1

RTPI Education Policy Review

Consultation on: RTPI ‘Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education’ specifically in relation to: - Length and Level of Accredited Courses - Learning Outcomes - Effective Planning School Criteria

Who should respond:

We welcome responses from all RTPI Members and anyone with an interest in planning education. In particular; Accredited RTPI Planning Schools, Learning Partners and other employers of planners, practitioner members of RTPI Partnership Boards, Partnership and Accreditation Panel members, RTPI Nations and English Regions, Young Planners and students.

Date of Consultation:

8 July 2016 – 3 October 2016

Deadline for Responses:

10am Monday 3 October 2016

How to Respond: Please submit your response to the consultation through: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/3QKBB8T

2

Contents

Introduction ...................................................... ....................................... 3 Executive Summary ................................................................................. 5 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................... 6

1. Background and Context .......................................................................... 8

2. Course Form, Length and Mode of Study .............................................. 12

3. RTPI Initial Education Learning Outcomes............................................. 16

4. RTPI Effective Planning School Criteria ................................................. 19

3

Introduction

Dear Colleague, Attached you will find a consultation document in which we seek your views on a small number of questions about planning education. Overall we think planning education is in good shape as evidenced by ongoing success through good National Student Survey outcomes and Research Assessment outcomes (within the UK) and by the employment trajectories of planning graduates. In addition all our accredited Planning Schools have been found to be effective during the annual scrutiny exercise by Partnership Boards. Hence we do not propose making fundamental changes to the RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. The framework laid down by the 2003 Education Commission is still appropriate and we continue to endorse the distinction the Education Commission made between initial planning education at university and the subsequent structured workplace experience after graduation as the right balance of responsibilities for developing future planners. If both universities and employers play their role well we should expect that after two years of professional practice, graduates of fully accredited courses will be in a very good position to apply for the Licentiate Assessment of Professional Competence to become a Chartered Town Planner. We also continue to endorse the Education Commission's approach to the content of initial planning education as one that specifies learning outcomes and not detailed curricula. This rightly leaves the decisions on what and how students learn to universities, but with an annual requirement to demonstrate to Partnership Boards that the outcomes are being achieved. We also think that our approach to accreditation - to delegate this to joint boards of universities, employers and the RTPI is the correct one. This decision was recently endorsed by our review of the Partnership Board process. So why are we mounting this review? We are doing so for four reasons: (1) there have been some concerns about our requirements on course length for fully accredited undergraduate courses, so we are asking all consultees their views on this; (2) there have also been concerns that graduates leaving Planning Schools do not have enough appreciation of planning practice and of development management in particular so we are asking you all to tell us if the learning outcomes need tightening up in that respect;

4

(3) university governance in the UK has changed considerably since 2003 and there are now fewer accredited planning schools that are 'stand alone' academic departments. Many are now part of wider departmental structures often in multidisciplinary schools or faculties. Whilst this can be welcomed, given the significance and importance of multi-disciplinary working in the profession, it can risk reducing the identity, visibility and leadership of the Planning School. So we welcome your views on how we can ensure that those leading our Planning Schools really understand our discipline and profession and are fully involved in the overall governance of them. Part of the concerns we hear is the small number of Chartered Town Planners now on the staff of Planning Schools. (4) graduates and employers have indicated that there is some confusion over the terminology for accredited qualifications and uncertainty around whether the graduate holds a fully accredited qualification after 3 years at undergraduate level or is required to study for an additional qualification. We are seeking your views on how to clarify the terminology that we use and promote all routes to Chartered membership. The attached document spells these key issues out in more detail and asks your views on the specific questions. Please do respond. We need to hear all views before we come to a decision on the matters above. With best wishes

Tony Crook

Professor Tony Crook CBE FAcSS FRTPI Chair RTPI Education & Lifelong Learning Committee

5

Executive Summary In recent years there have been significant changes to the landscape of higher education in the UK and internationally and changes to planning practice. In response to these changes the RTPI is looking at its ‘Routes to Education’ with the aim of maintaining standards and quality assurance and strengthening RTPI accreditation requirements so the next generation of planners meets both employers and society’s needs with a flexible approach to education. This stage asks whether the RTPI education policy remains fit for purpose. The review considers issues such as: whether universities should provide additional links to planning practice in accredited courses; whether requirements for planning education could be made clearer to support universities; how the RTPI should publicise the options for graduates from 3 year undergraduate courses or 4 year undergraduate courses. We invite responses from anyone with an interest in planning education to the following consultation questions.

