Michael S.

Lewis

The development of the

British polytechnics is
described in the context
The
of the binary structure of
higher education. They
are seen as a peculiarly
British phenomenon.
Polytechnics
The framework for their A Peculiarly British
governance, resourcing,
and maintenance of Phenomenon
academic standards is
contrasted with that
for the universities in The Binary System of Higher Education
the United Kingdom.
in the United Kingdom
The polytechnics have
become a very powerful
force in British higher
The United Kingdom has a binary system of higher
education and have
education. Academic institutions are divided into
been in the vanguard of
two main categories. One consists of forty-five
innovation, expansion,
universities, which are empowered to award degrees
and widening access. The
in their own names, function with considerable
article concludes with a
autonomy, and are not subject to external quality
section on what the
control. The second part consists of thirty-three
proposed developments
polytechnics and some fifty-three other colleges and
in the next few years
institutes of higher education in England, plus a
might bring.
smaller number of similar institutions in Scotland
and in Wales. To become a polytechnic, an institution
must be formally designated by the secretary of state
for England, Wales, or Scotland, respectively.
The polytechnics and colleges in the
non university sector received institutional autonomy
only three years ago. Their degrees are still awarded
by the Council for National Academic A wards
(CNAA) rather than by the institutions themselves.
That is why in Great Britain one often refers to
degree-granting and nondeg!ee-granting institutions,
a technical distinction which at times confuses
American observers.
Until recently, the nonuniversity sector further
differed by being maintained by local government.
By contrast, the universities receive their operating
funds through a central agency, for many years the
University Grants Committee (UGC) and, more
recently, the reconstituted University Funding
Council (UFC). As further described below, a national
Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC)
was only established in 1989.
 Lewis 25

The polytechnics in the United Kingdom form a diverse group of

institutions that have much in common with the universities. But the
polytechnics have a distinctive ethos with rather differently focused aims,
satisfying a broader range of students' needs, and having, in the main, a
different historical context. In trying to define what makes a polytechnic
different from a traditional university and the polytechnic mission
distinctive, there is a danger of looking for differences that may be more
imagined than real, and of falling back on generalizations to provide
convenient pegs. Nevertheless, the following can be considered as the
common features characterizing the mission of the polytechnics:

• Teaching rather than research is the main function.

• Access is a prime consideration.
• Aptitude for higher education is a more important criterion for
admission than formal entry requirements.
• Underprivileged and underrepresented segments of society are
encouraged to benefit from higher education through the polytechnics.
• Strong links are fostered with local and regional communities, with
industry, commerce, the professions, and the public services.
• Subjects and programs are closely related to the world of work.
• Great importance is attached to the validation and monitoring of
academic standards.
• Part-time students form a significant proportion of enrollments.
• A substantial proportion of enrollments are in programs leading to a
diploma rather than to a full-fledged degree.

The polytechnics are justifiably proud of the particular contribution

they are making, collectively and individually, to higher education in
the UK.

The History of Polytechnics

Polytechnics, in their current form, are quite young institutions. The
first polytechnics were designated at the end of 1969, the majority in 1970,
and the last of the first thirty in 1973. But their origins go back to the first
half of the last century, arising out of the movement to provide education
for those who had missed the opportunity and for those who wanted to
improve their situation by study, usually in their own time. For example,
the Royal Polytechnical Institute founded last century was to become
internationally renowned as the Regent Street Polytechnic. It is now the
Polytechnic of Central London and plans to become the University of
Westminster.
By the 1930s, a number of colleges throughout Great Britain were
offering programs ranging from craft and technician preparation to
postgraduate and doctoral levels. Study was often in a part-time mode,
but by no means exclusively so. At first-degree level, i.e., what in the
United States would be called a baccalaureate degree, the programs led to
the award of external degrees usually granted by the University of
London, and many of their staff became recognized faculty members of
26 Metropolitan Universities/Spring 1992

that institution. Qualifications provided by these colleges were recognized

by professional bodies in areas such as architecture, law, planning, all
branches of engineering, navigation and maritime studies, and pharmacy,
to cite but a few.
These various colleges constituted what was collectively referred to
as the system of "technical education." After World War II, a Committee
on Higher Education chaired by Lord Robbins recommended that part of
this sector, the Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs), be transferred
to the university sector. In some cases it was a moot point as to which
institution would become a CAT and then a university of technology, and
which would not. The Robbins report established a number of basic
principles that have governed access to higher education in the UK ever
since. Chief among these is the statement that higher education would be
available to all who were properly qualified to enter it and who wished to
do so. That statement was later qualified by the rider " ... and who will
benefit therefrom."
In 1966 the government published a white paper entitled A Plan for
Polytechnics and Other Colleges . The white paper endorsed the two-fold
policy that local rather than national financing should support a major
part of higher education, and that indeed the principal further growth of
higher education should be through the development of the polytechnic
sector. The report recommended the development of institutions that
were to be:

• comprehensive academic communities catering to students at all levels

of higher education;
• major centers of higher education, which, though carrying the generic
term of polytechnics, would not be prevented from using their existing
or other titles;
• institutions with long-range plans for growth to at least 2,000 full-time
students plus part-time students from the areas they served; and
• institutions with close and direct links with industry, business, and the
professions.

