REWARDING TEACHING
NATFHE GUIDANCE
Contents
Page No.
Preamble………………………………………………………
3
Introduction……………………………………………………
5
Background
Funding Councils………………………………………………
6
White Paper…………………………………………………….
7
Institutions………………………………………………………
9
Supporting & Rewarding Teaching
Purpose of Rewarding Teaching……………………………
10
National Framework…………………………………………..
11
Equality Issues………………………………………………….
12
What NATFHE would like to see rewarded……………….
13
Gathering & Assessing Evidence……………………………
15
Peer Review……………………………………………………..
17
Form and Level of Reward……………………………………
18
Teaching Only………………………………………………….
20
Available Funding & Relative Impact………………………
21
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
2
SUPPORTING AND REWARDING TEACHING:
NATFHE guidance
March 2003
It is clear, following the publication in January 2003 of the government’s White Paper
“The Future of Higher Education”, that both at national and institutional level NATFHE
will need to engage in debate, consultation and negotiation with both funders and
employers over issues to do with the resourcing and recognition of learning and
teaching. This document is intended to provide the parameters and guidance for
those discussions. It has been developed following extensive consultation with
members and branches, and through our national advisory and executive structure.
The approaches considered in this document are predicated on the need for the full
involvement of practitioners, of peer ownership and of the need to address the
fundamental problems within the sector on pay. It is clear that tackling issues to do
with the balance of esteem between research and teaching, and ensuring that career
and reward structures adequately recognise the role of teaching and learning
support, cannot substitute for the urgent need substantially to improve general
salary levels in higher education. The academic community will insist that this issue
be addressed as a priority:

The necessary foundation for the development of more effective recognition
and reward for teaching in higher education is that a general and substantial
uplift in base salaries be achieved. This will provide the basis on which
specific facets of the academic role can be considered.
For teaching to have any real parity of esteem there must be the following elements
in any overall national strategy for rewarding teaching –and for these aspirations to
be met there must be an increase in available funding:

Salary levels that adequately reward both teaching and research focused
activity, and recognize commitment to professional development both in
research and in learning and teaching

Resourced time off and facilities for scholarship, for staff development and
for recognised teaching development and leadership roles;

An increase in teaching-focused promotions, so that a career structure is
created in practice (rather than in theory) which recognises and values the
role of teaching in HE, to the same extent as the role of research,
management and administration
On this basis:

NATFHE wants to see a scholarly approach to teaching recognised, and
facilitated, by the provision of sufficient time and resources to enable
teaching-related scholarship, sharing of practice and student-centred
teaching to take place [Recommendation 1]

Increasing the esteem for teaching in higher education should be managed by
promoting effective synergy between research and teaching, and not by
separating the two activities. This principle should include the ways in which
funding mechanisms operate [Recommendation 2]

Recognition and reward for teaching must be offered on the basis of equality
of treatment for all staff, and equality of access for part-time and full-time
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
3
staff to activities and development opportunities. One of the core principles
for the evaluation of teaching-related activities should be the extent to which
they offer equality of access to all students and curricula that reflect the
diversity of the student body. [Recommendation 3]

A national framework should be developed that sets parameters for forms of
recognition and reward. In particular, national agreement should be reached
between employer representatives and academic unions to ensure that career
recognition for teaching-related activities is portable between institutions and
will be meaningful for those academics seeking to build their CVs in this way
[Recommendation 4]

Any salary–based rewards should not be offered on a divisive, performancerelated pay basis and must not undermine existing entitlements such as
incremental progression [Recommendation 5]

An increase in the scope for recognising teaching in the promotions process
should be achieved with maximum transparency and peer involvement
[Recommendation 6]

Any process for identifying, recording and evaluating teaching and teachingrelated activities should be developed with a commitment to minimal
bureaucracy and maximum scope for harmonisation with other procedures
such as professional development and professional body membership
requirements. [Recommendation 7}

Whilst NATFHE wishes to explore, with others, the scope for developing a
peer-assessed approach to the recognition and evaluation of good teaching
practice, we do not wish to see any replication of those facets of the Research
Assessment Exercise that promote “old-boy networks” of peer review
[Recommendation 8]

