THE HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD AND ITS
4.2. The British System
4.2.1. The evolution of Polytechnics in the UK
The investigation of the evolution of the polytechnics in the UK is important as it may provide a deeper understanding of differences and changes in institutional culture within a binary higher education system, which is particularly relevant to this thesis.
Pratt (1997) outlined the evolution and eventual demise of the polytechnics in the UK during the period 1965- 1992, which he termed “the polytechnic experiment”. The emergence of a binary higher educational system in Britain can be traced back to the 19th century when many colleges that were established to serve the growing industrial cities, transformed into ‘redbrick universities’. However, during the 1950s and 60s, due to its post-war concern for technical education, the British Government established colleges of advanced technology (CATs) in England and Wales. The CATs offered higher education with a focus on technology, wherein formal qualifications such as the Diploma of Technology were offered (Pratt 1997).
The rise of the polytechnics in 1965 followed a speech by Anthony Crosland at Woolwich, then the Secretary of State for Education and Science, where he announced the Government’s proposal of a binary policy in higher education which distinguished the universities from technical and public colleges (Pratt 1997). Polytechnics were established in accordance with
87 | P a g e two separate policies, the binary policy, with was enunciated in 1965, and the polytechnic policy. The subsequent White Paper in 1966 established polytechnics as the leading institutions of higher education in the non-university sector. Crosland confirmed Government support the dual system, where each made its own distinctive contribution, and outlined four reasons for his preference of such system (Pratt 1997):
1. the increasing need for professional, vocational and industrial based courses that could not be met by the universities;
2. to avoid demoralisation in the public sector due to the ‘ladder’ concept;
3. part of the higher education system remained under ‘social control’, responding to the needs of society;
4. Britain could not stand up to foreign competition if it downgraded its non-university professional and technical sector.
At that time, there was wide criticism aimed at universities for not being able to serve industry and the professions as they remained exclusive and aloof to society; where research and teaching remained self-referential, preserving and extending knowledge for its own end; and wherein the working class was under-represented. The university system would be referred to as the autonomous tradition. The polytechnics, on the other hand engaged with society and responded to the needs of society through the development of relevant professional and technical education programmes. Research within these institutions was accordingly responsive to some external problem in society or industry, which often took the form of consultancy for companies (Pratt 1997). Knowledge transfer was therefore a strong defining feature of the polytechnics. They accommodated the working class and included diversity, within a ‘service tradition’ to the benefit of society. While the autonomous tradition of the university promulgated the priority of the discipline, the service tradition of the polytechnics focused on the complexities of human and political arguments. The service tradition would further acknowledge and include maturity and work experience as alternatives to academic qualification as entry requirements, which promulgated student diversity (Pratt 1997). In this way, polytechnics overcame the restrictions posed to society as a result of the British class structure and class prejudice (Robinson 1995 in Pratt 1997).
The new funding support systems which were developed by the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education, established in 1982 was succeeded by the Education
88 | P a g e Reform Act 1988, which moved the polytechnics out of the local authority sector. Polytechnics served a very important social role in affording the opportunities to historically marginalised, the opportunity to study at higher education level. The distinguishing characteristics of the polytechnics were that they offered broadened access to communities that could not access universities for various social and economic reasons; were situated within the working class districts and afforded the opportunity for part time studies at undergraduate level, which further aided access to the working class comprising a significant proportion of mature students; and a general balance between male and female students. As the technical institutions became the responsibility of local authorities their funding was very different to the block grant system of the universities. They had to be accountable to society and industry and would attract resources, provided that students enrolled indicated an expressed need from industry or commerce (Pratt 1997). These colleges further responded to demand for higher education from adults who could not access such earlier, which eventually led to them having to offer degree courses.
However, the degree courses had to be subject to the academic authority of universities, which meant that the academic staff at the technical institutions had no part in planning, designing or examining such. This caused much frustration to the technical institutions, the consequence of which was an aspiration for autonomy, as they began to seek university status which Pratt &
Burgess (1974 in Pratt 1997) refer to as academic drift’. However, as revealed in the Anderson Committee Report (1960), which had very noble intensions of access for all British residents, who met the minimum entry requirements to first degrees and other comparable qualifications, access to student maintenance grants, it simultaneously reinforced the distinction between advanced and non-advanced courses, which generally did not receive grants (Pratt 1997). The, Robbins Committee which was established in 1961, on the other hand, promoted a single system for expansion of higher education which was heavily bias in favour of universities.
