot of the other colleges on their list. So to recap, the training is valid enough for a career (our students can join both Equity and Spotlight), but we can't knock down the walls of the establishment in order to get closer to some much needed financial help for our students, because we don't offer a 'golden ticket' degree. That'll be the same degree that you never see requested on a casting brief. Where do most of those casting briefs get posted? On Spotlight.
This week we've seen a long-established college that took the poison chalice of a university 'merger' close. We've already seen other courses at other colleges get shut down as unviable. Is this a trend, or just a few much-needed pruning exercises? As the established colleges get bigger and the complaints about the numbers increase, we see no decline in the number of applicants, as parents (and students) accept the 'herd' mentality, as (please refer back to the first paragraph), and believe that the 'cream will always rise', and 'they have to learn to deal with the competition anyway'. Personally I'd rather my child learn to deal with competition at a school sports day, not when they're 16 and I'm being asked to pay £9k-£14k a year, but maybe that's because I don't have access to that sort of money? The college buildings get bigger and better, enticing more and more people that "College X" is the go-to place - just look at the number of rooms it has? Of course, they only need 120 studios because they have so many students, but a college building of that size will also increase its running costs, so best take an extra 50 students a year in order to support it.
And so it continues.
Since I opened The MTA in 2009 I've been shouting about the fact that our industry needs regulating. To be clear - that's not by the old boy network that has been effectively self-regulating since the start of the time. It needs an independent body to look at ALL the courses and ALL the colleges to see who is really delivering what. Audit the staff, audit the finance, audit the true story around pastoral care (don't get me started on that one again), and audit the true facts of sustainable careers. The government should stop funding those degrees that are purely providing 'life skills' yet claiming to be offering a 'career'. I completely buy into the idea that a college education is great, but when funds are short, let's not be funding a degree that isn't worth the paper that it's written on. Fund the courses that are getting the results. In other words let's get some transparency out there and stop the myth that has been co-created by so many people and organisations, all of whom have a vested interest in the findings. Then let's get those facts out to schools and the wannabes and their parents.
Saturday, 7 March 2020
Thursday, 22 August 2019
Losing your voice
If you're reading this it's because the Charity Commission have now completed their process of raising enquiries with The MTA ( a process which was incorrectly described by others as an 'investigation' - accuracy is everything, people!)
We have always been 99.9% sure that the complaint was a vexatious grievance, and whilst we still don't know the source of the complaint (confidentiality is key to the commission, and rightly so), we have a really good idea. We are always open to being told we could do things better, especially by our Regulator, but I mean, when you've been shown evidence from several sources that a couple of people have a vendetta out against you, you sort of lessen the odds really don't you?
We knew about the complaint about 4 weeks before The Stage ran with a fair article, but alarming headline of 'Musical Theatre Academy investigated over safeguarding concerns' - it was only actually if you got through The Stage's paywall to read the article that you discovered that we weren't being 'investigated' at all, but rather the Charity Commission had raised certain questions with our Trustees as a result of having received a single complaint. My sadness about the article being ran prior to the Charity Commission's conclusion was that it a) meant that we had to inform our students about the ongoing situation and they were all having a lovely old time of it in Deadwood (rehearsing Calamity Jane) and b) I was aware that several people online were going to have a field day.
Initially I thought that the Charity Commission must have a policy that required them to contact the Press whenever they sent out letters from their compliance team; only weeks later I learned that they have no such policy, meaning that the press had been contacted by the complainant(s).
Having spoken up about Mental Health in the Arts for the past 10 years it seems that you make a lot of people very cross. So I was bracing myself for the salacious comments based on . . . well nothing! What I had to work very hard at though was not commenting on the various posts. For those people that know me. . . that was really hard.
To put this all into context the 'vendetta' had already been running for several months so I was aware that a lot more people might have heard some of the 'stories' that were gathering momentum, and in fairness to everyone - if you just took 'those' stories on face value, there would have indeed been a serious issue that needed addressing. However the stories were (& indeed remain) a complete fabrication, literally no part of them were true. So how do you fight an alternative reality? Well I guess you don't. You wait for the truth to out.
Annoyingly The Stage broke the story on the day of a college performance - annoying because the show was great and didn't deserve to be overshadowed by anything. To add to the bizarre nature of this whole thing, that same morning, the director of that show had written a long twitter thread about how The MTA was clearly run through mutual respect between staff and students, and how our whole school approach to mental health really worked.
Watching the resulting conversations on line were fascinating though - especially as for the first time I couldn't comment. Two discussions particularly caught my eye. My favorite was probably the person who claimed that I had threatened to sue them for once making a disparaging remark about the college. A picture was painted of a poor, defenceless 'single person operating stage school' commentator simply giving their opinion, when I, as the 'big boss' of a drama college waded in all legal guns a blazing to stop them speaking? The reality was somewhat different to this. This was a person that is now on their 4th year constantly making disparaging remarks about the college on any forum that mentions drama schools. As for the 'small time performing arts school operator' they were or indeed still are the owner of a franchise operation, so not exactly the 'lone operator', even more ironic given The MTA's independent status. That said, I categorically knew that I'd never threatened anybody with legal action over a FB post. However recent events had knocked my confidence for sure, so I suddenly found myself checking in with a couple of colleagues who had been part of that online debate to check that I hadn't lost my mind. The relief when they confirmed my recollection of the discussion was palpable. The 'lone operator' had (probably unwittingly in fairness) merged a truth. Another commentator on the original thread had mentioned that I 'should' sue them for their 'damaging remarks', however this poster had clearly recollected it as me actually threatening legal action against them. And so their version of the truth lives on. Attention to detail is everything.