Any recognition and reward system should facilitate the inclusion of both
individual and team-based activities and should refocus current institutional
strategies on the need to enthuse and reward the “good” as well as the
“excellent” – for instance through mechanisms to reward commitment to
effective practice through demonstrable engagement in CPD.
{Recommendation 9]

For teaching to enjoy any real parity of esteem with research, and for
initiatives in this area to reach the whole academic community, significant
additional sums of funding are needed, together with greater institutional
commitment to synchronising strategic thinking in relation to human
resource, teaching and learning and widening participation strategies.
[Recommendation 10}
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
4
INTRODUCTION
One of the strands in the current debate about HE funding is concerned with how to
enhance the quality of teaching and learning, how to recognise, reward and
disseminate good and “excellent” teaching, and how to redress the balance of
funding and esteem between research and teaching. These issues arise in part from
the recognition that in a mass higher education system with a greater diversity of
students more attention needs to be paid to teaching and learning than has
historically – in some HEIs at least – been the case.
NATFHE has been largely positive about the increased focus on teaching and learning
support, whilst nonetheless arguing for parity of access to research funds. We have
maintained a close, critical involvement with the ILT, and have added our perspective
to the debate on professional development for teaching and learning – for instance
through the Union Learning Fund research on part-time teaching and professional
development. We will seek constructive engagement with the emerging Teaching
Academy.
In relation to questions of reward for teaching, we have consistently argued that
there should be greater recognition in promotion and career development for
teaching-related activities.
This paper takes the debate about supporting and rewarding teaching further, in the
context of funding council and institutional developments. It takes into account:

The purposes of rewarding teaching

The scope for a national framework

What NATFHE would like to see rewarded

Gathering evidence

Form and level of reward

Available funding and relative impact
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
5
BACKGROUND – FUNDING COUNCILS
Early in 2002 HEFCE published details of continued funding under its Teaching
Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) for the years 2002/03 until 04/05. At the same
time it set out details of the timetable for institutions to submit their revised learning
and teaching strategies. The TQEF focus is on enhancing teaching, and has three
strands: the institutional, the subject and the individual. The institutional and the
subject strands support teaching enhancement activities, but do not directly support
individual teachers. The “individual “ strand includes both the National Teaching
Fellowship Award scheme, and the scope for institutions to use part of their TQEF
funding to implement recognition and rewards schemes for “high quality teaching”.
The amount of money available through the TQEF institutional strand is not huge. It
is allocated on a formula basis if institutions meet their obligations – for instance
with respect to the supply of learning and teaching strategies. Institutional
allocations peak at about £250,000 pa – most are considerably less than this,
although a few very large institutions get more. Only a part of this funding might be
available to reward individual members of staff. It is theoretically possible that
money for rewarding teaching might be allocated through human resources
strategies submitted to secure Rewarding and Developing Staff funds, but this has
not happened in practice:
The HEFCE Rewarding and Developing Staff in Higher Education initiative has not yet
resulted in institutions orienting their Human Resource Development approach to
any great extent “to increase the status of learning and teaching, (and) reward high
quality ..” An analysis of the (mainly ‘emerging’) HRD strategies submitted by
institutions to the HECFE in 2001 did not reveal significant evidence of reward
mechanisms for excellent teaching even where such mechanisms were already
contained in institutions’ learning and teaching strategies. At present HRD
strategies appear to be operating in parallel, rather than in synergy, with teaching
improvement strategies.”
[Executive summary, “Recognising and Rewarding Excellent teaching”, Graham Gibbs
and Trevor Habeshaw,,(Open University), 2002]
For rewards to be made available to individual members of staff on the basis of this
level of funding there would be stark choices to be made between rewarding small
numbers significantly, and rewarding larger numbers on the basis of low-cost and/or
temporary mechanisms. More significant changes to reward for larger numbers of
staff would have to come out of the general staffing budget or from allocation of
increased funding.
In Wales, although there is a similar in principle commitment to finding mechanisms
for enhancing and rewarding teaching, there is currently no equivalent to the TQEF.
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
6
BACKGROUND – THE WHITE PAPER
The White Paper “The Future of Higher Education”, published in January 2003, has a
chapter devoted to teaching in higher education. Whilst this focus in welcome in
many ways, it is important to set the rhetoric about the importance of teaching
against the funding reality. When earmarked funding is excluded from the funding
announcements in the White Paper, and the accompanying grant letter to
institutions, the unit of resource for teaching is static.
Over half the 19% total
funding increase is for research and capital, albeit partly teaching infrastructure.
Much of the remainder is earmarked – for instance for knowledge transfer, and
widening participation. The amounts for teaching are relatively small, set against the
amounts for research- for example £71M for Centres of Teaching Excellence and
Teaching Fellowships as against £270M for research.
The White Paper identifies the need for institutions to reward teachers, to develop
strategies for career development and training that value teaching and reward and
promote individual teachers. Although the proposals talk about recognising good,
commended and excellent levels of teaching practice, there is a very heavy emphasis
on rewarding the “best”. Whilst NATFHE agrees that excellence deserves recognition,
the main task must be to support and motivate all those who teach (and support
teaching) in HE so that the quality of the student experience is enhanced, and staff
see that teaching-related activity is a valued and integral part of successful career
progression in the sector. Indeed one of the main emphases emerging from our
consultation was on the need for resources and staffing levels that enable staff to
teach and support their students effectively. This links of course very strongly to the
widening participation agenda where there is much good practice evidence that
successful retention strategies are often intensive in terms of staff contact, feedback
and support
- particularly in the first year. Small classes for all first year
disadvantaged students will have much more impact than a tiny number of staff
being awarded “centre of excellence” funding.
An approach evident in some of the proposals relating to rewarding teaching, that
we regard as fundamentally misguided, is to try and fund teaching on a research
model. It may be appropriate in research to identify where the best research is