Q1. Do you agree that the requirement for a fully accredited combined undergraduate course is maintained at 4 years or equivalent? If not, what do you think would be an appropriate length for fully accredited undergraduate course? - 3 years undergraduate - 3 years + sandwich year? - other Q2. (For planning schools): If the length of undergraduate study changed, how would this affect your courses and your planning school? Q3. Do you support a change to terminology which would indicate which route to membership a graduate could take? This could be by identifying them as ‘fully’ or ‘partially’ accredited. Q4. Do you think the RTPI should accredit PhD programmes? What would the benefits be for RTPI, Planning Schools and those taking PhDs? Q5. Do you agree that the spatial Learning Outcomes are generally fit for purpose but would benefit from light touch revision? Are there any particular learning outcomes that you would revise or remove? Q6. Do you agree that the specialist Learning Outcomes can be merged? Q7. How can we be sure that students graduating from accredited programmes can handle the integration and alignment of planning issues in policy and practice settings? Q8. Do you agree that practical experience should be integral to all Learning Outcomes? How can this be achieved? Q9. Do you agree that the Effective Planning School criteria should be merged and revised into four categories to reflect the changing nature of planning schools? Q10. What indicators should be used by Partnership Boards/Accreditation Boards scrutinizing these criteria?

6

Glossary of Terms 3+1 An integrated course which has 3 years at undergraduate

level plus a diploma or masters year leading to a fully accredited (combined) qualification. On 3+1 courses there may be a partially or non-accredited exit point at 3 years.

Accreditation Board Board made up of RTPI members and RTPI staff who consider formal submissions for accreditation from universities seeking accreditation for the first time.

Accredited courses Courses delivered by RTPI accredited universities which meet the RTPI learning outcomes and have been accredited by an Accreditation Board or Partnership Board.

Assessment of Professional Competence (APC)

Formal assessment of competency based route to Chartered Membership of the RTPI for members who have completed a fully accredited course and have at least 2 years’ experience in practice.

Associate membership

A class of RTPI membership for those with a non-accredited or partially accredited degree and some practice experience. Associate members can take a competence based route to Chartered Membership.

Chartered Town Planner

A class of RTPI membership with the designation MRTPI or FRTPI. Chartered Membership of the RTPI is the hallmark of expertise and integrity.

Combined Also described as ‘fully accredited’, an RTPI accredited course which meets all of the Spatial and Specialist learning outcomes. This could be through an MPlan, a 4 year undergraduate course or an intensive 1 year masters.

Dual accredited RTPI accredited courses that are also accredited by another professional institute e.g. RICS.

Effective Planning School

Criteria from the RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education which must be met by schools seeking accreditation and demonstrated annually at Partnership Boards in order to maintain accreditation.

ELLC The RTPI’s Education Careers and Lifelong Learning Committee. A committee of RTPI members reporting to the RTPI Trustee Board focusing on education, careers and lifelong learning issues.

Fully accredited Also described as ‘Combined’, an RTPI accredited course which meets all of the Spatial and Specialist learning outcomes. This could be through an MPlan, a 4 year undergraduate course or an intensive 1 year masters.

Inclusive Planning Planning for everyone, regardless of age, ability, gender or background.

7

Initial Planning Education

The three elements required by the RTPI for members taking the Licentiate Route to Chartered Membership

Learning outcomes Areas of planning and professional skills and knowledge that must be demonstrated for a course to be RTPI accredited. The RTPI has spatial and specialist Learning Outcomes.

Licentiate membership

A class of membership for members who have completed either a combined course (fully accredited) or have completed both spatial and specialist courses. Licentiate members take the APC route to Chartered membership.

MPlan This is an integrated undergraduate degree meeting both the spatial and specialist learning outcomes leading to a combined (fully accredited) qualification.

PAP Partnership and Accreditation Panel. Panel of RTPI members who have roles on Accreditation Boards or Partnership Boards.