Then on twitter it was even more interesting, as a blogger went out of their way with an outrageous allegation, and accused The MTA of 'unhelpfully fetishising mental health issues'. They'd heard stories apparently - well see above for those I'm sure. They clearly thought that they were onto something when the Chair of the Board actually started to engage with them. The blogger who made the claim had twice been booked into the college to see for themselves the whole school approach to mental health working. They had contacted me asking to observe an audition day, and requesting a separate meeting with me. We have an open door policy so it's a no brainer. However I've been around a bit, and suspected that all was not what it seemed.
I named to my team that I suspected that this person was digging for dirt, that due to the timing of the request they might have heard some of these false rumours being put out there, but when you don't have any to hide, you just welcome people in and offer them a shovel don't you? The first time they cancelled the night before, the second time they just didn't turn up. Not the best investigative reporting it has to be said. Our offer to visit the school is still wide open to them, so maybe they'd actually like to come and see for themselves what it is we're actually doing.
What amazed me though was quite how many people went out on a limb to name The MTA as safe, even before contacting me in private to find out what was going on. As one of them said to me - 'you'll find out who's got your back now', and my goodness they were right. Emails, phone calls, texts just checking that I was OK and if the college was OK. Some of those people even went public with their support. Equally interesting to note though was quite how many did the quiet nod of approval to me, but edged their bets in public. I mean I don't blame them - but it's interesting isn't it? We work in a small industry so you wouldn't want to back the wrong horse. We are all at the mercy of our reputations, so best not to tarnish it by association (even if you're happy to do so in private). I will add the disclaimer here though how some people named that they weren't going to publically comment on it all, because they simply didn't want to stoke the fire.
As the rumours flew around (and my goodness I heard a fair few), it was actually the students that were batting them out of the ball park. You see transparency is really useful. With nothing to hide you can tell everybody everything. So whilst I wasn't allowed my voice - the facts were being stated, as everybody knew them. We had already read out the Charity Commission's letter to our current students in its entirety, so that they would feel safe, and 'in the loop' so to speak.
The hardest day was a week after The Stage published its article. I googled The Musical Theatre Academy only to see that 4th on the google listing was The Stage's article - headline a blazing out for all to see. 10 years of working ethically, 10 years of building up a multi-award winning college, all wiped away by some lies. That was harsh. That was the day that I started to write this - as I needed to find my voice again, if only for myself.
It's really interesting in this day and age how things can become 'fact' because somebody's told you, or somebody's written it down in a social media post. This wasn't the first time that I'd had experience of this phenomenon, but it was the first time that it had hit so hard on target. It's like the Hunger Games version of 'They Said, You Said'. If you take the time to bore down to the truth those facts aren't facts at all, but in reality who does that? After all, who would lie just for kicks, or because they're ill, or because they're on the defensive? By default we work off an assumption that people are telling us the truth. Fake News is a great term isn't it? Created for these very scenarios.
We worked openly and swiftly with the Charity Commission. Our Chair of the Board was rigorous and thorough in his own fact finding. Again a strange position for me to be on the outside of something that only existed because I had created it. At all times we kept our students up to speed with how things were progressing.
A few months after the initial letter had landed we found ourselves in a meeting with the Charity Commission as there were some final points to discuss and clarify. It was felt that a face to face meeting would bring the compliance case to a swifter conclusion than email ping pong. The meeting was robust and fair. We knew (and literally everybody involved in charity work had told me) that some suggestions for improvement would be made, but all things that would make The MTA stronger and even more accountable, so all points of learning that we welcomed and will be implementing straight away - but it should be noted that all of these points were about clearly recording the good practice that we were already doing.
Which brings us to today - where the Charity Commission has officially informed us that they have no concerns about what we're doing. They've given us helpful advice about how to develop our policies and will not be conducting any further "investigation" into The MTA, even though for a few months now, a misleading headline suggested that an "investigation" was already taking place
Throughout it all I noted with interest two specific things that were said online:
1) Somebody mentioned that any "investigation" would be a white wash - meaning that even before the compliance case had even started a group of people had decided that regardless of the outcome we must be in the wrong. Whereas in reality the compliance case was really thorough, and had there been any irregularities or wrong doing - they would have been 'discovered' and it would have led to a statutory investigation. As an independent college the Charity Commission held us accountable, and I believe that to be a good thing
2) The blogger questioned whether we were 'sin free' and concluded that we weren't but with what evidence? Firstly he made the point that we're a business not a 'community outreach programme', well you know sometimes in this world businesses do exist that are trying to simply achieve their objectives. Our aim has always been to send people out into the 'real world' industry-ready with access to free ongoing support. That is our objective, and that is exactly what we do. Then secondly the old favorite of 'no smoke without fire'. I too have probably always believed that adage - however this is what I've learned, and in truth I can't believe that it's taken me so long to get it. We work in a profession that excels in distraction, where directors can almost force an audience to look at one part of the stage as the 'illusion' is executed on the other. So next time you get sucked into a 'no smoke without fire' thought, remain curious. As the smoke that you're aware of might just be the distraction from the real fire that's been started by somebody else. After all theatre is all smoke and mirrors isn't it? Maybe some of us would be better to look in the mirror, as opposed to simply look at the smoke?
To conclude I'd like to give a heartfelt thanks to the people that really did support the college throughout this time, and indeed to my friends and colleagues that would check in with me periodically to ensure that I was OK.
In September we celebrate both the graduation of the class of 2019 and 10 years of training The MTA way - there is much to celebrate, and we will do so having been held accountable to the principles that I founded the college with back in 2009. The principles that said that the students and their health would be at the forefront of all training, and the principles that promised our students that all of their fees would be spent on premises, productions and staff, and the principles that stated that our college would be there to support them beyond their training.
We have always been 99.9% sure that the complaint was a vexatious grievance, and whilst we still don't know the source of the complaint (confidentiality is key to the commission, and rightly so), we have a really good idea. We are always open to being told we could do things better, especially by our Regulator, but I mean, when you've been shown evidence from several sources that a couple of people have a vendetta out against you, you sort of lessen the odds really don't you?