taking place and then to channel further funding its way, on the basis that the same
kind and level of research does not have to take place in every institution. This is not
true of teaching, where every student deserves the same benchmark quality. There is
little evidence that funding “star” teachers, or departments, will do much to
disseminate good practice. Staff do not need more examples, to which to aspire.
They need resources; to promote staff for teaching, create smaller classes and
reward all good teachers.
The proposal for teaching centres of excellence, whilst earmarking welcome funds
for teaching, seems to illustrate the dangers of the research funding model as
applied to teaching. There is no evidence in our view for a model of good practice
dissemination via identified “excellence”. On the other hand, as indicated earlier,
there is evidence of growing dissemination and sharing of effective teaching and
learning practices via peer networks that recognise that different strategies work in
different settings. The departmental model proposed here appears to recognise the
importance for teaching and learning development of working through the subject
and discipline dimension, but then begs the question of how such centres of
excellence would relate to the more egalitarian model provided by the LTSN subject
centres, that have worked to build up acceptance and visibility amongst academic
and related staff.
The teaching centres model works on the basis – as with research selectivity – that
excellence shall reap additional funding, with no additional resource for the “merely”
good and effective. However, unlike major research activity, teaching will and must
go on in all institutions, and all students deserve the best possible teaching
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
7
resources. It is difficult not to be cynical and see the – quite substantial – sums
(£35M by year 3) on offer here as a sop to those institutions that may just miss out
on the greater concentration of research funding. There is no doubt that resources
make a difference to what can be offered to students, and those institutions
achieving the “excellence” kite mark for their teaching departments may well already
be relatively better funded and be those charging top-up fees. NATFHE welcomes
the fact that substantial sums have been identified for this initiative but would prefer
to see the money made available for a much wider range of teaching support
activities including individual and team development and action research projects
relating to teaching and learning, and supporting diverse student needs. A strong
dissemination strategy is also essential.
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
8
BACKGROUND – INSTITUTIONS
Many institutions have taken steps to recognise and reward teaching to a greater
extent than in the past. In the main these are means of recognising teaching
“excellence” rather than general professional competence and good practice in
teaching (of which, more later), via means such as the expansion of promotion
criteria to facilitate equal weight for teaching, the creation of posts and roles
specifically focused on teaching leadership and scholarship, and teaching awards
and prizes. We have little information as to the extent of these practices. The Gibbs
and Habeshaw publication cited above says that the “proportion of institutions
including recognition and reward mechanisms in their learning and teaching
strategy increased from 12% in 1998 to 65% in 2000 and developments have been
rapid and varied.” What we don’t know is the relative numbers of individuals
achieving – for instance – teaching-weighted promotions as opposed to those
awarded in relation to research activity, or the relative value of financial rewards for
learning and teaching activities.
The ILT has provided a means whereby a large number of HEIs has supported
academic staff by paying for their membership applications, and in some cases
paying their membership subscriptions. Whether many such staff would perceive
this as a reward for their teaching is arguable. A far as we know, only one institution
directly rewards staff for ILT membership via the provision of an additional
increment. Nor do institutions cite ILT membership in their appointments criteria for
academic posts, though ILT membership will inevitably increasingly be volunteered
as evidence of commitment to teaching and learning.
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
9
SUPPORTING AND REWARDING TEACHING
THE PURPOSES OF REWARDING TEACHING
The broader funding council and institutional debate on these issues tends to stress
the recognition of teaching on a sectoral and institutional level. NATFHE has also
argued that teaching needs to enjoy “parity of esteem” with research, and we have
seen initiatives such as the development of the ILT as a means to develop a shared
understanding of the importance of teaching within HE. Similarly we have engaged
with the emerging debate over professional development for teaching and learning.
However – although these developments are welcome in terms of the student
experience and of professional esteem, and although they involve debate over levels
of resource and funding mechanisms for the system – they are not the same as the
development of mechanisms to reward and recognise individual academics and
supporters of learning.
The arguments for reward strategies focused specifically on the teaching and
support of learning element of the academic role include:

