ASBDG@ASUACAD.BITNET (Brian Gregory) (03/01/90)
This is an abstract and summary of an article appearing in the International Review of Education (vol. 35, no. 3, 1989) entitled, "The Changing Pattern of Higher Education in England and Wales - The End of an Era?" by Keith Watson. ABSTRACT: During the past twenty years great changes have taken place in British higher education. During the 1980's these changes have been even more noticeable, so that by the middle of the 1990's the pattern and the ethos of British higher education will be very different from that prevailing in the 1970's. Not only have there been structural changes but there have also been concerns about autonomy and freedom, accountability and appraisal in the face of government demands for improved management efficiency, restrictions on tenure and alternative forms of finance. This paper analyses these changes in universities, polytechnics and teacher education colleges and traces the growing intervention on the part of the government. It also seeks to draw out implications for other education systems facing the same pressures. SUMMARY: The 1960s was a period of expansion and optimism in education througho ut the world (Weiler 1978). However, the return of a third Conservative govern ment in June 1987 heralded the most radical shake-up of British higher educatio n that has been seen in a generation, with the result that not only are many wi dely cherished beliefs about higher education being shattered once and for all, but there is also a crisis of confidence, and of morale, amongst academics who find themselves threatened and insecure (Watson 1988). At the center of the debate are three issues: institutional autonomy, financial control and accountability. Subsumed within these are other equally important issues such as academic standards, research output and managerial efficiency. The government is prepared to interfere in the running of higher education and to apply the same criteria of accountability, efficiency and sound financial co ntrol to universities and other educational institutions as it does to industry and other public sector organizations. Historically, the purposes of the universities were the pursuit of knowledge an d research for their own sakes, the pursuit of academic excellence, the fulfill ment of the individual, the quest for truth, and later, research associated wit h industry and employment. Freedom of speech, and individual and institutional autonomy were also vigorously defended. The purpose of the university was cle arly stated by an Oxford don in the early 1960s: "The proper function of a university, as a place of learning, is to stimulate a nd satisfy the mental curiosity of those who can benefit from academic discipli ne. ...An employer may find in one of our graduates the qualities he is looking for, but we are under no obligation to `produce' employees for him. ...We do n ot wish to become a breeding ground for any but a scholarly elite." It is apparent that the government perceives the universities in a far more uti litarian light, as the 1987 Conservative Party Manifesto shows: "The British system of higher education is among the best in the world. ...We r ecognize the value of research and scholarship for their own sake. At the same time, we must meet the nation's demand for highly qualified manpower to compet e in international markets." It is not the scrutiny of higher education that has concerned so many observers : it is the savagery of the attacks that have occurred (Kogan and Kogan 1983) a nd the sense of betrayal that many feel. Until the late 1970s universities were given a five year rolling budget, but fo r the past ten years they have had to operate on very uncertain annual budgets, frequently not knowing the final sums available until some of the annual expen diture had already occurred. New figures announced by the government in late 1 986 for the next five year period until 1990 suggested a cash increase from 171 6 million pounds to 2074 million pounds, but allowing for inflation, increased costs and overheads, this actually amounted to a five percent per annum reducti on in real terms. In 1975-76 fee income accounted for only 4% of university fi nances. By 1985-86 this had risen to 26%. At undergraduate level over 95% of fees are paid from public funds (by local education authorities or by central g overnment). After considerable deliberation it has been proposed to introduce student loans as part of the financial arrangements for higher education from t he beginning of the academic year 1990-91. Perhaps the biggest anxiety facing universities is the reduction in the number of research grants. Universities are having to prove to government and industr y that their research is of economic value and importance. In 1919 a University Grants Committee (UGC) was established as a buffer between the then Board of Education (now the Department of Education and Science), the Treasury and the universities (Mann 1979). Until 1964 it received funds from the Treasury to disburse throughout the universities, but in that year responsi bility for its funding was taken over by the DES. During the past decade espec ially, far from being viewed as a buffer, the UGC has been perceived with hosti lity and suspicion as an agency of government playing an increasingly dominant role in university affairs. The UGC action that has created the greatest anger in the universities in recent years was the attempt to judge individual univer sity departments on a national scale as `outstanding'; `better than average'; ` above average'; `average'; and `below average'. With the official publication in May 1986 of the UGC ratings of the different departments throughout the coun try, followed shortly afterwards by the financial allocations for 1986-87 to th e different universities, there was widespread dismay for it was apparent that this crude measure of university comparability was designed as a first step tow ards ranking universities for funding purposes. The government proposes to replace the UGC by the Universities Funding Council (UFC). The Education Reform Act of 1988 gives the UFC powers to ensure the eff icient running of universities and departments within them, but also powers to close down departments considered to be inefficient or to have insufficient stu dents. While academic freedom is guaranteed staff may be made redundent for a variety of reasons, although they will have the right of appeal against unfair dismissal, and tenure will gradually be replaced by limited term contracts. Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain, the era of the liberal univers ity or college of the 1950s/early 1960s, with its unfettered individualism, wit h its lack of any real accountability, and untarnished by the commercial world of competition and the market place, has gone forever. The institutions that w ill emerge in the 1990s and the attitudes of the staff within them will be mark edly different even from the 1980s. History alone will show how much of a wate rshed in higher education the 1980s were. ___________________ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRIAN DAVID GREGORY ___________________ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~