We knew about the complaint about 4 weeks before The Stage ran with a fair article, but alarming headline of 'Musical Theatre Academy investigated over safeguarding concerns' - it was only actually if you got through The Stage's paywall to read the article that you discovered that we weren't being 'investigated' at all, but rather the Charity Commission had raised certain questions with our Trustees as a result of having received a single complaint. My sadness about the article being ran prior to the Charity Commission's conclusion was that it a) meant that we had to inform our students about the ongoing situation and they were all having a lovely old time of it in Deadwood (rehearsing Calamity Jane) and b) I was aware that several people online were going to have a field day.
Initially I thought that the Charity Commission must have a policy that required them to contact the Press whenever they sent out letters from their compliance team; only weeks later I learned that they have no such policy, meaning that the press had been contacted by the complainant(s).
Having spoken up about Mental Health in the Arts for the past 10 years it seems that you make a lot of people very cross. So I was bracing myself for the salacious comments based on . . . well nothing! What I had to work very hard at though was not commenting on the various posts. For those people that know me. . . that was really hard.
To put this all into context the 'vendetta' had already been running for several months so I was aware that a lot more people might have heard some of the 'stories' that were gathering momentum, and in fairness to everyone - if you just took 'those' stories on face value, there would have indeed been a serious issue that needed addressing. However the stories were (& indeed remain) a complete fabrication, literally no part of them were true. So how do you fight an alternative reality? Well I guess you don't. You wait for the truth to out.
Annoyingly The Stage broke the story on the day of a college performance - annoying because the show was great and didn't deserve to be overshadowed by anything. To add to the bizarre nature of this whole thing, that same morning, the director of that show had written a long twitter thread about how The MTA was clearly run through mutual respect between staff and students, and how our whole school approach to mental health really worked.
Watching the resulting conversations on line were fascinating though - especially as for the first time I couldn't comment. Two discussions particularly caught my eye. My favorite was probably the person who claimed that I had threatened to sue them for once making a disparaging remark about the college. A picture was painted of a poor, defenceless 'single person operating stage school' commentator simply giving their opinion, when I, as the 'big boss' of a drama college waded in all legal guns a blazing to stop them speaking? The reality was somewhat different to this. This was a person that is now on their 4th year constantly making disparaging remarks about the college on any forum that mentions drama schools. As for the 'small time performing arts school operator' they were or indeed still are the owner of a franchise operation, so not exactly the 'lone operator', even more ironic given The MTA's independent status. That said, I categorically knew that I'd never threatened anybody with legal action over a FB post. However recent events had knocked my confidence for sure, so I suddenly found myself checking in with a couple of colleagues who had been part of that online debate to check that I hadn't lost my mind. The relief when they confirmed my recollection of the discussion was palpable. The 'lone operator' had (probably unwittingly in fairness) merged a truth. Another commentator on the original thread had mentioned that I 'should' sue them for their 'damaging remarks', however this poster had clearly recollected it as me actually threatening legal action against them. And so their version of the truth lives on. Attention to detail is everything.
Then on twitter it was even more interesting, as a blogger went out of their way with an outrageous allegation, and accused The MTA of 'unhelpfully fetishising mental health issues'. They'd heard stories apparently - well see above for those I'm sure. They clearly thought that they were onto something when the Chair of the Board actually started to engage with them. The blogger who made the claim had twice been booked into the college to see for themselves the whole school approach to mental health working. They had contacted me asking to observe an audition day, and requesting a separate meeting with me. We have an open door policy so it's a no brainer. However I've been around a bit, and suspected that all was not what it seemed.
I named to my team that I suspected that this person was digging for dirt, that due to the timing of the request they might have heard some of these false rumours being put out there, but when you don't have any to hide, you just welcome people in and offer them a shovel don't you? The first time they cancelled the night before, the second time they just didn't turn up. Not the best investigative reporting it has to be said. Our offer to visit the school is still wide open to them, so maybe they'd actually like to come and see for themselves what it is we're actually doing.
What amazed me though was quite how many people went out on a limb to name The MTA as safe, even before contacting me in private to find out what was going on. As one of them said to me - 'you'll find out who's got your back now', and my goodness they were right. Emails, phone calls, texts just checking that I was OK and if the college was OK. Some of those people even went public with their support. Equally interesting to note though was quite how many did the quiet nod of approval to me, but edged their bets in public. I mean I don't blame them - but it's interesting isn't it? We work in a small industry so you wouldn't want to back the wrong horse. We are all at the mercy of our reputations, so best not to tarnish it by association (even if you're happy to do so in private). I will add the disclaimer here though how some people named that they weren't going to publically comment on it all, because they simply didn't want to stoke the fire.
As the rumours flew around (and my goodness I heard a fair few), it was actually the students that were batting them out of the ball park. You see transparency is really useful. With nothing to hide you can tell everybody everything. So whilst I wasn't allowed my voice - the facts were being stated, as everybody knew them. We had already read out the Charity Commission's letter to our current students in its entirety, so that they would feel safe, and 'in the loop' so to speak.
The hardest day was a week after The Stage published its article. I googled The Musical Theatre Academy only to see that 4th on the google listing was The Stage's article - headline a blazing out for all to see. 10 years of working ethically, 10 years of building up a multi-award winning college, all wiped away by some lies. That was harsh. That was the day that I started to write this - as I needed to find my voice again, if only for myself.
It's really interesting in this day and age how things can become 'fact' because somebody's told you, or somebody's written it down in a social media post. This wasn't the first time that I'd had experience of this phenomenon, but it was the first time that it had hit so hard on target. It's like the Hunger Games version of 'They Said, You Said'. If you take the time to bore down to the truth those facts aren't facts at all, but in reality who does that? After all, who would lie just for kicks, or because they're ill, or because they're on the defensive? By default we work off an assumption that people are telling us the truth. Fake News is a great term isn't it? Created for these very scenarios.