The encouragement of teaching-focused activity – in contrast to the situation
described by many academics where they might want to focus on teaching
but feel that only research or income generation is valued and will enhance
their careers;

The development of an inter-institutional career structure that recognizes the
value of teaching-related activity and facilitates both a focus on teaching and
also a more actively pursued balance between research and teaching activity
than is often currently possible.

A negotiated agreement whereby academics accept a more shared, collegial
element of professional development for teaching and learning and a
requirement for a demonstrable commitment to the scholarship of teaching
and learning and its active relationship to subject scholarship and research,
and in turn adequate teaching resources and scholarship time are made
available.

An opportunity to change the balance of resource allocation in relation to
activity and groups of staff so that – for instance – resources can be allocated
to the professional development of part-time lecturers, and to the scholarly
activity of all academics not engaged in “RAE research”;

The creation of a more teaching-focused profile for HE;

Improving the learning experience of students – as a corollary of the points
above.
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
10
A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Any approach to creating a reward system which better recognises the role of
teaching and learning in HE, will need to facilitate a balance between professional,
institutional and sector-wide demands.
Whilst we might seek straightforward
national agreement on some issues, such as the kinds of activity to be rewarded,
guidance for gathering and assessing evidence, and forms of reward, a more flexible
approach might be required in relation to the establishment of promoted posts and
the recognition of specialist roles in relation to teaching. Different institutions will
have different needs in terms of developing practice in relation to a range of subject
areas and each institution’s own history of attitudes towards teaching and research.
If new posts are created with a specific focus on certain teaching-related roles then
we might expect the requirements and level to vary. For instance, in a university
with little or no history of widening student participation, there might be a decision
to look for academic staff members who could provide a leadership role in relation to
appropriate forms of teaching and student support for a more diverse student body.
In another university where such work was well embedded the focus might well be
different.
One of the major concerns expressed by those who want to engage in teachingfocused activity is that whilst this may be valued in their current institution, it may
well lessen the impact of their CV when they look for jobs elsewhere. It is
particularly important that there is some sectoral consensus as to the value of
teaching within an academic career.
A national framework should be developed that sets parameters for forms of
recognition and reward. In particular, national agreement should be reached
between employer representatives and academic unions to ensure that career
recognition for teaching-related activities is portable between institutions and
will be meaningful for those academics seeking to build their CVs in this way
[Recommendation 4]
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
11
EQUALITY ISSUES
Another key set of issues that could be tackled by a national framework is to do with
promoting equality of opportunity, both for staff and for students. Any approach to
reward systems must consider the impact on different staff groups and must be
based on principles of equal pay and non-discriminatory systems. Transparent
criteria and a national framework will help to promote these outcomes. Arguably
women staff, who currently do progressively less well in pay and career terms as
progress is traced up the career structures, would stand to benefit from an increased
attention to the teaching and learning support role. Another group that must be
considered is that of part-time staff – especially hourly-paid part-timers. Any criteria
for reward and set of possible forms of evidence and assessment must be scrutinised
to ensure they do not unfairly exclude part-timers from opportunities to engage in
enhanced roles or to qualify for other forms of reward.
At the same time in scrutinizing teaching practices attention should be paid to the
extent to which they facilitate the involvement and inclusion of all potential groups
of students, and to which curricula are inclusive and recognise diversity.
Recognition and reward for teaching must be offered on the basis of equality of
treatment for all staff, and equality of access for part-time and full-time staff to
activities and development opportunities. One of the core principles for the
evaluation of teaching-related activities should be the extent to which they offer
equality of access to all students and curricula that reflect the diversity of the
student body. [Recommendation 3]
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
12
WHAT NATFHE WOULD LIKE TO SEE REWARDED
One of the key issues in this debate is to expand on what we want to see rewarded.
Much emphasis is placed in funding council and government debates on the need to
reward “excellence”. Excellence suggests a level of practice that is, by definition,
superior to general levels of achievement. The National Teaching Fellowship Award
scheme, and its institutional counterparts, are examples of reward strategies which
seek to identify isolated examples of unusually good or innovative or inspiring
practice, and celebrate them as part of a strategy for raising the profile of teaching
overall. However this raises questions.
Much of the enhancement of teaching and learning support which the funding
council is keen to achieve will not take place in terms of burgeoning excellence – if
that term is not to be debased - but in terms of good, committed, professional
practice. Staff should not, in general, have to compete with peers to demonstrate
distinctive levels of excellence in order to show that they have enhanced their
practice, and in order to merit some forms of reward.
Another question is whether rewards should be linked to past achievement, or to the
requirements of specific roles, or specific functions or activities, (although past
achievement may in any case be the basis for evidence required for progress into
different and/or enhanced roles). Whilst there is a place for forms of reward and
recognition which purely and simply celebrate past success, such as the institutional
teaching awards that mirror the National Teaching Fellowship Awards, NATFHE would
wish any salary-based rewards to be linked to current and future activities rather
than to past performance.
The following list suggests the kinds of activity and achievement we might want to
see rewarded, without defining the form of the reward in each case:

Competent and effective practice in relation to teaching and learning support
that could be shown by all lecturers, including hourly-paid part-time lecturers,
and that would focus on evidence of commitment to teaching and to
continuing professional development (CPD) in relation to teaching. We
should continue to argue that teaching should not be considered in isolation
from overall academic practice, and that CPD in relation to teaching and in
relation to subject scholarship must go hand in hand. Any recognition of
CPD activity should seek to harmonise with the requirements of professional
bodies to which academics belong, particularly in relation to teaching and the
support of learning within the professions

Support and leadership roles in relation to teaching – including those that
may have developed informally as well as formally. This might include
activities such as mentoring, team leading, course leading, curriculum
development, and also development in areas such as teaching students with
disabilities and the use of ICT. The support and leadership may be in work
with colleagues at subject and departmental levels, as well as in crossinstitutional roles;

Work undertaken to establish and extend synergy between research and
teaching done by individuals and teaching/research teams;

Innovative practice which can be disseminated and shared with colleagues
and the broader subject communities – for instance in terms of developments
which support diversity and widening participation;

Pedagogic scholarship and research;
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
13
The first bullet point above would provide for recognition for the way in which a role
is carried out (in terms of commitment to CPD and to the teaching role), but on a
basis which is not competitive with peers and which should be accessible to all
academics. The others are role-based – that is they seek to provide greater
recognition and reward for particular activities which in many cases currently go
unrecognised, or which reap fewer rewards that research or income generation roles.
Any framework should provide for the recognition of collaborative and team activity
and practice, as well as that of individuals.
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
14
GATHERING AND ASSESSING EVIDENCE
Whilst work has gone on at institutional level to develop examples of criteria and
evidence for teaching-focused promotion, for teaching fellowships, and for the
recognition of roles that would facilitate relief from other timetabled requirements,
these have not always involved the NATFHE branch, and we have no national
guidelines at present.
Forms of evidence that might be cited as examples within a national framework
could include:

Relevant professional body membership, particularly of professional bodies
concerned, amongst other things, with issues of teaching within HE

Personal CPD records – either those based on institutional frameworks, or
relevant professional body CPD frameworks

Student feedback where volunteered by the staff member(s) and produced
within a scheme approved by staff

Peer feedback – for instance from peer-owned and controlled observation
schemes, or from colleagues involved in team teaching or other forms of
shared teaching situations

Staff development activities, and their impact on subsequent practice

Development of new courses, curricula, and teaching methods

Examples of subject–specific teaching developments

Examples of relationships made between research and teaching

Publication in relation to teaching and learning

Experience of mentoring others in a teaching role

Examples of disseminated practice – of sharing practice and experience with
colleagues

Advanced qualifications in teaching and learning
If reward systems are to facilitate greater recognition of the teaching role through
criteria for promoted posts and specialist roles, then we also have to consider the
way in which evidence is collected, presented and assessed. Most new teachers in
higher education are now required, or encouraged, to complete institutional
programmes in teaching and learning, and within these will be encouraged to begin
compiling teaching portfolios. Practitioners who begin compiling portfolios at the
outset of their academic careers will be in a better position to provide evidence in
relation to their teaching than staff members who have years of “undocumented”
teaching experience. Institutions might need to be encouraged to provide time and
support to experienced staff members who wish to establish their own portfolios.
Whatever mechanisms were established would have to make provision for
recognising and evaluating evidence from teams and groups of staff, and for
identifying the contributions made by individuals to a range of collective teaching
and learning activities.
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
15
Where “excellence” is either being directly rewarded, or is being used as a criterion
for the award of a promoted post or specialist role, then before evidence is
considered there has to be some agreement over what constitutes excellence. Most
of us would agree, for instance, that simply being popular with students is not
necessarily evidence of excellence in teaching. Whilst a community of peer reviewers
might be one way forward (see below), there is still a need to be explicit about the
criteria employed. The National Teaching Fellowship Award Scheme has developed a
list of what it regards as characteristics of excellent teaching. Individual institutional
schemes have also developed this approach.
Whatever forms of evidence are considered, and whatever mechanisms developed for
considering and assessing such evidence, these processes lust take place with a
genuinely light touch, and be aligned as far as is possible with other existing
processes and requirements. The academic community simply will not tolerate any
further imposition of bureaucratic processes – not least given that they rapidly
degenerate into the playing of sophisticated games that detract from the very
activities they are seeking to promote (see the wide ranging criticisms of the RAE and
quality assessment processes).
Any process for identifying, recording and evaluating teaching and teachingrelated activities should be developed with a commitment to minimal
bureaucracy and maximum scope for harmonisation with other procedures such
as professional development and professional body membership requirements.
[Recommendation 7}
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
16
PEER REVIEW
In relation to promotion opportunities Gibbs and Habeshaw (“Recognising and
Rewarding Excellent Teaching”) also float the idea of establishing a community of
peer reviewers that could consider evidence of teaching practice, in the same way as
research evidence is assessed by peer panels:
Reviewers may be invited to observe teaching, see the applicant’s teaching materials
or interview the applicant, before making a judgement and passing this to the panel.
Peer reviewers can be nominated by the applicant and a sub-set of nominees selected
by the Head of Department. ….. Institutions may wish to develop a panel of trained
reviewers or at least to provide clear guidance concerning their role.”
Whilst such a suggestion may be controversial, it is one way of trying to get round
the widely expressed dissatisfaction with approaches to considerations of teaching
practice that are purely paper-based. A general move towards the greater openness
in sharing teaching and learning practice that already exists in some departments
and courses, might be the most effective way for academic and support staff to
establish professional control over understandings of competence and excellence in
such practice.
However, although academics generally accept that the outcomes of their research
are shared with their peers and commented upon by their peers – and may well
accept that teaching and learning activities could similarly be shared and considered
by appropriate peer groups – most academics would not wish to replicate the
cumbersome and problematic processes available for research assessment via the
RAE. Certainly the creation of specialist panels, setting up a group of experts sitting
in judgment upon others, would not be favoured. More fluid, local and democratic
groupings of peers, including part-time tutors and establishing a genuine age and
gender balance would be a more productive approach to sharing, commenting upon
and evaluating teaching practice within the various subject areas.
Whilst NATFHE wishes to explore, with others, the scope for developing a peerassessed approach to the recognition and evaluation of good teaching practice,
we do not wish to see any replication of those facets of the Research
Assessment Exercise that promote “old-boy networks” of peer review
[Recommendation 8]
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
17
FORM AND LEVEL OF REWARD
Not all forms of recognition and rewards are monetary. Indeed for many higher
education lecturers the most welcome provision would be the resources to enable
them to teach in ways that are optimal for their students, rather than cheapest, and
the time to engage in scholarship. In short, the resources to do the job – as they and
their peers see it – properly.
NATFHE wants to see a scholarly approach to teaching recognised, and
facilitated, by the provision of sufficient time and resources to enable teachingrelated scholarship, sharing of practice and student-centred teaching to take
place [Recommendation 1]
But there is room for a number of mechanisms – and the list below are those NATFHE
would be interested in discussing. Two further principles informing this list are first,
that systems must facilitate recognition of the collegial nature of much higher
education teaching, and the increasing use of team teaching – and second, that we
must reward good, committed practice as enthusiastically as we single out the
exceptional for particular attention:
Any recognition and reward system should facilitate the inclusion of both
individual and team-based activities and should refocus current institutional
strategies on the need to enthuse and reward the “good” as well as the
“excellent” – for instance through mechanisms to reward commitment to
effective practice through demonstrable engagement in CPD.
[Recommendation 9]
Possible mechanisms for recognizing and rewarding teaching might include:

The creation of specialist posts/part posts that would provide enhanced
salary and/or career development opportunities.
These might be, for
instance, to provide for dissemination of innovative work, and/or for the
support of work around diversity and broadening student participation, or in
pursuit of other subject or institutional priorities in relation to teaching and
learning. Such posts might be permanent or temporary opportunities for
secondment, and, where part-time, would provide time-off from other
activities. Part of their impact would be the visible esteem for teachingrelated activities;

The creation, on a similar basis to that above, of “team” specialisms, as well
as specialist role for individuals;

More recognition of teaching development and leadership roles in the
allocation of timetables – which might be of particular importance in
research-intensive departments and universities where the perception that it
is career death to spend too much time on teaching can be particularly
strong;

A shift towards an appointment and promotions structure that values
teaching as highly as research and administration. Initial appointment
criteria would give due weight to teaching, and promotions would be awarded
giving equal weight to teaching-related criteria;
The creation of specific quotas for teaching-related promotions, to avoid the
“one for teaching, twenty for research” syndrome;


The creation of teaching fellowships and professorships, as well as PL/SL
promotions, encompassing both recognition of pedagogic research and of
practice;
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
18

Equal rewards, facilities and contractual provision for part-time lecturers;

Allocation at the institutional (and possibly departmental) level of specific
scholarship funds for those not engaged in funded research and/or not
engaged in research recognised in the allocation of their teaching load. The
recent report for the HEFCE on the Teaching and Learning Infrastructure
recognises the need for this kind of funding in terms of fees for conferences,
and so on, but not in terms of the allocation of staff time. Whilst staff
engaged in recognised/funded research do not need allocated scholarship
time, teaching-focused staff do – and that should include part-time lecturers
and those lecturers teaching HE courses in FECs;

An end to the use of “research-inactive” as a negative criterion – for instance
for redundancy;

Available funds for specific teaching-related projects that might also carry
with them opportunities for publication, dissemination and publicity. Such
funds would be available to teams of staff, as well as to individuals.