Higher education thereby became synonymous with university education. Universities dominated the higher education system which, by intent, led to academic drift. Robbins further divided higher education into two forms: the universities, which accommodated mainly full time students; and the technical colleges, accommodating mostly part time students. The funding grants, however, were only accessible to autonomous universities.
The technical institutions would consequently start to break free of public control and external validation as they sought to adopt the structures and initiatives of the autonomous universities.
They would increase focus on research and adopt the identity of the autonomous institutions as far as possible, which in instances, would compromise their vital role in offering broadened
89 | P a g e access to students who could not access higher education. Therefore, despite the vital function that polytechnics served in society, the polytechnic policy remained controversial up to the year 1992 when polytechnics changed to universities (Pratt 1997). The proliferation of polytechnics since 1965 would come to an end on 6 March 1992 whereupon the Queen gave the Royal Assent to the Further and Higher Education Act. This ultimately led to the change in institutional identity of the polytechnics, most of which would become universities.
Crosland (1965 in Pratt 1997) argued that the change in institutional identity of colleges to that of the universities inevitably led to the neglect of the local needs and the educational demands of society for whom the colleges were actually founded.
In the article, What a Waste (THE. October 1996), Warnock posited that the abolition of the binary line between polytechnics and universities was a mistake as it ended the vocational role of the polytechnics and fatally debased the value of a university degree. She went on to confirm the two principle reasons for such abolition, namely; the funding of these two institutional types being rolled into a single funding council and that, as such, the two institutions were deemed to be of the same status and therefore became universities. She further attributed the change of the polytechnics into universities to the cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive process of external validation, mainly effected by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA).
The polytechnics felt that they were just as capable as the autonomous universities in awarding degrees and monitoring the standards thereof. The CNAA would gradually diminish, subsequent to the Lindop Commission report of 1985 – this report did not outline any criteria for differentiation between degree-awarding polytechnics and the autonomous universities.
The subsequent White Paper on Higher Education (1987) proposed that all polytechnics with a student population exceeding 350 should become free-standing in terms of staff appointments and budget management, while the CNAA would continue to validate their degrees. Warnock (in THE. October 1996) argued that this was the time where polytechnics could have established their identity, which would focus on industry / the work force at all levels of occupation / profession. Her position strongly favoured qualifications in science and technology; and research which would be closely related to industry. She named the failure to achieve this as an educational disaster, which led to academic drift, whereby polytechnics drifted from their core offerings in science and technology to offer courses such as literature, philosophy and sociology, among others. Warnock alleged that philosophy seemed preferable to practical design, which fatally injured the polytechnics.
90 | P a g e In the same article, Price took a different stance where he argued that the name change from polytechnics to universities did not matter very much as it better reflected the work of the polytechnics over the past ten years. Blackstone supported this view in stating that the polytechnics were making a substantial contribution to higher education as they offered various degrees, master’s degrees and were engaging in research. In her view, the distinction between polytechnics and universities was not so great as to maintain a separate funding system and a separate institutional designation. She further argued that the change of polytechnics into universities would bring a rich diversity into the single higher education system. Toyne supported this view as he asserted that polytechnics were no longer “sub-degree technics” and should therefore not be labelled as such, which had an international perception of being a lower grade / standard than universities. The perception of polytechnic graduates during the 1980s were, according to Toyne, being rubbished as not as good as university graduates, which would lead to the creation of second-class citizens simply based on their place of education and not for their worth. Booth presented a strong argument against Warnock, in asserting that the transformation of the polytechnics gave a broader range of people access to the best education and value. He argued that the modern dynamic accompanied by a fast changing labour market did not warrant a segregated higher education system. He further posited that some of the old universities were forced, by market and industry pressures, to become more like polytechnics (THE. October 1996).
Brosan (1972) regarded polytechnics as committed to the application of knowledge in practice, thereby bridging the dichotomous gap between theory and practice. He further distinguished between the realistic and the nominalist views of knowledge, wherein he criticised the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake in which infinite complexity would be conveniently codified through objective application of concepts. He asserted that, within this paradigm, man could only learn if he subjected himself to immortal truths. Therein emerged the problem of disconnection between theory / academia and practice / society. The nominalist view, he argued, held that science was not an objective description of reality but a metaphorical ordering of reality (Brosan 1972: 43).