Partially accredited An accredited qualification that meets either the spatial or specialist learning outcomes and is accredited as either a Specialist or a Spatial course. Completing one of these courses is not enough to become a Licentiate Member of the RTPI and graduate would either need to complete an additional accredited qualification or follow the Associate route to Chartered Membership.

Partnership Board Board of RTPI members, RTPI staff and Planning School representatives who meet annually to scrutinise the effectiveness of the schools, accredit new courses (where appropriate) and support the development of the school.

Spatial A Spatial course meets the RTPI’s spatial learning outcomes (as listed in the Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education). A Graduate from a spatial course would be partially accredited and would either need to complete a specialist course or take the Associate route to membership.

Specialist A Specialist course meets the RTPI’s specialist learning outcomes (as listed in the Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. A Graduate from a specialist course would be partially accredited and would either need to complete a spatial course or take the Associate route to membership.

Statement of Educational Philosophy

The RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education expects all Planning Schools to articulate a Statement of Educational Philosophy which explains ‘the distinctive contribution each school makes to planning education’. It ‘provides the most important influence on course content and design’.

8

1. Background and Context 1.1 We are seeking views on the RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning

Education and whether it remains fit for purpose as part of the Institute’s Routes to Education. The consultation is not focussed on achieving a particular outcome but there are a series of drivers for this light touch review.

The impact of changes to Higher Education 1.2. We have committed, within the UK government Built Environment Professional

Education (BEPE) action plan to review the RTPI Learning Outcomes on inclusive planning.

1.3 The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) subject benchmark for Town Planning,

which sets out the expectations for providers of higher education in all nations of the United Kingdom, has recently been revised. It remains very consistent with the RTPI’s approved Learning Outcomes.

1.4 Since 2012, fees of up to £9000/year have been payable by English students

studying at a UK university or UK students from other UK nations. 1.5 The UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published the white

paper ‘Success as a knowledge economy: teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice’ on 16 May 2016 as part of a Higher Education and Research Bill. The white paper aims to create a competitive market and encourage innovation, by introducing (1) a framework to recognise teaching excellence, (2) an Office for Students and (3) replacing the 7 research councils with a ‘UK Research and Innovation’ body.

Professional Membership Changes 1.6 The RTPI has agreed streamlined competency based routes to membership for

those with non or partially accredited qualifications to be launched from 2017. There is no intention for further change to the competency requirements in the Licentiate route to the Assessment of Professional Qualifications (L-APC) for those with RTPI fully accredited degrees. Our current policy requirement is that graduates holding a combined (fully accredited) Masters in planning or an undergraduate award of 4 years as an equivalent can access this route to becoming a Chartered Town Planner.

1.7 There is an alternative route to membership for students graduating with only a

3 year spatial (partially accredited) undergraduate degree or a specialist (partially accredited) Masters through the Associate-Assessment of Professional Competence (A-APC). Graduates can apply to become an Associate member with at least two years’ work experience and can then apply to take the A-APC after at least an additional two years’ work experience. Members are assessed twice, both when they apply to become an Associate and when they apply to become a Chartered Town Planner. This route is less well used to convert graduates into RTPI members.

9

Learning Outcomes 1.8 The RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education

(www.rtpi.org.uk/accreditation), first produced as a result of the Education Commission in 2003, sets out the requirements and Learning Outcomes for planning degree courses accredited by the RTPI. It is an ‘outcomes based’ approach rather than a list of prescriptive curriculum content. It identifies the outcomes which all graduates are expected to achieve but each accredited Planning School can produce its own approach in terms of course content t to enable students to secure these outcomes. Achievements are reviewed annually by a Partnership Board.

Clarity and Terminology 1.9 The Licentiate route for Chartered Town Planners requires successful

completion of three elements combining initial education and a period of mentored practice and is currently described using the following terminology:

i) spatial learning assessed through academic study; ii) specialist learning assessed through academic study; and iii) practical experience as a Licentiate of the RTPI (for normally two years) assessed through the Assessment of Professional Competence.

1.10 This leads to RTPI accredited degree courses, which can be studied on a full

or part-time basis, being categorised in a number of ways:

Type of Accreditation Length and Level Routes to Chartered membership

E.g. BA Urban Planning, Newcastle University

3 year undergraduate OR 1 year postgraduate

This is a partially accredited degree. Graduates with a spatial degree can choose to do a specialist degree (Licentiate status) or take the longer Associate member route.