Salary rewards at the “main grade” level, available on a non-competitive basis,
for agreed evidence in relation to on-going commitment to teaching and
teaching-related CPD;
However it must be clear that where salary-based rewards are offered other than on a
straightforward promotion basis – where competition and assessment of past
performance is accepted – then they must be additional to existing entitlements such
as incremental progression, and available on a non-competitive basis.
Any salary–based rewards should not be offered on a divisive, performancerelated pay basis and must not undermine existing entitlements such as
incremental progression [Recommendation 5]
It is also vital that where promotions criteria and appointment practice are revised to
take greater account of teaching-related activity, and to require greater evidence of
this, even in research-focused appointments, this must be done carefully to ensure
that all groups of staff have equal access, including part-time staff. In particular,
given the relatively undeveloped situation with regard to making judgements about
teaching activity, it is vital that there is collegial discussion and consensus sought as
to the means for recognizing teaching in the appointments and promotions
processes.
An increase in the scope for recognising teaching in the promotions process
should be achieved with maximum transparency and peer involvement
[Recommendation 6]
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
19
TEACHING-ONLY
There are other approaches to the development of teaching and teaching
enhancement that NATFHE will not wish to support. These would include any moves
towards setting up career paths that effectively separate off the “teacher” from the
“academic”, and that undermine the relationship of teaching to subject scholarship
and research. Gibbs and Habeshaw are interesting on the subject of “teaching-only”
contracts:
“Institutions have also introduced “teaching only” posts of a variety of kinds,
sometimes with the same titles (such as “Teaching Fellow”) used for rewards in other
institutions. However these almost always involve lower pay, poorer conditions of
service and fixed term contracts and therefore have much lower status. Such
teaching only posts probably achieve the opposite of what recognition and reward
schemes achieve. Academics are likely to orient their behaviour so as to avoid the
possibility of a career stuck in such inferior posts, by emphasising their research
rather than their teaching.”
Not only is it important to safeguard the interests of individual academic, but to
encourage and foster work that does establish linkages between on-going research
and a range of engagement with students, and enhances not only the learning
experience of the students but feeds back into the creative research process. For
this to have any real chance of happening other than as a marginal activity would
require a different approach to institutional funding that placed the dynamic
relationship between research, scholarship and teaching at its core, rather than
separating them out.
Increasing the esteem for teaching in higher education should be managed by
promoting effective synergy between research and teaching, and not by
separating the two activities. This principle should include the ways in which
funding mechanisms operate [Recommendation 2]
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
20
AVAILABLE FUNDING AND RELATIVE IMPACT
Were we to support a comprehensive set of reward mechanisms, based of the list
above, we would need to set some parameters in relation to the relative allocation of
available funds. At the outset we have made clear that our priority is to address
salary levels overall. Were funds then to be available to address specific issues in
relation to teaching, the emphasis must be on maximising a range of rewards for the
committed and engaged professional, measured in sufficiently challenging terms,
(the “good”), rather than for a much smaller number of star performers, (the
“excellent”).
Whilst some additional funding has been identified for the development of teaching
reward strategies the amounts are limited and have to be set in the context of an
lack of movement on overall pay levels. With relatively small sums to play with the
appeal of a small number of high profile prizes for a few “stars” is understandable.
However institutions will have to consider the potential negative impact if such a
small number of reward/career opportunities are created in relation to teaching that
the majority of academic staff simply have their sense of the teaching-research
hierarchy reinforced. For the salary levels of main grade lecturers to be improved in
recognition of their commitment to teaching, or for staffing levels to be increased so
that more scholarship time and staff development time is available for all, would
require significantly different levels of funding. Nonetheless this is what is required
if staff are not to be wholly cynical about the new-found enthusiasm of the funding
councils, the government and employer bodies for the importance of teaching and
learning in HE.
Greater synergy between HR strategies and Teaching and Learning strategies would
help to focus on the staff resources needed to deliver teaching and learning
objectives and, in particular, on the resources needed for teaching and learning
reward strategies that are widespread and embedded enough to impact on all
relevant staff.
For teaching to enjoy any real parity of esteem with research, and for initiatives
in this area to reach the whole academic community, significant additional sums
of funding are needed, together with greater institutional commitment to
synchronising strategic thinking in relation to human resource, teaching and
learning and widening participation strategies. [Recommendation 10}
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
21
NATFHE – The University & College Lecturers’ Union
The professional association and trade union for lecturers, researchers and
managers throughout adult, further and higher education
27 Britannia Street, London, WC1X 9JP
Rewarding Teaching - 2003
22