We worked openly and swiftly with the Charity Commission. Our Chair of the Board was rigorous and thorough in his own fact finding. Again a strange position for me to be on the outside of something that only existed because I had created it. At all times we kept our students up to speed with how things were progressing.
A few months after the initial letter had landed we found ourselves in a meeting with the Charity Commission as there were some final points to discuss and clarify. It was felt that a face to face meeting would bring the compliance case to a swifter conclusion than email ping pong. The meeting was robust and fair. We knew (and literally everybody involved in charity work had told me) that some suggestions for improvement would be made, but all things that would make The MTA stronger and even more accountable, so all points of learning that we welcomed and will be implementing straight away - but it should be noted that all of these points were about clearly recording the good practice that we were already doing.
Which brings us to today - where the Charity Commission has officially informed us that they have no concerns about what we're doing. They've given us helpful advice about how to develop our policies and will not be conducting any further "investigation" into The MTA, even though for a few months now, a misleading headline suggested that an "investigation" was already taking place
Throughout it all I noted with interest two specific things that were said online:
1) Somebody mentioned that any "investigation" would be a white wash - meaning that even before the compliance case had even started a group of people had decided that regardless of the outcome we must be in the wrong. Whereas in reality the compliance case was really thorough, and had there been any irregularities or wrong doing - they would have been 'discovered' and it would have led to a statutory investigation. As an independent college the Charity Commission held us accountable, and I believe that to be a good thing
2) The blogger questioned whether we were 'sin free' and concluded that we weren't but with what evidence? Firstly he made the point that we're a business not a 'community outreach programme', well you know sometimes in this world businesses do exist that are trying to simply achieve their objectives. Our aim has always been to send people out into the 'real world' industry-ready with access to free ongoing support. That is our objective, and that is exactly what we do. Then secondly the old favorite of 'no smoke without fire'. I too have probably always believed that adage - however this is what I've learned, and in truth I can't believe that it's taken me so long to get it. We work in a profession that excels in distraction, where directors can almost force an audience to look at one part of the stage as the 'illusion' is executed on the other. So next time you get sucked into a 'no smoke without fire' thought, remain curious. As the smoke that you're aware of might just be the distraction from the real fire that's been started by somebody else. After all theatre is all smoke and mirrors isn't it? Maybe some of us would be better to look in the mirror, as opposed to simply look at the smoke?
To conclude I'd like to give a heartfelt thanks to the people that really did support the college throughout this time, and indeed to my friends and colleagues that would check in with me periodically to ensure that I was OK.
In September we celebrate both the graduation of the class of 2019 and 10 years of training The MTA way - there is much to celebrate, and we will do so having been held accountable to the principles that I founded the college with back in 2009. The principles that said that the students and their health would be at the forefront of all training, and the principles that promised our students that all of their fees would be spent on premises, productions and staff, and the principles that stated that our college would be there to support them beyond their training.
Monday, 18 February 2019
Time For A Complete Overhaul - Not Just A Change
Since launching #time4change - The Mental Health Charter, back in 2016, I thought that I had seen and heard most horror stories around the acceptance and treatment of Mental Illness. How wrong could I have been?
Over the past year I've been made aware of 'what happens next' when it comes to people struggling with severe mental illnesses. So whilst this category is (thankfully) so much smaller, it's of course no less important.
Firstly someone caught my attention via a FaceBook post, where they eloquently explained the difficulties that they were experiencing whilst trying to search for some more intensive therapy. To be clear, this was somebody that recognised that they were ill, and somebody seeking help, but who was unable to access the help due to waiting lists and red tape. I had assumed that this was just someone being 'unlucky' in the system. Our industry seems to almost demand at times that we don't put down roots, moving from flatshare to houseshare with relative ease. The nomadic existence suits our 'Peter Pan' mentality. However if you're waiting to receive specialist care from a certain area of the NHS it would appear that no two areas chat to each other. Therefore the moment that you move, you have to return to the start of the system all over again. So you're basically in a game of snakes and ladders, with the winner getting the treatment that they need . . . eventually.
So clearly some joined up thinking would be useful, and indeed would also be most cost effective in the long run.
This FB post also touched on the conclusions that medical professionals were jumping to when they were admitted by ambulance to A&E. Seemingly if you're perceived to have Mental Health difficulties, your physical symptoms are completely overlooked - even if that was why you called the emergency services in the first place.
My assumption that this was somebody being particularly unlucky in their hour of need was challenged, when I found myself in the role of an advocate for someone who had also needed to pay a visit to A&E due to physical symptoms, only to have been written off as someone with mental illness, and the physical symptoms not being checked. . . at all. This is in spite of having people with them who clearly stated that their Mental Health was not the issue (on this occasion).
Or how about the time that somebody presented in A&E because the Mental Health crises team (who were already connected to the patient), just didn't think that the person warranted their attention?
That's right - for those people who have serious mental health difficulties, there's a crises team that doctors can hook you up with. This is designed to help keep you safe. Except that they don't. They appear to spend most of their time explaining to the patient why they can't help them. This is such a regular event, that when I complained to our local MP about it, I was told that they already knew, they gave me an awful example of when 'the system' had 'really let down a patient', and said that they'd look into it . . . again. They also added that I might have to wait until after Brexit!
Then I heard of someone getting sectioned. Now you can be sectioned for one of two reasons, you're a danger to other people, or you're a danger to yourself. The person I knew got sectioned to protect themselves after an unsuccessful attempt at taking their own life. In truth I thought that this was bloody brilliant. Finally they would be in a safe environment with the right people looking after them, until such a time that they could keep themselves safe.
