Dear All,
This clearly represents an important test case and, whether we like it
or not, tests the integrity and quality of ILTHE - and now HEA -
approaches.
The ILTHE offered recognition, and the same level of recognition, to
staff who met its assessment requirements either through completing an
accredited course or by satisfying ILTHE assessors through the
submission of an attested portfolio. If we now um and ah about one of
those routes our (thus - either - qualified) colleagues would be right
to say that either they were taken for a ride or that those
professionals running the ILTHE did not know what they were talking
about.
I think, for the greater part, those colleagues did know what they were
talking about, although, personally, I always considered the individual
route to be a simple joke and wide open to abuse. Equally, though, the
teaching assessments of those completing accredited courses was also -
very often - very weak (relying on a few observations).
I would argue that we are bound to accept registered status acquired by
either route for to question one route would open up the whole issue of
ILTHE judgement and thus question the accredited course route too.
The HEA appears to have entirely lost the plot on teacher preparation
and certification - or, perhaps, entirely lost interest might be the
more appropriate description. We need therefore to hold as much as
possible to the ILTHE values - even if some of them were a bit weaker
than others (as if any system was fully comprehensive and secure!).
Yours
Andrew Morgan
-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cheryl-Anne Vass
Sent: 25 August 2006 15:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HEA registered practitioner status as exemption from
programme
Equally, does good teaching necessarily require a knowledge of pedagogy?
Probably not.
Cheryl-Anne
Senior Lecturer in Management @ LSBU
-----Original Message-----
From: Online forum for SEDA, the Staff & Educational Development
Association
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Professor Phil Race
Sent: 25 August 2006 15:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: HEA registered practitioner status as exemption from
programme
As a former Accreditor with the late lamented ILTHE, I don't actually
think
gaining Registered Practitioner status is quite the same as having
successfully completed an accredited programme. One does not really know
whether the Registered Practitioner status will continue for much longer
through the HEA - I get conflicting accounts from those who know more
about
this. It's back to that assessment conundrum - is writing well about
good
teaching/learning/assessment practice to be taken as evidence of good
teaching/learning/assessment practice? Not entirely.
Phil
> Apologies if you've already got this message through another jiscmail
> list
>
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> At Middlesex, we have a number of categories of new teaching staff
> that are exempted from taking the normally mandatory PGCert HE. These
> include, for example, people that have previously acquired a similar
> SEDA/ILTHE/HEA accredited qualification or one of the other
> professional qualifications recognised by HEA.
>
>
>
> At present we don't have a clear policy about how to respond to people
> who have acquired HEA registered status through the individual route -
> should such people be exempted from the PGCertHE? We are currently
> discussing this issue with a view to clarifying policy.
>
>
>
> I'd be very interested to hear from colleagues on the list:
>
> - any views you have about this question, and
>
> - what policy other institutions have on the matter
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Barry
>
>
>
> Professor Barry Jackson
>
> Pro Vice-Chancellor and Director of Learning & Teaching
>
> Middlesex University
>
> North London Business Park |Oakleigh Road South | London N11 1QS
>
>
>
> tel. +44 (0)20 8411 5018
>
>
>
>
|