By the late 1970s, the polytechnics were becoming more and more
aware of their achievements and strengths. They were beginning to take
less kindly to some of the more irksome external controls with which they
had to contend. They wanted to assume more responsibility for the
management of their affairs-academic as well as administrative and
financial. At that time, with the exception of those in inner London,
polytechnics had no separate legal identity, did not employ their own
staff, and, with few exceptions, did not even operate bank accounts.
A National Advisory Body (NAB) was set up in 1982 to advise the
government on the allocation of resources to polytechnics and other non-
university institutions in England. The NAB achieved a good deal toward
the rationalization of the system and the creation of a more cohesive
approach to planning and identifying clear collective targets for poly-
technics and colleges. It also argued for addition~! resources for these
institutions, and for greater efficiency and effectiveness in their operation.
 Lewis 27

The next milestone in the development of the polytechnics as a major

force in British higher education was provided by a 1987 government
white paper entitled Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge, which
proposed radical changes in the arrangements for funding and
administering higher education.
The 1987 white paper recommended the establishment of a new
body to oversee the funding of polytechnics and other colleges: the
Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC). At the same time, the
polytechnics and other colleges and institutions of higher education in
England were to be removed from the local authority sector and
incorporated by statute, funded on comparable lines to the universities
though not on a comparable unit level. They were to be freed to manage
all but their academic affairs. These proposals were embodied in the
Education Reform Act of 1988, and the new statutory corporations took
over the assets and liabilities of the English polytechnics and colleges in
April 1989.

The Current Funding Method of Higher Education

Institutions of higher education receive public monies from three
main sources: the appropriate funding council, tuition fees, and the five
research councils. Table 1 compares the respective allocations from the
first two of these sources for the university and the polytechnic sector,
respectively. The block grant allocations from the respective funding
councils are based on a kind of bidding system. The intention was that
institutions of higher education should, in effect, enter into contracts for

Table 1: Public Funding of Higher Education 1990-91

UFC-funded PCFC-funded
Institutions* lnstitutionst

Recurrent Grant(£ millions) 1642 1002

Tuition Fees (£ millions) 326 279

Totals(£ millions) 1968 1281

Projected Student Numbers (000) 289 264

Public Funding per Student (£) 6810 4852

Note: *Universities throughout Great Britain
t Polytechnics and Colleges in England only
28 Metropolitan Universities/Spring 1992

the public monies they receive. The implementation of that objective has
not been a simple matter, not least because of the need to avoid introducing
instabilities into the system. Nevertheless, from the outset, both funding
councils have sought to introduce mechanisms whereby institutions
submitted competitive bids for part of their annual block grants for
recurrent expenditure. The PCFC set aside 5 percent of its allocations in
the first year, and 10 percent in the next (1991-92) for this purpose.
Although the institutions affected were much disturbed by the fear of a
further depression of unit costs as well as an inherent instability, the PCFC
was successful in realizing its objective of encouraging polytechnics and
colleges to admit more students at a reduced cost per student. The
universities, on the other hand, closed ranks and the UFC largely failed in
its attempt to impose a similar bidding system.

Academic Programs and Enrollment at Polytechnics

There are currently thirty-three polytechnics in England, two in
Scotland, and one in Wales. The largest has a student population of about
17,000 (13,500 full-time equivalents) and the smallest one has more than
5,000students.Mostpolytechnicsarelargerthantheaverage-sizedBritish
university, and more students follow courses in polytechnics and colleges
than at the universities. The growth of the student population in the
polytechnics since 1980-81 has been a staggering 65 percent, with almost
278,000 enrolled, and there is every indication that the growth is continuing.
Students at polytechnics enroll both full time and part time, and
many are in "sandwich courses," the label used in Great Britain for
cooperative education. The normal pattern in British sandwich courses is
for students to spend their first two years full time at the polytechnics, the
third year in placement in industry, commerce, the public services, or
abroad, and the last year back as full-time students. The year spent on
placement is supervised and integrated into the courses. Most sandwich
courses are in engineering, business studies, and other professional
subjects. Sandwich courses also exist at universities, but on a much
smaller scale.

