A lesson from the British Polytechnics for American Community Colleges

Community College Review, Fall, 2001 by Cynthia V.L. Ward

Currently, further education serves 4.5 million students, as compared with 1.5 million students in the universities. With the present emphasis of the British government on workforce development, the further education sector is expected to continue to grow at a much faster rate than the universities (Linden, 1998). Additional growth in the further education sector could diminish the funding available for the university sector, which receives about 70% of its funding from the government (Edwards, 1997) and which already considers itself to be seriously underfunded.

The effects on the former polytechnics, resulting from the change of name and status, have been considerable and not totally beneficial. Being released from dependency on the local educational authorities was a desired end, but this control was replaced by substantial oversight by the central government of the entire university sector. Through a combination of fiscal requirements and assessment tools, the government has placed severe restrictions on universities, including enrollment levels by program, program offerings, fundable research interests, and faculty employment conditions. As a result, much of the autonomy the polytechnics were seeking has been lost not only to them but also to the more established universities.

In becoming universities, the expectations for the polytechnics expanded. They are expected to look and to act more like traditional universities. Their graduates and faculty are expected to perform equally well by program as those of other universities; their faculty members are expected to engage in productive research; and their efforts to secure external funding are expected to be successful. Because the polytechnics had always been primarily teaching institutions, the requirements to compete in both the research and fundraising arenas have created stress.

This stress level is heightened by the annual public disclosure of university rankings. Based on information available, but not published as such, from the Higher Education Statistical Agency, the major daily London newspapers, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent, assemble and analyze data on selected sets of performance indicators for all universities. Each year the top places in the rankings go to the well-established universities, with Cambridge, Oxford and parts of the University of London vying for the apex. Out of the 97 British universities compared in The Times Good University Guide 2002 (The Times, 2001) the highest rank for a new (post-1992) university was 48th place, which went to the only new university to break into the top fifty. The rest of the most recent university group placed in positions from 54th to 97th. These types of comparisons based on a series of performance indicators raise issues, many of which are germane to the role and mission of the institution. Some of the indicators used in the rankings, such as entry standards, research funding, and staff-student ratios, will make it difficult in the near future for the former polytechnics to improve their standings. Others, such as teaching quality and placement of graduates, are more compatible with their strengths but alone are not sufficient to raise their rankings significantly.