Durham E-Theses Structural reform in higher education: the changing role and status of the university college sector Rhodes, Malcolm How to cite: Rhodes, Malcolm (1999) Structural reform in higher education: the changing role and status of the university college sector, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4545/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Structural Reform in Higher Education: The Changing Role and Status of the University College Sector by Malcolm Rhodes A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education School of Education The University of Durham 1999 The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the written consent of the author and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 2 3 MAY 2000 Abstract This thesis examines the nature of structural reform of higher education in England with a particular focus on the changing policy environment of the role and status of the University College sector. The study explores the extent to which political and status considerations have determined the shape of the sector and the interrelationship of institutions within it. It is argued that the pressure to reform the structure of the higher education sector in response to profound economic, political, social, cultural, educational and demographic changes has confronted the traditional value systems and structures of an elite system. The debate relating to the legitimate use of the University College title and the attendant issues relating to institutional title and status encapsulates this conflict of interest and neglects the historical development and growth of the sector. It is argued that the failure of two recent major Committees of Inquiry and successive policy-makers to implement systematic structural reform of higher education in order to promote greater social justice, meritocratic social mobility and educational opportunity, and simultaneously to resolve the anomalies of institutional positioning (which reflect both the elite values of the existing sector and the legacy of the piecemeal and unstructured historical development of higher education), has perpetuated the confusion of institutional status and has generated a policy conflict whose ambiguities threaten the fulfilment of the lifelong learning agenda and the future success of individual institutional providers of higher education beyond the mainstream university sector. ii Copyright © 1999 by Malcolm Rhodes The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without Malcolm Rhodes' prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. iii Declaration This thesis results entirely from my own work and has not been offered previously in candidature for any other degree or diploma. iv Acknowledgement I am unable here fully to express, but merely record, the debt which I owe to my wife:, Christine, for her Understanding, patience and support throughout. My warmest thanks go to Keith Morrison, whose continuing insight, depth of understanding and guidance made this work a joyful and rewarding labour. My thanks are also due to all my colleagues in the higher education sector, particularly my closest colleagues at University College Warrington, who gave unstintingly of their time to discuss these issues with me and were unfailingly helpful and responsive during the course of this study. Contents Abstract ii Declaration iv Acknowledgement v 1 The Changing Shape of Higher Education 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education 3 Notes 8 2 The Research Context: questions, approaches and issues 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 The Nature of the Inquiry 10 2.3 The Focus of the Inquiry: 14 2.3.1 The Historical Dimension 15 2.3.2 The Sectoral Dimension 20 2.3.3 The Institutional Dimension 23 2.4 Issues of Methodology 27 2.4.1 Ethics 28 2.4.2 Validity 35 2.4.3 Reliability 42 2.4.4. Triangulation 43 2.4.5 The Semi-Structured Interview 44 vi 2.5 The Structure and Argument of the Thesis 45 2.6 The Originality of the Thesis 55 2.7 The Parameters of the Thesis 57 2.8 The Significance of the Thesis 58 Notes 59 3 Sector and Institutional Development in Higher Education 3.1 Introduction 65 3.2 Change and the Crisis of Authority 66 3.3 The Evolution of the National 'System' of Higher Education 69 3.4 The Changing Relationship between Higher Education and the State .. 