E.g. MSc Urban Regeneration and Development, Manchester University

1 year postgraduate This is a partially accredited degree. Graduates with a specialist degree can choose to complete a spatial degree (Licentiate status) or to take the longer Associate member route.

Undergraduate e.g. MPlan City and Regional Planning, Oxford Brookes University Postgraduate e.g. MSc Planning, Plymouth University

4 years undergraduate OR 3 year undergraduate plus 1 year Masters or diploma (the 3+1 route) OR 1 year postgraduate

This is a fully accredited degree. Graduates can become Licentiate members on graduation and fast track onto the Assessment of Professional Competence.

10

1.11 Whilst this ensures that the RTPI Learning Outcomes can be met through a variety of degree combinations, it can lead to confusion and complexity for students and stakeholders.

Aims of the Education Policy Review 1.12 The Education Policy Review asks whether the RTPI Policy Statement on

Initial Planning Education would benefit from light touch revision in order to:

support planning schools to better provide and market planning education,

clarify the process to enable students to better understand and progress to

professional positions after graduation,

help employers to give more focused support to graduates,

simplify administration but also ensure standards are retained / enhanced,

and

support the pipeline of future planners for positions in the UK and further

afield.

The project so far 1.13 The Institute’s ELLC (Education and Lifelong Learning Committee) agreed to

convene a working group to advise it on policy and practical issues arising from the RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. Selected for particular experience and knowledge regarding RTPI education, training and skills, the working group comprises both academics and practitioners from the public and private sector:

Tony Crook (former Pro-vice-chancellor, University of Sheffield; RTPI

Trustee Board and Chair of ELLC and the working group)

Ruth Richards (Director of Education & Student Experience for School of

Law and Social Sciences at London South Bank University)

Jenny Nell (Winchester Council, member of ELLC, and employer of

planning apprentices)

Colin Haylock (Consultant in private practice, RTPI Past President,

Trustee Board, Chair of Learning & Practice Needs Working Group and

Chair of RTPI Membership & Ethics Committee)

John Knight (Outgoing Chair of RTPI Partnership and Accreditation Panel

(PAP); Open University; formerly Macclesfield Council; RTPI NW Branch)

John McCarthy (Heriot Watt University, Routes to Membership Working

Group and APC Assessor)

11

Consultation

1.14 The working group first met in April 2016 and agreed that the issues and

questions for the review should be widely disseminated to ensure all those with experience and knowledge of education, training and skills could provide evidence and advice. We therefore seek the views of universities, young planners, employers, members involved in the Partnership and Accreditation process and other RTPI members on the requirements for Initial Planning Education.

1.15 The working group has concluded at this stage there are a small number of

questions on three elements of the RTPI’s education policy:

i) Course Form, Length and Mode of Study ii) Spatial and Specialist Learning Outcomes iii) The Effective Planning School

1.16 There is no plan to review the requirement for the Statement of Educational

Philosophy at this time. 1.17 The RTPI Partnership and Accreditation Panel (PAP) discussed some of

these issues at their annual meeting in June 2016 and their views have been

considered when drafting this consultation document.

12

2. Course Form, Length and Mode of Study Background to the issue 2.1 The 2003 RTPI Education Commission recommended that the educational

benchmark for full membership of the RTPI (via the Licentiate route) should be a Masters level qualification including four years leading to Honours level as an acceptable qualification at undergraduate level.

2.2 The RTPI amended its policy in 2011 to state that undergraduate courses

should be 4 years or equivalent to allow universities the opportunity for flexibility in provision (for example through a fast track route) and to clarify that a postgraduate diploma could be awarded as part of an integrated combined (fully accredited MPlan or undergraduate 3+1) route. Some universities also offer a 3 year undergraduate course and distinct 1 year Masters/diploma which together qualifies the graduate to join the RTPI as a Licentiate member and to be eligible to undertake the Assessment of Professional Competence (APC).

2.3 The following extracts from the RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning

Education set the context:

Undergraduate level

Combined planning programmes of four academic years in length, or equivalent1, leading either to a Masters’ level degree or equivalent (if not precluded by any relevant national framework for higher education qualifications), or to a Bachelors’ degree at Honours level or equivalent. At least one-half of this time shall be devoted to the ‘spatial planning’ element, with at least one-quarter allowed for the ‘specialist’ element2. The latter shall normally include a significant element of individual investigative work, leading to the submission of a dissertation, major project or equivalent.