Brosan referred to two clear functions that differentiated polytechnics from universities, namely, matching and monitoring. Matching referred to the ability of the educational system to provide society with trained manpower in order to fulfil operational needs – education would respond to societal and industrial needs; where knowledge would transfer to society. This was typical of the polytechnic system. Within such system, education would always adapt and
91 | P a g e respond to societal needs and, by implication, change – a flexible model of vocational education. The university system, on the other hand, would be aligned to a monitoring function, isolated from society and industry, wherein the perception of reality would be filtered through predefined norms of truths and objective principles – a model of self –fulfilment whereby knowledge is generated for knowledge sake and not for the benefit of society.
Brosan further highlighted that, within the polytechnic system, the training of manpower for operational needs extended beyond higher education, and included tradesmen, craftsmen and technicians. He determined the significance of the polytechnics at the apex of the vocational education system, which provided training to technicians and applied technologists.
Technologists, however, included professionals in various disciplines such as architecture, law, accounting and engineering (Table. 4.1.). This definition of technologist was therefore not limited to technological or technical skills, but a designation to the highest professional competency level within the polytechnic system.
AREA CRAFT TECHNICIAN TECHNOLOGIST
Law Legal Secretary Legal Draftsman Lawyer
Accountancy Book-keeper Senior (non-chartered) Accountant
Chartered Accountant Language Bilingual Secretary Multilingual
Interpreter
International Negotiator
Architecture Draftsman Architectural
Technician
Registered Architect
Engineer Toolmaker Tool Designer Chartered
Engineer
Business Clerk Office Manager Corporate Planner
Psychology Junior Youth
Employment Officer
P.S.W. Qualified
Psychiatrist
Art Sign Painter Layout Man Artist
Building Bricklayer General Building
Foreman
Chartered Surveyor
Table. 4.1. Trade / Professional designations / categorisation of activities per selected disciplinary areas within the typical polytechnic system (extrapolated from Brosan 1972: 43-44).
92 | P a g e The above discussion revealed that differentiation in higher education in the UK was not as much as in the differentiation in institutional name as in the actual nature of the institutions and their societal significance. The nature of polytechnics was of offering courses in line with the operational needs of industry and the humanistic needs of society. As such, the polytechnics would develop their educational offerings beyond the limits of the training of a subservient workforce and began to offer high level qualifications. Within the polytechnic system there was a range of access and exit levels, as illustrated if Fig. 4.1., which would create a richness and complexity of student profiles within the institutions, as well as diversity in qualification offerings. With reference to Brosan (1972), matching would further extend to the needs of the student at different stages in career development, which would thereby allow for mid-career upskilling”, attracting mature students who would typically be employed in industry. This implied that the demand for higher professional qualifications was inevitable. The matching of the education to society / industry coupled with the needs of students over time, inevitably led polytechnics into offering higher level qualifications. In this regard, it is important to note that the polytechnics had been transforming into degree awarding institutions, as a response to industrial and societal needs, including those of the students, sometime before their formal abolition in 1992. Therefore, upon their change to universities, they brought into the university system a richness and diversity to a sector of higher education that had been historically disconnected from industry and society. Polytechnics thereby redefined the status of universities in the UK.
The above discussion on the evolution of polytechnics in the UK, supports the argument that the change of name of these institutions was not of major concern, as they continued to maintain their historic identity as an educational system that was adaptable, flexible and relevant to industry and society; a system that negated perceptions of objective reality and absolute truths opting for inclusivity of diversity and contextual responsiveness.
Although the polytechnics changed their identities to that of universities, the institutional differentiation in higher education in Britain, nevertheless, had significant impact on other industrialised countries in Europe. The Fachhochschulen in Germany, the Instituts Universitaires de Technologie in France and the technical institutes in Austria, looked to the British model for their new policy developments (Pratt 1997).
The British formal higher education system transformed from a binary structure to a single structure that included the former polytechnics that became universities. As a consequence, the
93 | P a g e system naturally redefined itself, reflecting richness and diversity, both in education and its student body. Similarly, higher education in other European countries developed along parallel streams, that of the traditional universities and that of the technical institutions. The artistic paradigm of the Beaux-Arts and the pragmatic stance of the technical institutes is critical to the subsequent discussion. It is therefore necessary to briefly look into differentiation and identity within a sample of educational systems in Europe and their impact on the USA and Africa.