The following narrative is a summary of an interview with Sally Brown and Phil Race in 2025.
How did the PGCert start in the UK?
Phil Race:
I initiated the second PGCert programme in the country at Glamorgan in Wales, after the first was established under Phyllis Crème at the University of North London, then known as the Polytechnic of North London. At the time, there were a handful of others at Edinburgh and Robert Gordon Polytechnics, along with a few more in England, including Newcastle Polytechnic and the University of Surrey.
Sally Brown:
The development of the Postgraduate Certificate (PGCert) in the UK was significantly influenced by the Dearing Report in 1997, which urged all UK universities to develop staff training in teaching.
As part of this movement, Phil initiated the second PGCert programme in the country at Glamorgan in Wales, following the first at the University of North London.
When I worked on the Postgraduate Certificate at Northumbria University around 1980, there were only about half a dozen courses in existence. By the time I left in 2000, the number had grown to around 60, demonstrating a clear national trend towards embracing PGCert provision. A few years later, this number had doubled to roughly 120, meaning most universities were offering such programmes.
The major expansion of PGCert provision was strongly driven by the Dearing Report, which encouraged universities to prioritise teaching development. During this period of transformation, Carole and David Baume were instrumental in advocating for accreditation systems that recognised not only qualifications but also core educational values. This approach differed from traditional Master’s programmes in education by focusing more on practical and values-driven aspects of educational development.
My later role at the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE), established as a result of the Dearing Report (and later evolving into the Higher Education Academy and then Advance HE), involved foundational work in developing membership structures, publications, and particularly accreditation systems, overseen by my colleague Caroline Bucklow. This phase marked a significant expansion and standardisation of PGCert programmes across the UK.
Rigorous accreditation processes developed by organisations such as SEDA (initially) and ILTHE/Advance HE (later) helped to strengthen the PGCert offer. Some universities opted for dual accreditation by both bodies, valuing the ongoing professional development requirements associated with SEDA.
What has been the impact of the PGCert?
Phil Race:
Reflecting on the impact of the PGCert, it is clear that it has been profound and far-reaching, particularly following the Dearing Report. This governmental emphasis on valuing teaching coincided with the introduction of university tuition fees, leading to increased expectations that educators should be properly trained. During this period, the argument that formal training and qualifications were necessary for teaching at any level became increasingly prominent.
The establishment of PGCert programmes was a direct response to these changes, helping to ensure that teaching in higher education was recognised as a professional practice requiring structured development and formal recognition. Other countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, were developing along similar lines during this period.
The impact extended well beyond compliance with new standards. There was a significant growth in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Those involved in leading PGCert programmes often engaged in both formal and informal research, particularly in areas such as assessment and peer learning. This contributed greatly to the field and had global influence on educational practice.
For example, work at Northumbria by Liz McDowell and Kay Sambell led to the establishment of a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning focused on assessment for learning (AfL), which has had international impact. Similarly, Graham Gibbs’ earlier initiatives on teaching large groups and enhancing teaching practice across universities had considerable reach and influence.
The growth of educational development units within universities has also been notable, with PGCerts forming a core part of staff development provision. However, despite their importance, these units have often been vulnerable during financial cutbacks, sometimes being viewed as expendable. Nevertheless, the influence of PGCerts remains significant, both within the UK and internationally, particularly in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong, where there are strong traditions of educational development.
What are the current challenges and threats to the PGCert programme?
Sally Brown:
Reflecting on current challenges, I am genuinely disheartened to see some universities, which once offered strong PGCert programmes, now abandoning them. In some cases, these are being replaced by mentoring schemes leading to Advance HE Fellowships. In my view, this does not provide the same level of structured development or support.
This shift is concerning because mentoring, often carried out by staff who may not prioritise teaching and learning, can become focused on simply meeting fellowship criteria rather than fostering genuine professional development.
Phil Race:
The pandemic significantly compounded these challenges by removing the rich, face-to-face, interactive environments that PGCert programmes traditionally offered. The shift towards shorter, predominantly online formats has, in my view, weakened the collaborative and interdisciplinary learning that has always been a key strength of these programmes.
Although there has been a growth in specialised webinars and training offered by professional bodies, these cannot replace the depth and sustained engagement provided by extended, taught PGCert programmes.
Sally Brown:
Assessment has always been a challenge within PGCerts. I remember marking large, cumbersome paper portfolios, which took many hours. We often relied on mapping and sampling against learning outcomes rather than reading every page—an approach that was not always well received by participants.
My advice to current PGCert designers is to integrate assessment more closely with learning, focusing on dialogic and authentic approaches, rather than treating assessment as an add-on or formality.
What is the future of the PGCert?
Sally Brown:
Looking ahead, I have mixed feelings about the future of PGCert programmes. In the past, there was strong enthusiasm for enhancing the quality of teaching and learning, but I now see increasing fragmentation and a loss of focus within the academic community. Competing pressures are pulling institutions in different directions, often away from core educational priorities.
Globally, there are contrasting approaches to the value placed on PGCert-type provision. In countries such as Australia, Ireland, Canada, and across Scandinavia and parts of Asia (including Hong Kong and Singapore), there is strong and innovative support for educational development. These regions are maintaining both the rigour and purpose of PGCert programmes.
In contrast, in the UK, I am concerned that financial pressures and shifting institutional priorities may lead to a more fragmented system, with freelance or piecemeal training replacing coherent programmes. What is needed is a renewed commitment to systematic, well-funded educational development that can withstand both economic and institutional pressures.