How wrong could I have been. They were kept in a general ward for just over a week - get this bit, on 1:1 obs because it was felt that their risk to self harm was so great. However the people doing the 1:1 obs were clearly uneducated in mental health, and were saying the most inappropriate things to the patient. Things that actually made them feel worse? At night it was their snoring that kept them awake - that'll be the snoring of the people being paid to be on a shift to keep a vulnerable person safe.
Some 9 days later they got moved to a specialist unit. . . at 11pm at night!!! They were told just 30 minutes earlier. The 1:1 suddenly disappeared(although no updated risk assessment was taken). Now you tell me how that is good for anyone? However it gets better. When they arrived at the unit they were told that there wasn't a bed for them after all, so at 2am they were moved AGAIN.
You'd think that their story would get better here though wouldn't you, after all they are now warded in a specialist Mental Health ward - but nope! There were clearly not enough staff to deal with the number of patients and they can't even ensure that their belongings will be safe (as they have a lot of theft), let alone the patient. After just a few days, the sectioned patient, who don't forget, hasn't received ANY help since they were first admitted, has been threatened by other patients, physically grabbed by other patients, and is now more in terror of their life than ever before. Not exactly the 'safe environment' that we all imagine is it?
Last year I wrote a musical called Oh My, Nellie Bly. About the American stunt journalist who volunteered to get sectioned and famously spent "10 Days in A Madhouse". The stories that she told were haunting, and in fact she got the law changed to enable people suffering from mental illnesses to be treated more humanely.
Fast forward a century, and great that we don't have 'asylums' anymore. Great that talking about Mental Health is currently 'the thing of the moment'. However it is truly a National disgrace that our system is letting down the most vulnerable at a time that they need a 'system' the most. So Mr MP who's waiting for Brexit to be over until you're prepared to raise this matter AGAIN, you're playing with the lives of the very people you profess to be trying to help in your great orations.
Our government is currently paying lip service to the idea of a Mental Health overhaul, but vulnerable, ill people are actually being exploited by a system that fails to treat them with any dignity. There's no rehabilitation going on. They're simply removing the 'problem' from society, regardless of what their story is.
It's an uncomfortable read isn't it? Well welcome to the 2019 Britain. This is a reality right now for too many people. #time4change....#time4abloodyoverhaul
Over the past year I've been made aware of 'what happens next' when it comes to people struggling with severe mental illnesses. So whilst this category is (thankfully) so much smaller, it's of course no less important.
Firstly someone caught my attention via a FaceBook post, where they eloquently explained the difficulties that they were experiencing whilst trying to search for some more intensive therapy. To be clear, this was somebody that recognised that they were ill, and somebody seeking help, but who was unable to access the help due to waiting lists and red tape. I had assumed that this was just someone being 'unlucky' in the system. Our industry seems to almost demand at times that we don't put down roots, moving from flatshare to houseshare with relative ease. The nomadic existence suits our 'Peter Pan' mentality. However if you're waiting to receive specialist care from a certain area of the NHS it would appear that no two areas chat to each other. Therefore the moment that you move, you have to return to the start of the system all over again. So you're basically in a game of snakes and ladders, with the winner getting the treatment that they need . . . eventually.
So clearly some joined up thinking would be useful, and indeed would also be most cost effective in the long run.
This FB post also touched on the conclusions that medical professionals were jumping to when they were admitted by ambulance to A&E. Seemingly if you're perceived to have Mental Health difficulties, your physical symptoms are completely overlooked - even if that was why you called the emergency services in the first place.
My assumption that this was somebody being particularly unlucky in their hour of need was challenged, when I found myself in the role of an advocate for someone who had also needed to pay a visit to A&E due to physical symptoms, only to have been written off as someone with mental illness, and the physical symptoms not being checked. . . at all. This is in spite of having people with them who clearly stated that their Mental Health was not the issue (on this occasion).
Or how about the time that somebody presented in A&E because the Mental Health crises team (who were already connected to the patient), just didn't think that the person warranted their attention?
That's right - for those people who have serious mental health difficulties, there's a crises team that doctors can hook you up with. This is designed to help keep you safe. Except that they don't. They appear to spend most of their time explaining to the patient why they can't help them. This is such a regular event, that when I complained to our local MP about it, I was told that they already knew, they gave me an awful example of when 'the system' had 'really let down a patient', and said that they'd look into it . . . again. They also added that I might have to wait until after Brexit!
Then I heard of someone getting sectioned. Now you can be sectioned for one of two reasons, you're a danger to other people, or you're a danger to yourself. The person I knew got sectioned to protect themselves after an unsuccessful attempt at taking their own life. In truth I thought that this was bloody brilliant. Finally they would be in a safe environment with the right people looking after them, until such a time that they could keep themselves safe.
How wrong could I have been. They were kept in a general ward for just over a week - get this bit, on 1:1 obs because it was felt that their risk to self harm was so great. However the people doing the 1:1 obs were clearly uneducated in mental health, and were saying the most inappropriate things to the patient. Things that actually made them feel worse? At night it was their snoring that kept them awake - that'll be the snoring of the people being paid to be on a shift to keep a vulnerable person safe.
Some 9 days later they got moved to a specialist unit. . . at 11pm at night!!! They were told just 30 minutes earlier. The 1:1 suddenly disappeared(although no updated risk assessment was taken). Now you tell me how that is good for anyone? However it gets better. When they arrived at the unit they were told that there wasn't a bed for them after all, so at 2am they were moved AGAIN.
You'd think that their story would get better here though wouldn't you, after all they are now warded in a specialist Mental Health ward - but nope! There were clearly not enough staff to deal with the number of patients and they can't even ensure that their belongings will be safe (as they have a lot of theft), let alone the patient. After just a few days, the sectioned patient, who don't forget, hasn't received ANY help since they were first admitted, has been threatened by other patients, physically grabbed by other patients, and is now more in terror of their life than ever before. Not exactly the 'safe environment' that we all imagine is it?