Entry Qualifications and Application Procedures

The formal entry requirements for first-degree programs in
polytechnics are the same as those required for entry into universities
insofar as they relate to passes obtained in the school leaving examinations
at the advanced or" A" level, normally taken at age eighteen plus, and the
earlier examinations for the General Certificate of School Education
(GCSE), normally taken at sixteen plus. In practice, however, the grades
obtained at" A" level by polytechnic students tend often, but by no means
always, to be significantly lower than those obtained by their university
peers. The polytechnics also differ from the universities in their admissions
policies. They welcome students with other entry qualifications, such as
those of the Business and Technicians Education Council, which validates
academic standards for sub-degree programs, or those acquired by
 Lewis 29

considerable work experience without formal qualifications. The latest

available figures show that 30 percent of students admitted to polytechnics
to full-time and sandwich courses did not have" A" levels. Many of these
were mature students, defined as being over twenty-one years old on
entry. In 1989-90 almost a quarter of those admitted to polytechnics fell
into this category.
The polytechnics take pride in the value added to initial qualifications,
and their results compare well with those of university graduates. The
universities are now also increasingly adopting a more flexible approach
to entry qualifications.
For the first fifteen years following the designation of polytechnics,
students applied for admission to individual institutions. In theory, at
least, it was possible for someone to apply to all thirty polytechnics,
without anyone being the wiser. By contrast, the universities had long
operated a centralized admissions system, the Universities Central Council
on Admissions (UCCA).
By the early 1980s, the need to rationalize the admissions procedures
for polytechnics and follow the universities' example became clear. The
Committee of Directors of Polytechnics (CDP) established the Polytechnics
Central Admissions System (PCAS) in 1984. From the outset, PCAS was
determined to be user friendly for applicants and admissions staff alike in
the polytechnics. Although centralizing the handling of applications, the
system is neutral with regard to the admissions policy of each polytechnic.
Establishing PCAS has turned out to be an inspired decision. It
became a superb public relations coup which almost overnight trans-
formed the image of the polytechnics into that of a group of dynamic
institutions able to work together. PCAS greatly facilitates the work of
career advisors, and has become a powerful promotional tool for the
polytechnics collectively. Since its creation, the number of applications
and admissions to polytechnics has risen dramatically. Many colleges are
now also joining PCAS. In addition, UCCA and PCAS ate introducing a
common application form so that admissions staff in all higher education
institutions will know exactly who has applied for what. It is now only a
matter of time before the two systems become one.

Distribution and Level of Degree Programs

Britishhighereducationischaracterized by a very structured approach
to the curriculum and to teaching, whether in the universities, the colleges,
or the polytechnics. It is a very intensive experience. Students are normally
expected to complete their studies in three or four years of full-time or
sandwich study at degree level, depending on the program and discipline.
Certain professional programs, such as architecture, are longer. A system
of modular course units that build up credit toward a degree is being
introduced in many polytechnics after being pioneered in a few institutions
during the 1970s.
Polytechnics offer programs in almost every academic discipline
covered by universities, with the exception of medicine and veterinary
science. However, while the program subjects may be the same in
universities and polytechnics, there are significant differences. First, the
30 Metropolitan Universities/Spring 1992

balance of fields in the polytechnics places much greater emphasis on

subjects related to the world of employment and the professions than is
the case in the universities collectively. Second, the programs themselves
are oriented toward application, although they do not neglect theoretical
content. Third, the polytechnics have been very innovative in developing
new and different subject areas. For example, they have led in the
expansion of business and management studies, as well as computer
studies, including the improvement of computer literacy in the majority
of students in most disciplines. They have also placed much emphasis on
the rightful place of art and design programs. Figure 1 shows the general
distribution of broad subject areas in the polytechnics.

Figure 1: Main Subject Areas of Polytechnic Full-Time and

Sandwich Course Enrollments 1989-90

•:.a:.. :: :."!'.:: TTITII§~~~~

,/'O,/'O,/'O
.... :.
I I I I
n· ..
............. I I I I
O,/'O,/'O,/'o,/'O,/' I I I I
................ I I I

.
o,/'o,/'o,/'o,/'o,/'o,/'o I I I
.................. I I

. •• . • O,/'O,/'O,/'O,/'O,/'O
...............
I I
'•I
•
............
o,/'o,/'o,/'o,/'o,/'

.............
.............
. . . . .. . . . .
..........
• • • • ............... I

:::::::.:.:
. . . .. . . . ... ..
·!:~~~~~~;