Spatial planning programmes of three academic years in length, or equivalent, leading to a Bachelors’ degree at Honours level or equivalent3.

Postgraduate level

Combined planning programmes of at least one calendar year in length (or part-time or mixed-mode equivalent) leading to a Masters’ level degree or equivalent. At least one-half of this time shall be devoted to the ‘spatial planning’ element, with at least one-quarter allowed for the ‘specialist’ element2. The latter shall normally involve a significant element of individual investigative work, leading to the submission of a dissertation, major project or equivalent. For the avoidance of doubt, one calendar year shall be

1 The inclusion of ‘or equivalent’ here is intended to support flexibility in course delivery by providing the

opportunity for Planning Schools to deliver courses, which may be either compressed or extended so long as the relevant Accreditation Board or Partnership Board is satisfied that standards have not been compromised. Partnership Boards and Accreditation Boards are encouraged to take account of outputs, in terms of student learning, rather than inputs in terms of time spent studying. 2 These proportions are intended to allow for some ‘non-planning’ electives to be taken, with the overall

balance of the different components being a matter for the planning school to decide. 3 Such a programme would not by itself meet the academic requirements for Membership and must be

coupled with an accredited specialist component.

13

interpreted as the minimum equivalence of twelve months full-time intensive study, during which period students shall be engaged in supervised learning for no less than 45 weeks. Specialist planning programmes of at least one academic year in length (or part-time or mixed mode equivalent) leading to a Masters’ level degree or equivalent. Such programmes shall normally involve a significant element of individual investigative work, leading to the submission of a dissertation, major project or equivalent.

Exit points 2.4 Some students who are studying on an combined four year MPlan or four

year 3+1 course (3 year undergraduate course followed by a 1 year Masters/diploma) may choose to exit after the third year. They may receive an award that is either partially accredited or in some cases non-accredited. We have also had reports of confusion over our terminology with students unclear whether or not they are studying for a fully accredited qualification. Both these scenarios risk losing potential RTPI members who are discouraged to continue after they have completed 3 years of study or to seek professional recognition after only having a partial qualification.

2.5 There has been discussion about the possibility of a shorter undergraduate

route and the Institute is aware that some stakeholders have questioned why four years is necessary given the learning and planning content already learned in three years and the cost of fees for the full four years. Reducing the length requirement for undergraduate courses could present an opportunity to ensure potential planning professionals are not lost to other professions.

2.6 It remains the case that four year integrated MPlan or four year 3+1

qualifications will continue to require formal transfer procedures (overseen by Partnership Boards) if students wish to move between courses or the spatial undergraduate/specialist Masters route at other Planning Schools, in order to ensure that all RTPI Learning Outcomes continue to be met.

2.7 It also remains the case that students exiting after three years with a

planning qualification can apply to become Associate members of the RTPI after gaining 2 years practical experience and can then opt to undertake the Associate - APC route to Chartered Membership after a further 2 years. An alternative to reducing the length of fully accredited qualifications therefore would be to more actively promote the Associate route to undergraduate students.

Dual accredited qualifications 2.8 Comparable professional institutes offer alternatives to RTPI membership in

the UK, Ireland and internationally. Often this requires graduates to complete a single degree (at either undergraduate or postgraduate level, of varying length) and a set level of practical experience. A significant number of degrees are dual-accredited by other institutes. For example, 39 RTPI accredited courses are accredited by Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) including seven undergraduate courses fully accredited by the RICS but which are partially accredited by the RTPI as a spatial course or the first element of a 3+1 course.

14

Undergraduate numbers 2.9 The numbers of undergraduates on RTPI accredited courses in the UK fell

from 1956 in 2011 to 1524 in 2014. However, 2015-16 has seen an increase to 1714 undergraduates on RTPI accredited courses. This may indicate the beginning of an upward trend. Out of these UK undergraduates, 30% (509) are studying for the three year spatial programme. They will be required to either do a 1 year specialist masters before becoming a Licentiate (even if their undergraduate course had a specialist element) or gain two years practical experience to become an Associate member.