Last year I wrote a musical called Oh My, Nellie Bly. About the American stunt journalist who volunteered to get sectioned and famously spent "10 Days in A Madhouse". The stories that she told were haunting, and in fact she got the law changed to enable people suffering from mental illnesses to be treated more humanely.
Fast forward a century, and great that we don't have 'asylums' anymore. Great that talking about Mental Health is currently 'the thing of the moment'. However it is truly a National disgrace that our system is letting down the most vulnerable at a time that they need a 'system' the most. So Mr MP who's waiting for Brexit to be over until you're prepared to raise this matter AGAIN, you're playing with the lives of the very people you profess to be trying to help in your great orations.
Our government is currently paying lip service to the idea of a Mental Health overhaul, but vulnerable, ill people are actually being exploited by a system that fails to treat them with any dignity. There's no rehabilitation going on. They're simply removing the 'problem' from society, regardless of what their story is.
It's an uncomfortable read isn't it? Well welcome to the 2019 Britain. This is a reality right now for too many people. #time4change....#time4abloodyoverhaul
Saturday, 27 October 2018
A Whole School Approach to Mental Health
When I opened The MTA back in 2009 there was no name for the kind of pastoral policy that we were going to implement. However having worked in vocational training for over 20 years I knew that drama college seemed to involve an awful lot of crying. I hadn't met a singing teacher who couldn't relate to a 'crying student' anecdote. I knew that I couldn't open a college without a counsellor (having spent the previous few years working in colleges which failed to provide this service).
By way of a fluke actually, the person that I asked to take on the role happened to be a mental health nurse specialist, who was also (by virtue of her day job) an extremely successful life coach. I realised early on that by making the counsellor a key person in the faculty, as opposed to an 'add-on', students would be more likely to engage in using her. I also felt it important that they could self-refer, as opposed to going through a system - thereby making a counselling service an easy thing to connect to. It was imperative that the service was confidential, which again is impossible if students aren't able to self-refer.
What took me by surprise over the first few years though, was quite how many students who were visiting the counsellor for 'life coaching', seemed to come away with a mental health diagnosis. In truth I felt that our counsellor must have been being over cautious, however, it quickly became apparent that this wasn't the case, when time after time the local GP's agreed with her diagnosis, and students were quickly given a 'care plan', be that medication or talking therapies. Of course some of the talking therapy we were able to offer without long waiting lists, and as for the medication, our counsellor was able to give advice on the treatments, and indeed started to liaise with many of our local GP services in order to ensure that the students were on the best treatments straight away. It's easy to forget quite how little GP's know about Mental Health. We sort of think of them as 'all knowing', however, in reality, they probably spent just 6 months looking at Mental Illnesses during their training. So having an expert on the faculty enabled us to take various shortcuts, and more importantly enabled the students to get expert advice.
Initially, I felt that The MTA must have been incredibly unlucky to have quite so many students that were suffering from Mental Illnesses. I mean we're a tiny college (max of 44 students at any one time), whilst acknowledging that the students that we had were extremely lucky to have had a life-changing diagnosis. Maladaptive coping mechanisms that were enabling them to have a productive life were suddenly being replaced with good health and the difference in every one of them was truly staggering.
However, such was the volume of previously undiagnosed illness I started to do some research and came across a survey from New Zealand. Rocked by an industry suicide they had undertaken a survey of the industry (backstage and onstage), and they had discovered that 1 in 3 of 'their industry' had an experience of personal mental illness as opposed to the recognised norm of 1 in 4.
That epiphany of it was an 'industry thing' was startling. Suddenly everything fell into place, we weren't the exception we were actually the norm. The big difference being that we had accidentally placed ourselves in a position to help people as opposed to simply brushing off symptoms. From that moment on it became a campaign to wake everybody else up - especially as more and more countries seemed to be making the link between our industry and mental health.
I've already blogged and vlogged about #time4change and the Mental Health Charter - but basically I felt like we needed to ring a really loud bell to tell other colleges (and indeed our industry as a whole) that something big was happening, and we all needed to respond to it. In fact #time4change was the result of shouting about this for a number of years and everybody either ignoring me or telling me to shut up.
Going back to The MTA we just kept going - only now I truly understood that the work that we were doing was vital and potentially life-changing.
We've always had 2 members of staff on call 24/7, 365 days a year, as we're aware that difficulties don't tend to be limited to the 8:30-5 college day. So our students, staff & graduates always have a mental health professional available to them.
So we have never changed what we've done, it's just in 2017 the government found a name for it - the 'whole school approach'.
We don't start working with our students until we know and understand them a bit. Take the premise of drama college - you go into classes with people asking you to be vulnerable BUT usually, those colleges/staff don't know a student's background - being vulnerable tends to open up a whole can of worms. So we try to find out if they're OK with being vulnerable first.
There's a misconception that this kind of approach is too 'kind', that we're creating a 'mollycoddled' cohort of students. Well, you couldn't be more wrong. We have 0% unauthorised absence, we have 0% unauthorised lateness. For 99% of the year, we operate with 100% attendance (contagious sickness bugs are the only reason for approved absences). Students who are in the depth of a deep depression still come to college. . . because it's proven that getting up and at least attempting to do something will aid their recovery. I would argue that we are building a true and honest resilience into each and every one of our students.
I've always held a belief that a large percentage of people go into our industry to escape, since opening The MTA I've added to that belief insomuch as I now believe that some people go into the industry to escape their own minds. I don't believe that the industry makes you ill, I believe that you were susceptible to illness (be that circumstances or genetic loading), and the industry with all of its 'be vulnerable to be great' teachings, have meant that those susceptibilities have been realised. Maybe if people had 'escaped' to a 9-5 office job those ticking time bombs would never have gone off? Who knows?
All of these discoveries were an accident, all created because the only counsellor that I could afford when I started was a certain Angie Peake. . . my wife! It's the most fortunate of accidents - and one that has transformed so many lives and continues to do so on a daily basis.
