Response from Phil Ker to Linda Robertson

>>> Phil Ker 13/03/2008 10:46 a.m. >>>
Hi Linda,

Thank you very much for this thoughtful feedback - very much appreciated. As is my practice, I would like to take the time to respond to some of your points, and to your recommendations.

First up, I am a little mystified by your interpretation that the strategy is based on an assumption of inadequate teaching. Nowhere is that mentioned, and indeed, if there are some basic assumptions they are twofold: our leadership of teaching and learning (including my own) has not been as focused as it could have been, and we have not been consistent in our application of strategies which are known to impact positively on teaching and learning, and ultimately student success. Also, the specific point is made that the strategy is not about focusing on the weaker programmes - it is about lifting our game generally, and doing what we do well more widely and more consistently. Thus, the strategy is consciously about targeting the whole Polytechnic.

Further, the recent changes we have made - and there are many - have not failed. Rather, they have not been applied consistently. There is no intention to make further changes, and certainly not to abandon what we have put in place. Rather, to be resolute about following through on what we have put in place already. This is a matter of leadership - at all levels.

You challenge the issue of having HoDs entirely involved in teaching practices. I must disagree with you here. The literature is persuasive that this is a key factor in improving the quality of teaching and learning. That is not to deny the leadership that must also come from our best teaching practitioners - and that is also explicitly recognised in the strategy. I agree with you wholeheartedly in your comments about the role of professional development, and the desirability of improvements in teaching originating from the individual teacher. This is very much encouraged in how we now operate. But the truth is, we have significant areas of the Polytechnic where our teachers need to lift their game, and have not responded to our current ground up approach. So - it is intentional that the strategy will call some people to account, and in that senses is prescriptive. No apologies for that at all. But please put this in perspective. The strategy is also affirming of the many, many areas of good practice, and seeks to identify and promulgate that good practice. The strategy does not intend to alienate good staff, and having reread the strategy many times I think that good staff would have to choose to be alienated. That would be a pity because we have done so much to affirm and celebrate good teaching, and we need the grass roots leadership of all of our many good teachers. But let's not be blinded to the fact that some of staff do let us down!

Turning now to your proposals:
1. It is intended that current structures are used. This strategy does not require any changes in programmes or by individual teachers where good practice is the current norm.

2. I absolutely agree that more attention must be paid to new lecturers. Heather Day is already working on changes, but there is much more that we can do - and will do.

3. I fully support action research approaches to improving teaching practice. The new "Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund" explicitly encourages this. I hope to see staff like yourself submitting proposals to access this fund.

4. I fully endorse that HoS/HoPs need to ensure that staff have goals relating to teaching practice in their IDPs.