The new Center for Teaching and Learning is a plan where I have no specific expertise, and that until recently I lacked the context to understand. However, I recalled the "Breaks and Cakes" sessions last year, where staff expressed worries about the plan, primarily due to a lack of clarity and involvement, both personal and of their management.

When I saw that staff members were starting to get involved, I was genuinely pleased and decided to follow up to see what impact this was having on them. This short intervention is the result of what I learned from those recent conversations.

First, from what I gathered, the plan itself has a lot of merit. There is a general consensus among the staff I spoke with that establishing the CTL is a good move, and they see many opportunities in it. By consolidating support units under one center, we can clarify roles and responsibilities, and streamline operations, making our educational support more efficient.

The proposed governance structure, which includes a director, a head, and an academic lead, ensures a dedicated leadership for both educational innovation and research. This addresses a common challenge faced by other institutions where a single part-time director struggles to manage all areas effectively.

Additionally, establishing the CTL brings financial benefits, allowing us to access funding from the Ministry of Education, which would otherwise be unavailable. This funding will support collaborations with education researchers and enhance our ability to innovate in education.

We should make sure that the academic lead is chosen as early as possible (if this has not already happened) and that they help shape the vision as experts in the field. An invested leader would make the center stronger and will have the drive to execute a plan that they are aligned with from the beginning.

Another important point of attention concerns the rest of the staff. The people I spoke with are still feeling unheard and show lack of clarity on what is going to happen. Note that none of them seem opposed to the reorganization; in fact, many welcome the idea of reducing hierarchical layers, but lack clarity on what this reorganization means. For instance, will their tasks or salary scales be affected? I know for the O&O committee meeting that this is not going to be the case, but these are practical questions that so far seem unanswered to them.

Currently, those staff members feel that the only communication with them comes in the form of Q&A sessions, which largely feel to them like box-checking exercises. They feel they are being talked to rather than with, and that their knowledge and expertise are not valued in designing what makes sense and what could be detrimental in implementing the plan. This is contributing to a sense of exclusion and mistrust, which, in the long run, can lead to lower morale and even hinder the successful implementation. I strongly recommend actively involving staff members at all levels, making them real participants and giving them agency on how to shape the plan.

This loss of communication in intermediate layers seems to be a common theme in our processes, but we know it doesn’t have to be. Since there are plans to involve the staff already, let’s make sure their involvement is active and that they can be part of the compromises that will necessarily be there.

Finally, there is concern that placing the CTL within University Services, alongside the policy department, could make it perceived by faculty members as a "controlling" tool rather than a supportive one.

For professional development to work, lecturers need to be vulnerable about their struggles and able to engage with our education experts. If they see the CTL as an extension of the policy department, there to assess or monitor them instead of supporting them, that trust evaporates. There is a fear that services will simply decide on new trends or mandates and throw the CTL over the fence to implement their plans without discussing whether those ideas are pedagogically sound. I know that this is not what we want, and think that we can minimize this risk by ensuring roles and responsibilities are clear, perhaps by having a direct line of exchange between relevant offices that is truly two-way by design, and leaving clear agency to the CTL to steer this.

To conclude, the discussions I had suggested that we are going in the right direction, although the journey is slightly off track. I know that the board is already aligned with many of these recommendations, but I think it is important to state them clearly and reinforce the message.