So there you have it - a whole school approach to mental health.
By way of a fluke actually, the person that I asked to take on the role happened to be a mental health nurse specialist, who was also (by virtue of her day job) an extremely successful life coach. I realised early on that by making the counsellor a key person in the faculty, as opposed to an 'add-on', students would be more likely to engage in using her. I also felt it important that they could self-refer, as opposed to going through a system - thereby making a counselling service an easy thing to connect to. It was imperative that the service was confidential, which again is impossible if students aren't able to self-refer.
What took me by surprise over the first few years though, was quite how many students who were visiting the counsellor for 'life coaching', seemed to come away with a mental health diagnosis. In truth I felt that our counsellor must have been being over cautious, however, it quickly became apparent that this wasn't the case, when time after time the local GP's agreed with her diagnosis, and students were quickly given a 'care plan', be that medication or talking therapies. Of course some of the talking therapy we were able to offer without long waiting lists, and as for the medication, our counsellor was able to give advice on the treatments, and indeed started to liaise with many of our local GP services in order to ensure that the students were on the best treatments straight away. It's easy to forget quite how little GP's know about Mental Health. We sort of think of them as 'all knowing', however, in reality, they probably spent just 6 months looking at Mental Illnesses during their training. So having an expert on the faculty enabled us to take various shortcuts, and more importantly enabled the students to get expert advice.
Initially, I felt that The MTA must have been incredibly unlucky to have quite so many students that were suffering from Mental Illnesses. I mean we're a tiny college (max of 44 students at any one time), whilst acknowledging that the students that we had were extremely lucky to have had a life-changing diagnosis. Maladaptive coping mechanisms that were enabling them to have a productive life were suddenly being replaced with good health and the difference in every one of them was truly staggering.
However, such was the volume of previously undiagnosed illness I started to do some research and came across a survey from New Zealand. Rocked by an industry suicide they had undertaken a survey of the industry (backstage and onstage), and they had discovered that 1 in 3 of 'their industry' had an experience of personal mental illness as opposed to the recognised norm of 1 in 4.
That epiphany of it was an 'industry thing' was startling. Suddenly everything fell into place, we weren't the exception we were actually the norm. The big difference being that we had accidentally placed ourselves in a position to help people as opposed to simply brushing off symptoms. From that moment on it became a campaign to wake everybody else up - especially as more and more countries seemed to be making the link between our industry and mental health.
I've already blogged and vlogged about #time4change and the Mental Health Charter - but basically I felt like we needed to ring a really loud bell to tell other colleges (and indeed our industry as a whole) that something big was happening, and we all needed to respond to it. In fact #time4change was the result of shouting about this for a number of years and everybody either ignoring me or telling me to shut up.
Going back to The MTA we just kept going - only now I truly understood that the work that we were doing was vital and potentially life-changing.
We've always had 2 members of staff on call 24/7, 365 days a year, as we're aware that difficulties don't tend to be limited to the 8:30-5 college day. So our students, staff & graduates always have a mental health professional available to them.
So we have never changed what we've done, it's just in 2017 the government found a name for it - the 'whole school approach'.
We don't start working with our students until we know and understand them a bit. Take the premise of drama college - you go into classes with people asking you to be vulnerable BUT usually, those colleges/staff don't know a student's background - being vulnerable tends to open up a whole can of worms. So we try to find out if they're OK with being vulnerable first.
There's a misconception that this kind of approach is too 'kind', that we're creating a 'mollycoddled' cohort of students. Well, you couldn't be more wrong. We have 0% unauthorised absence, we have 0% unauthorised lateness. For 99% of the year, we operate with 100% attendance (contagious sickness bugs are the only reason for approved absences). Students who are in the depth of a deep depression still come to college. . . because it's proven that getting up and at least attempting to do something will aid their recovery. I would argue that we are building a true and honest resilience into each and every one of our students.
I've always held a belief that a large percentage of people go into our industry to escape, since opening The MTA I've added to that belief insomuch as I now believe that some people go into the industry to escape their own minds. I don't believe that the industry makes you ill, I believe that you were susceptible to illness (be that circumstances or genetic loading), and the industry with all of its 'be vulnerable to be great' teachings, have meant that those susceptibilities have been realised. Maybe if people had 'escaped' to a 9-5 office job those ticking time bombs would never have gone off? Who knows?
All of these discoveries were an accident, all created because the only counsellor that I could afford when I started was a certain Angie Peake. . . my wife! It's the most fortunate of accidents - and one that has transformed so many lives and continues to do so on a daily basis.
So there you have it - a whole school approach to mental health.
Sunday, 14 October 2018
Vocational Training
I'm beginning to feel old (keep your comments to yourself). I feel like we're all watching a case of the Emperor's New Clothes happening in our industry and nobody is really speaking about it.
We all know that on your Spotlight CV they ask you where you trained, not what class degree you ended up with. I mean of course everybody is going to write their final mark because everybody would have worked really hard to achieve it, but to my knowledge, no Spotlight breakdown has ever been published asking for someone with a certain class degree?
When you go into an audition room, somebody might ask you where you trained, but they'll never ask you what 'grade' you got. They just want you to demonstrate your talent, and can you meet the brief. They'll ask for a song, or give you some sides to read. They might want to see you dance - but they'll teach you the routine.
My weathered response to the whole degree/diploma debate is always the same - show me the difference between a degree pirouette and a diploma pirouette!
Over time it's the quality of training that will build a reputation for a college, not what qualification do they offer. In other words - the whole 'get a degree' argument is nonsensical. People will argue that it's giving people a fallback? Fall back to what exactly? If you want to turn that degree into anything useful you'll need to go back to college to train some more. Your B.A. (Hons) won't automatically give you teacher status (which people insultingly think of as a 'fallback career').