Fully accredited undergraduate courses in Scotland and elsewhere 2.10 Scottish students studying in Scotland can start university at the age of 17

after passing Scottish Highers exams and students at Scottish universities study for 4 years to gain an undergraduate honours degree which satisfies the RTPI’s full accreditation requirements. There are currently 2 fully accredited undergraduate courses offered by Scottish Universities. Fully accredited 4 year undergraduate courses are also offered at Dublin Institute of Technology (BSc (Hons) Spatial Planning) and the University of the West of England (BA (Hons) Architecture and Planning) and a 5 year undergraduate course is offered by the University of Botswana (Bachelor in Urban and Regional Planning with Professional Masters Degree). However the RTPI does not control differences in degree formats or credit levels that exist across the UK or international education systems.

Other qualifications 2.11 The RTPI is currently working with employers and Planning Schools to

explore the possibility of developing a degree level apprenticeship which, if taken forward would also need to meet the requirements for length and level of an RTPI accredited course.

2.12 PhDs are not currently accredited by the RTPI (although in the past the PhD

programme at University College London was accredited). The working group considered the feasibility of accrediting PhDs to facilitate an additional access point to membership. PhDs would need to regularly checked against the RTPI Learning Outcomes from proposal stage to completion, through the annual partnership board process.

15

Matters for consultation Based on the recommendations of the ELLC working group and RTPI Partnership & Accreditation Panel: 2.13 The RTPI would be minded to maintain the requirement for fully accredited

combined undergraduate degrees to be at the equivalent of a Masters degree level i.e. 4 years or equivalent in length to ensure graduates have the maturity and the breadth of knowledge required to be successful in planning practice.

2.14 The RTPI is of the view that specialism is an essential element of Initial

Planning Education and all graduates wishing to become a Licentiate member of the RTPI and take the APC route to Chartered Membership should be required to complete spatial and specialist elements.

2.15 In the interests of clarity, the RTPI will consider moving to a description of its

degree programmes as accredited but with a distinction between which degree path allows access to move towards Chartership through either the Licentiate or Associate route. This could be through the use of the terms ‘Full’ and ‘Partial’.

2.16 The RTPI is willing to consider the feasibility of accrediting PhDs. There

may be issues to consider including the diversity of research topics and what constitutes a specialism.

Q1. Do you agree that the requirement for a fully accredited combined undergraduate course is maintained at 4 years or equivalent? If not, what do you think would be an appropriate length for fully accredited undergraduate course? - 3 years undergraduate - 3 years + sandwich year? - other Q2. (for planning schools): If the length of undergraduate study changed, how would this affect your courses and your planning school? Q3. Do you support a change to terminology which would indicate which route to membership a graduate could take? This could be by identifying them as ‘fully’ or ‘partially’ accredited. Q 4. Do you think the RTPI should accredit PhD programmes? What would the benefits be for RTPI, Planning Schools and those taking PhDs?

16

3. RTPI Initial Education Learning Outcomes Background to the issues 3.1 The RTPI Learning Outcomes as listed in chapters 6 and 7 of the RTPI

Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education provide a framework upon which Planning Schools can develop programmes that address the principles and issues related to planning, rather than teaching specific sets of knowledge and skills appropriate to a particular planning system or jurisdiction. It is therefore important that the RTPI Learning Outcomes continue to reflect the expectations for a graduate entering the planning profession in the UK or internationally.

3.2 The aim is for universities to use these learning outcomes to facilitate course

design whilst allowing flexibility to deliver specialist study. They should be able to be easily identified and monitored by members of RTPI Partnership Boards and Accreditation Boards with responsibility for accrediting courses.

Current Learning Outcomes 3.3 The current 19 RTPI Learning Outcomes (13 spatial, and 6 specialist) that

a fully accredited – Combined – planning degree must meet are listed in full in the RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. A spatial course will only meet the 13 core spatial Learning Outcomes while a specialist course will meet the 6 specialist Learning Outcomes as well as up to 4 ‘bespoke’ Learning Outcomes reflecting the nature of the specialism. Below is a list showing a summary of each of the Learning Outcomes.

