A lesson from the British Polytechnics for American Community Colleges

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

When aspiring to become universities, the British polytechnics envisioned more funding and greater autonomy over the expenditure of those funds, but neither came with university status. In fact, due to the competitive processes used to fund British universities, the newer universities are at a distinct disadvantage as compared to established universities. In addition, with a downturn in the British economy, no end appears to be in sight for the financial plight of the universities, new and old.

The economic future for American higher education is not as bright as it has been in recent years either. The national economy has softened and so have the prospects for increased public funding for higher education. As funds become tighter, public institutions will resort to the options used in the past to meet shortfalls, such as leaving vacant positions unfilled, reducing salary raises, cutting programs, accepting fewer students, and raising tuition (Hebel & Selingo, 2001). The most vulnerable programs will be those for which the costs are high, the enrollments are low, and the links to the institutional mission are weak.

As the British polytechnic experience illustrates, institutions with well-defined, clearly understood missions have an advantage. In difficult financial times, the same is true for institutions that deliver high value at a reasonable cost. Community colleges offering two-year programs in liberal education and occupational training meet both of these criteria.

Faculty

Faculty are the heart and soul of every educational institution. The selection, development, and retention of those responsible for delivering the instructional program are among the most important decisions collegiate administrators must make. As an expenditure, faculty also constitute the largest single item in the budget. The expectation, and often an accreditation requirement, for faculty at baccalaureate-granting institutions is to have a terminal degree in their field, whereas, at community colleges the master's degree is usually considered to be the basic degree faculty must hold (Cohen & Brawer, 1994). For community colleges interested in offering four-year degrees, faculty with appropriate credentials must be secured and retained.

In British universities, faculty credentials are less of an issue. The thinking is that if a person can do the job, lacking a degree should not be a prohibiting factor. As a result, faculty members without doctorates were teaching in universities long before the latest group of new universities was established.

The expectations held for faculty responsibilities also differ by type of institution in the United States. For community colleges, the emphasis has always been on teaching; faculty are hired and promoted based on their ability to work well with students. Faculty advancement at four-year colleges and universities requires not only acceptable teaching, but also the production of recognized scholarly work. Scholarship, though undertaken by some community college faculty and advocated by those promoting greater academic rigor for community colleges (Vaughan, 1992), has not been highly placed on the agenda for most community colleges. In fact, many community college administrators view scholarship as a drain on faculty time. However, movement into the realm of baccalaureate degree status will be accompanied by the expectation that faculty will be actively engaged in scholarship and research. An inviting research environment requires dedicated time for faculty, support personnel, proper facilities, equipment and supplies, and expanded library holdings, all of which contribute to increased costs. Because community college faculties are burdened with heavy teaching loads and because the infrastructure for supporting scholarship and research at community colleges is often inadequate, the competition between community colleges and four-year colleges and universities for external research funding will not be a fair contest.