_....~···~~~
-
-' ----
.. .. -
1
1

''
' ~_. __..___..___..___..___..........__..........__________
~~~+-1~+-1~+-1.....+-+-1.....+-+-1.....+-+-1~------'
~-.t........_....._........._....._........._....._........._....._........._"""'-'_.__._...._~
~~ ~

~~
.......~-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+:.I''~
.........

........
11111""'
,_ ...... 1 .....

E3 Science and technology r:.:l Creative arts and design

~ (41.1%) ~ (7.1%)

~ Business, legal, and

tt±:±±::B social studies (31.1 %) Humanities and languages
(7.5%)

D Teacher education (7.3%)

:·:·:·:·:
:::::::::
·:·:·:·:·
Other subjects (5.9%)
 Lewis 31

Over three-quarters of the full-time students in polytechnics are

enrolled in first-degree programs, the other quarter pursuing a wide
range of advanced diplomas. Among part-time students, the proportion
is reversed, with only one quarter matriculating for a first degree.

Academic Validation and Quality Assurance

As mentioned earlier, polytechnics do not award degrees in their
own name. Their awards are those of the Council for National Academic
Awards (CNAA) established in 1964. The CNAA degrees are required to
be comparable in standard to those of a British university. From its
creation until 1979, the CNAA operated a rigorous system of program
validation and institutional recognition. Programs were approved for an
initial five years, after which they were scrutinized before they were
reapproved. The CNAA combined rigor with the encouragement of
innovation. It established a system of peer-group evaluation, drawing
participants from industry and the professions as well as from universities
and polytechnics. In 1979, the CNAA issued a document called Partnership
in Validation which began the move toward greater institutional autonomy
in academic matters. Increasingly, polytechnics wanted the power to
award their own degrees and diplomas, while acknowledging the
importance of retaining a system of external peer-group evaluation. By
the late 1980s, the CNAA was largely reviewing rather than revalidating
programs, and delegating greater authority to selected institutions under
a system of licensing. But it was a slow process.
Polytechnics and colleges are also subject to review by a central body
called Her Majesty's Inspectorate (HMI), which is primarily concerned
with the standards of learning and teaching, i.e., the knowledge and skills
acquired by students. In addition, they share with universities one
particular feature of British higher ed uca ti on: the use of external examiners
of individual graduates. These examiners play a key role in safeguarding
standards. Last but not least, all polytechnics have established rigorous
internal procedures to ensure that high academic standards are set and
maintained.

The Place of Research

From the beginning, the polytechnics were regarded by the
government as primarily teaching institutions, but it was never intended
that there should be no place for research. Indeed, many of the institutions
that were merged to form the polytechnics after 1966 had established
national and international reputations for the quality of their research,
and were offering doctoral studies leading to a Ph.D. awarded by the
University of London. The CNAA has been a prime advocate of research
at the polytechnics, although the council has been careful to define
research very broadly. Without research, polytechnics would find it
difficult to meet the government's expectations that they should, as stated
in the 1966 white paper, "form a strong and distinctive sector of higher
education which is complementary to the universities," with which they
 32 Metropolitan Universities/Spring 1992

are to enjoy parity of esteem. Without research activity their credibility

with industry and the professions would be weakened, and it would be
very difficult to attract and retain academic staff of appropriate caliber
and experience. Moreover, research plays a crucial role in maintaining the
vitality of academic departments and faculties.
In the UK, funding for research in academic institutions is channeled
in two ways: as part of their recurrent general operating funds from the
government, and from grants for particular
projects from the five research councils or
Without research, other external sources. For polytechnics, the
polytechnics would find it first of these did not exist at all for many
difficult to meet the years, and has only recently begun to provide
a very modest allocation for research. Yet, as
government's expectations indicated in a recent report of a committee of
of complementing the inquiry on research at the polytechnics,
polytechnics have "vigorous, distinctive,
universities. varied and growing research activities." The
total expenditure in 1988-89 was around £80
million (about $130 million), of which about 63 percent came from the
research councils and other external sources. Polytechnics have been
successful in obtaining funding from industry and commerce for applied
research, and in participating in programs that bring together companies
and academic institutions in collaborative, problem-solving research. It is,
however, important to keep in perspective the level of research activity at
the polytechnics as compared to that of the universities. Polytechnics
account for less than 8 percent of the funds allocated by the research
councils, they attract much less than universities from other external
sources, and the approximately £30 million polytechnics receive in their
basic appropriation for research must be compared with the approximate
figure of £780 million allocated for these purposes to the universities.

Governance and Administrative Structures

Each polytechnic has a board of governors with members determined
by the board itself after the initial members were appointed by the
secretary of state from names supplied by the institution. Board sizes vary
from thirteen to twenty-five. By law, more than half of the membership
must be external to the institution, from industry, commerce, the