‘Spatial’ 1. Spatial planning knowledge within the context of institutional and legal

frameworks

2. Substantiated responses to spatial planning challenges

3. Spatial planning theory and assessment / lessons learnt from different

contexts and scales

4. Efficient resource management

5. Political and ethical nature of spatial planning and decision-making

6. Built and natural environments and implications of climate change

7. Concept of rights and representation in the planning process

8. Development strategies and development finance; including added

value for the community

9. Principles of equality and equality of opportunity, and importance of

community engagement

10. Principles and processes of high quality design and public realm

11. Effective research, analytical, evaluative and appraisal skills

12. Communication skills in an interdisciplinary context, negotiation,

mediation, advocacy and leadership skills

13. Professional standards of ethical behaviour, lifelong learning and

critical reflection

17

‘Specialist’ 14. Specialist planning theories and practice

15. Social, economic, environmental and political context for a chosen

area of planning specialism

16. Distinctive contribution of the specialism to the making of place and

the mediation of space

17. Relationships between spatial planning contexts and specialist areas

of expertise

18. Specialist skills and knowledge for professional practice

19. Mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change

3.4 The RTPI Learning Outcomes were last reviewed in 2010/11 and as a result

of this review the number of spatial Learning Outcomes was reduced from 17 to 13 and included specific references to Climate Change.

Other drivers 3.5 The RTPI has recently contributed to the review of the Quality Assurance

Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Subject Benchmark for Town and Country Planning alongside senior university representatives. The process was chaired by Professor Georgia Butina Watson from Oxford Brookes University. This benchmark sets out the expectation for providers of UK higher education, predominantly at undergraduate level. The majority of the RTPI Learning Outcomes are also part of the threshold standard for the Subject Benchmark. However the RTPI Learning Outcomes have more emphasis on resource management, climate change and design.

3.6 As part of the UK government Built Environment Professional Education

(BEPE) action plan, the RTPI committed to review whether its Learning Outcomes ensure that planning graduates are taught at a sufficient level about inclusive planning.

Usage 3.7 All RTPI Learning Outcomes are tested by the Accreditation Board or

Partnership Board via a matrix to ensure each Learning Outcome is Introduced, Consolidated and Assessed in at least one teaching module. Universities are expected to provide commentary on how each Learning Outcome is met in a course. There is no guidance on the extent of this commentary and it varies between Planning Schools.

3.8 By reducing the number of Learning Outcomes, it may prove to be easier for

Planning Schools to demonstrate how they are meeting the Learning Outcomes on different modules and for where they are met to be better understood by Partnership Boards.

18

Matters for consultation N.B. There would be a transition period and support for universities if any

changes were introduced. It is not the intention of this review to increase the number of learning outcomes.

Based on the recommendations of the ELLC working group and RTPI Partnership & Accreditation Panel: 3.9 The RTPI considers its Learning Outcomes are generally fit for purpose but

could benefit from a light touch review and be focused further by merging and updating.

3.10 It is proposed that the spatial learning outcomes are updated with greater

emphasis on integration and the role planners play in bringing multidisciplinary practices together and on communication skills, health and inclusive planning, planning and the market economy.

3.11 It is proposed that the specialist Learning Outcomes are merged and

outcomes 14 (theory and practice), 16 (contribution to place-making), and 19

(climate change) are retained. The group suggested that these merged

specialist Learning Outcomes could be used for both standalone specialist

courses and combined courses.

3.12 It is proposed that planning project work at a variety of spatial scales should

be throughout the learning outcomes. Therefore outcome 18, which focuses

on practical experience, could be incorporated across the Learning

Outcomes. This could be delivered through work experience, internships or

sandwich years.

Q5 Do you agree that the spatial Learning Outcomes are generally fit for purpose but would benefit from light touch revision? Are there any particular learning outcomes that you would revise or remove? Q6. Do you agree that the specialist Learning Outcomes can be merged? Q7. How can we be sure that students graduating from accredited programmes can handle the integration and alignment of planning issues in policy and practice settings? Q8. Do you agree that practical experience should be integral to all Learning Outcomes? How can this be achieved?

19

4. RTPI Effective Planning School Criteria Background to the issue 4.1 The eight Effective Planning School criteria are listed in chapter 4 of the

RTPI Policy Statement on Initial Planning Education. Planning Schools are required to demonstrate that they are an Effective Planning School when they first apply to have a course(s) accredited by the RTPI and at each Partnership Board. In summary the criteria are:

Clear Planning Focus; how students are encouraged to develop critical

thinking about planning issues and are prepared to enter the profession.