Let's face it - everybody moved to a degree because it gave the colleges and the students more access to funds, NOT because our industry suddenly demanded a qualification.
In truth, I don't mind that per se, however what I do care about, is how suddenly vocational courses are getting penalised. My students at The MTA are not eligible for ANY government funding streams, as they've just pulled the plug on the PCDL.
So offer a degree I hear you shout! However to prepare any form of formal accreditation we have estimated it to cost us between £4k-£6k. To go for a 'formal recognition' as opposed to a degree would set us back around £6k just to apply. This money though would come from my students' fees. The fees that they pay us in order to get them industry-ready in 2 years. Now we're successfully achieving our goal year on year - so why would I want to pay to 'prove it'. I have proved it - every graduate is on our website with their Spotlight page attached (if applicable). You can see our proof for yourself, for free.
We're currently working really hard on our #50percent campaign to make up the deficit that the PCDL has created so that we can reassure any prospective student that we are working hard as hard as them to help them out financially.*
However, the discrimination doesn't stop at government funding level.
Last year Equity and Spotlight issued a new set of criteria, which colleges had to achieve in order to get onto their 'Graduate List'. I applauded this decision having banged on about the lack of regulation in our industry.
The criteria (and our course) are listed below:
- Vocational training courses for performers, practical rather than theoretical
Well, The MTA's course is entirely practical, so this is a big tick for us.
- Contact hours in excess of 30 hours per week
We guarantee our students a MINIMUM of 40 contact hours/week. So far so good
- No more than 22 students in a class
We only have 22 students in a year, so the entire college can be no bigger than 44. In the morning dance classes are streamed into 3 or 4 groups...meaning that our class sizes are really small
- 30 weeks in a year of instruction
Once again we're winning - as we offer a MINIMUM of 40 weeks/year
- Course offers a professional showcase opportunity – attended by industry
Not only are we the only MT college to offer an Acting Showcase AND a Musical Theatre Showcase, we are also the only college to produce a public performance EVERY term. So I can safely say that our students get a load of opportunities.
- Course offers Professional Development programme with industry engagement
A nice easy one for us - every single member of my faculty is a current industry professional. So they have nothing but, industry engagement. If by professional development you're talking about understanding that our students are going to self-employed businesses, then yes, we have all of that covered too.
- Access to professional facilities
Yup...3 dance spaces with sprung floors, mirrors, PA system. 2 studio spaces, an acoustic pod, and all of our shows are performed in a London theatre. We are housed in the middle of an Arts Centre, so I'm confident that this is a tick too.
- Clear commitments on safeguarding, bullying/harassment and diversity
We have all of these documents - and indeed they were all approved by Spotlight and Equity as well
- Equivalent to NQF level 4 / SQF level 6 Qualification issued by a ‘recognised body’
I was confident of this last one too - as our course is more than equivalent to one of these qualifications...but here's where the tale goes sour. They don't mean equivalent - they mean...have a qualification.
So we, along with courses such as LSMT and Fourth Monkey**, are prevented from going on the Equity/Spotlight graduate list. In many ways it doesn't matter. Our students are permitted to go straight onto the main Spotlight register, and can apply for Equity's student membership, so their careers are not penalised at all. However, it does mean that when certain bursaries and scholarships are being considered eg the SOLT bursaries (including the Laurence Olivier Scholarship), we are not even permitted to nominate a student! Instead, all the colleges that are already in receipt of Student Finance and DaDas are permitted to submit their students for even more financial help.
Here's irony, there was a mix up one year and we WERE invited to nominate a student, and yup, you guessed it - after auditioning for the panel they won a substantial financial bursary which allowed them to continue with their studies.
Or to put all of this another way, students currently studying on a uni degree course have access to the full Student finance package, even though lots of those students will not be eligible for Spotlight membership when they've finished.
Hell, just the other week the NUS (Extra) company contacted me to say that after 5 years of our students being on their approved list, we were being taken off that too . . . all because we refuse to offer a formal qualification.
In case you're still unclear of how mad this is. . . one of the qualifications that the power's that be endorse is the Trinity Level 6 Diploma. A Diploma that we can't even apply to deliver because one of their criteria is that the course has to be 3 years!
I run a college where 100% of my students have secured INDEPENDENT agent representation BEFORE graduating.
Where 77% of our graduates are still working in the industry.
A college where 89% of the class of 2018 have already secured their first contract.
A college which remains the only school to have been awarded The Stage School of the Year award TWICE, for our innovative approach to training and pastoral care and (in 2017) our proven track record.
We have initiated an industry-wide Mental Health Charter and are working closely with other colleges in order to support them making the change from 'counselling' to 'mental health'
A college where just 3% of students have dropped out since we started in 2009 (and all but one of those are still in contact with us).
A college whose graduates are working all over the world (including the West End), whose graduates are in festival award-winning films and are working in all areas of the industry.
A college that has ALWAYS provided its graduates with ongoing support be that pastoral or practical.
A college that has had consistent, verifiable results since 2011 when our first group graduated.
A college that is completely transparent, right down to open book accounting.
Yet in spite of all of this - the computer (very sadly) keeps saying 'no', as the producers and casting directors keep saying 'yes'.
10 years later, I'm disappointed to see that our vocational industry is actively fighting against vocational training.
* If you'd like to make a contribution to our campaign to make 50% of our places available with 50% scholarships check out the ways that you can help on our funding page:
http://www.themta.co.uk/fees-funding/ Scroll down to the bottom. . . no contribution is too small.
Thank you
**Fourth Monkey moved across to a degree in 2020
* If you'd like to make a contribution to our campaign to make 50% of our places available with 50% scholarships check out the ways that you can help on our funding page:
http://www.themta.co.uk/fees-funding/ Scroll down to the bottom. . . no contribution is too small.
Thank you
**Fourth Monkey moved across to a degree in 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)