72 3.5 Two Models of Classification of the Sector 78 3.5.1 Model One 79 3.5.2 Model Two 81 3.6 Institutional Development 87 3.6.1 The University of London 89 3.6.2 The Older Civic Universities 92 3.6.3 The Younger Civic Universities 99 3.7 Summary and Conclusions 105 Notes Ill 4 Expansion and Structural Reform: From Robbins to Dearing 4.1 Introduction 121 4.2 The Robbins Committee 124 4.2.1 The Changing Sector: the beginning of expansion 124 vii 4.2.2 The Robbins Committee and the University Colleges 128 4.3 The Intervening Decades: aftermath and prelude 137 4.4 The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education 142 4.4.1 Sector Representations to the Dearing Inquiry 143 4.4.2 The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals: The Lauwerys Report 147 4.4.3 The Dearing Inquiry and the University Colleges 150 4.5 Summary and Conclusions 157 Notes 159 5 The University Colleges 5.1 Introduction 165 5.2 Issues in Constructing a Map of the University College Sector 171 5.2.1 Nonconformance 171 5.2.2 Non-recognition 174 5.2.3. Absence of Definitive Criteria 175 5.2.4 Inconsistent Terminology 176 5.3 The Approach to Sector Definition 179 5.4 The Map of the University College Sector 184 5.4.1 Federal Universities 185 5.4.1.1 University of London 185 5.4.1.2 Other Federal Universities 187 5.4.2 Higher Education Colleges 194 5.4.3 Further Education Colleges 200 viii 5.5 Summary and Conclusions 203 Notes 204 6 University College Warrington - A Case Study 6.1 Introduction: The Institutional Context 210 6.2 The Case Study Approach 212 6.3 The History and Development of University College Warrington 215 6.3.1 Origins 215 6.3.2 Community Links 218 6.3.3 Advocacy 220 6.4 The Institutional Profile 220 6.4.1 The Academic Curriculum 220 6.4.2 Corporate Status 221 6.4.3 The Student Profile 225 6.5 External Relationships 228 6.5.1 The University of Manchester 228 6.5.2 Sector Agencies 232 6.6 The Political Campaign 236 6.7 Summary and Conclusions 244 Notes 246 ix 7 Conclusions 7.1 Introduction 251 7.2 The Historical Perspective 251 7.3 The Policy Analysis Perspective 254 7.4 The Sectoral Perspective 261 7.5 The Institutional Perspective 265 7.6 The Future Policy Agenda 267 7.7 The Future Research Agenda 275 Notes 276 Appendices and Tables Appendix 1 The Classification and Designation of Higher and Further Education Institutions forming the University College Sector Table 1 Schools, Colleges and Institutes of the University of London permitted to award University of London Degrees 278 Table 2 Part II of the statutory Instrument 1997 No. 54 Education, England and Wales, Education, Scotland: The Education (Listed Bodies) Order 1997 280 Table 3 Higher Education Institutions classified separately by the HEFCE as either General or Specialist Colleges 285 Table 4 Further Education Institutions in direct receipt of HEFCE Funding for their higher education work 287 Appendix 2 The Role of the Interview in establishing Validity and Reliability 289 Bibliography 303 x CHAPTER 1 THE CHANGING SHAPE OF HIGHER EDUCATION 1.1 Introduction Between the end of the nineteenth century and the 1950s the nature and character of British higher education remained largely unchanged. During the greater part of the nineteenth century there emerged '....a more self-conscious attitude to the role of the university in producing an elite of character as well as knowledge....(involving)....systems of selection which by formal rule or practical necessity made the possession of a degree an essential of admission.' (Caine, 1969: 27). Such systems were characterised by the aristocracy of wealth, sharing effective political power with the aristocracy of birth, and to both attendance at a university was a normal final preparation for the responsibilities of adult life. The system was stratified with social closure and sponsored, restricted mobility reflecting a privileged elite consciously manipulating the system to suit its interests, whose members sought to preserve their position as inheritors of cultural capital within the broader context of social and economic reproduction (Muller, Ringer and Simon, 1988). This supported a prestige hierarchy bequeathed by historical development (Anderson, 1992). Although this hierarchy continues to survive, since 1945 and particularly since the Robbins era, its effects have been subject to progressively increasing criticism from numerous different perspectives, including: those with a commitment to egalitarianism who wish to see opportunity and access as the defining principles of higher education (Trow 1964; 1987; 1989; 1991; Robertson 1995); those who maintain that the existing structure and approach is critically damaging to the competitiveness and potential success of the British economy - a view which has been expressed for several decades (Zuckerman 1958; DES, 1985; Esland, 1991); (i) and those who believe that the existing system has contributed to a significant social failure, embodying values which appear incomprehensible and irrelevant to the mass population (Scott, 1984; Lee, 1996).