Institutional Support; there are appropriate arrangements for

management, monitoring and review of RTPI accredited courses and

that the school has capacity to deliver the programmes.

Achievements; the school contributes to planning research, and practice.

Stakeholder Involvement; to demonstrate links with planning practice

and practitioners in related fields.

Professional Involvement; links to the RTPI including the number of

members and other involvement with the institute.

External Examiners; appropriate quality assurance and that at least one

is a Chartered Town Planner.

Resources; sufficient academic and support staff ratio per students, and

teaching accommodation.

Equality and Diversity; the planning school seeks to achieve diversity of

student intake and programmes reflect diversity of communities

4.2 The aims of the Effective Planning School Criteria are to ensure that accredited planning courses are delivered by institutions which have a flourishing academic community, good links to practice and strong support for the discipline.

4.3 We wish to ensure that the criteria remain user friendly and up-to-date given

the changes taking place in Higher Education and the aims of the RTPI to grow internationally.

Matters for consultation 4.4 Based on the recommendations of the ELLC working group and the RTPI

Partnership & Accreditation Panel, the RTPI proposes merging the Effective Planning School criteria into 4 criteria and updating the descriptors to reflect the changing nature of Initial Planning Education as follows.

20

Clear Planning Focus (including Stakeholder Involvement, Professional Involvement and Achievements) 4.5 The location of Planning Schools and courses within university structures and

departments has changed and there is increasing multidisciplinary teaching and module sharing. It has been suggested that this makes it harder for Planning Schools to demonstrate a clear planning focus. There is also a concern around the falling number of academics who are Chartered Town Planners.

4.6 Clear Planning Focus can be demonstrated through stakeholder involvement,

professional involvement and through achievements in research and practice. These criteria require Planning Schools to demonstrate their links to practice and specifically to the RTPI. It is proposed that these criteria therefore are merged.

4.7 It is proposed that the merged criteria are written to reflect the changes to

planning schools and also to ensure that each school demonstrates how it ensures the leadership and delivery of initial planning education involves those with knowledge, membership and understanding of the profession and knowledge, and understanding of spatial planning policy and practice.

4.8 The RTPI’s preliminary view is that this is preferable to setting a quota or

target for the proportion/numbers of staff (including part time and adjunct staff) who are Chartered Town Planners. It is also important that the leadership of the academic unit responsible for delivering planning education is significantly involved in the leadership and management of the Faculty unit to which it reports.

Indicators 4.9 This criterion could be demonstrated by a clear Statement of Education

Philosophy, research activity, regular links between research and practice, a head of school who is a Chartered Town Planner, direct links to RTPI Nations and English regions, involvement of practitioners in teaching and research.

Quality Assurance (including External Examiners) 4.10 Not all of the courses the RTPI accredits are at UK based institutions, and

external examiners are not always present at international schools. It is proposed that this criterion is broadened to include all quality assurance methods, including external examiners (where appropriate), in order to encourage the use of external measures such as national or institutional surveys of student experience.

Indicators

4.11 This criterion could be demonstrated through external examiners reports,

samples of students work, student surveys and other external accreditation.

21

Institutional Support and Resources 4.12 Planning Schools need to demonstrate that they have adequate support from

the university and have the staffing and other resources needed to deliver successful planning courses. It is proposed that these criteria are merged.

Indicators

4.13 This criterion could be demonstrated by having a core recognisable planning

team, university commitment to support the course(s), sufficient teaching and student space, sufficient resources in both its library and for online teaching and research.

Equality and Diversity 4.14 Planning Schools need to ensure equal access to their courses and a

diversity of student intake. This criterion is likely to be largely fit for purpose although may need slight rewording to have a greater focus on inclusivity. The RTPI will not accredit planning schools where student intake is restricted e.g. by gender or faith group.

Indicators

4.15 This criterion can be demonstrated by the policies that universities have in

place to ensure equal access to the course, widening participation schemes, and support to integrate international students.

. Q9. Do you agree that the Effective Planning School criteria should be merged and revised into four categories to reflect the changing nature of planning schools? Q10. What indicators should be used by Partnership Boards/Accreditation Boards scrutinizing these criteria?