professions, and the public sector. The board of governors is responsible
for the overall conduct and management of the institution.
The highest academic body in a polytechnic is the academic board,
which is responsible for the academic standards and profile, including
graduation requirements. This board is almost always chaired by the head
of the institution. The most commonly used title for the latter is that of
director, but principal, provost, rector, and president are also used in
some polytechnics. The chief executive is appointed by the board of
governors on a permanent and full-time basis.
The constitutional relationship between the funding councils (PCFC
and UFC) and the individual institutions is interesting. Although the
councils are responsible for the allocation of government appropriations
 Lewis 33

and are accountable to Parliament for the proper use of these funds by the
institutions, they have no constitutional say in the arrangements for their
governance and administration. However, they do have powers to approve
the institutional procedures for financial management and to ensure
standards for public accountability.

The Next Few Years

In May of 1991, the government issued yet another white paper
entitled Higher Education: A New Framework. The key proposals in this
document are:

• dismantling the binary system with universities, polytechnics, and

colleges being funded through three new councils-one for England,
one for Scotland, and one for Wales;
• expanding higher education so that "nearly one in three of all young
people will enter higher education by the year 2000";
• abolishing the CNAA and granting degree-awarding powers to
polytechnics and colleges;
• permitting polytechnics to use the term "university" in their titles if they
so wish.

The Further and Higher Education Bill giving effect to the white
paper began its passage through Parliament in November 1991. If passed,
the new framework for higher ed uca ti on will be fully operational by April
1993.
However, a general election in Great Britain will be held before July
1992, and although all three major political parties have declared their
intention to do away with the binary system, there must be some uncertainty
about the implementation of all the proposals in this bill. If an observer
had predicted as recently as 1985 that within four years the polytechnics
would no longer be funded locally, or that it would become government
policy that polytechnics were to be given the power to award their own
degrees and use the title "university," few would have taken such
statements seriously. Yet the first has been realized and the second is
already in the government's legislative program.
Even though, as yet, the binary system still exists, there has been a
substantial drawing together of the two sectors. Already the two principal
collective organizations-the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals
(CVCP) and the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics (CDP)-are
increasingly working together on behalf of higher education as a whole.
Furthermore, some universities are becoming more teaching oriented,
and the overlap between universities and polytechnics is increasing. As,
in theory at least, the polytechnics become eligible for direct research
support through the new funding councils, they may be unable or
unwilling to retain their distinctive missions and ethos. There is the
question as well of institutional title. Within the CDP, opinions were very
divided about the use of the term "university." But there exists a safeguard
against academic drift: the marketplace. Not all students want a wholly
academic experience in higher education. If the government is to realize
34 Metropolitan Universities/Spring 1992

its ambition of expanding participation, there will be a growing demand

for the kind of opportunities provided currently by the polytechnics, and
survival will require exploitation of that demand. It is to be hoped that
most polytechnics will cherish their distinctive mission for altruistic
reasons as well as on the basis of self-interest, whatever titles they may
wish to use and whatever funding mechanism obtains.
The abolition of the CNAA is at one level clean and tidy, because in
a postbinary era, it would be insupportable to retain a separate validation
and quality assurance system for the former polytechnics and colleges.
However, as resource constraints become more severe, only an independent
body can give real confidence that standards are not being allowed to slip.
It may, therefore, be shortsighted to dissolve the CNAA rather than to
adapt it to meet the new situation so as to use its accumulated experience
for the benefit of the universities as well as the polytechnics and colleges.
One other basic change may occur in the years to come. The traditional,
highly structured, three-year degree programs as the normal mode of
study is under attack, partly for educational reasons and partly for
financial and political ones. One way the government expects to achieve
its 30 percent participation rate in higher education will be to encourage
institutions to offer two-year degree programs for those who do not want
to complete a three-year curriculum. In the European context, three-year
programs are barely acceptable as equivalent to the first degrees elsewhere,
which usually take a minimum of four to five years to complete. Two-year
programs will not be accepted as equivalent. But these are radical times,
and there is no doubt that a new approach to higher education is long
overdue.
As the government's proposals become a reality, Australia will no
longer be alone in having created a Unified National System (UNS) of
higher education from a binary one, albeit for rather different reasons and
with rather different results. As this occurs, just possibly, for the first time,
the present prime minister's declared wish to create a classless society
may be realized in British higher education, without everyone using the
Oxbridge model as the ultimate yardstick.