11 September 1987                                  Cambridgeshire College
						   of Arts and Technology
To: Members of Governing Body			   East Road
                                                   Cambridge CB1 1PT

Dear Governor,

THE FUTURE OF CCAT AND POLYTECHNIC DESIGNATION

Over the past few months I have had discussions with a number of colleagues about the future of CCAT in terms of its bid for polytechnic designation.

In 1986 the Governing Body, with the support of the Local Authority, applied for polytechnic designation in order to be recognised as a major provider of Advanced Further Education. 16 other institutions applied for polytechnic designation at the same time. None was successful, the issue being deferred by the National Advisory Body (NAB).

The White Paper which foreshadows the forthcoming legislation on Higher Education proposes that the task of assessing polytechnic designation be passed to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council (PCFC), enjoining it to pay attention "not only to candidates' attributes but also to their capacity to expand to meet national and regional needs". It has been suggested that, with the emergence of PCFC, the matter of Polytechnic designation is now of lesser importance. But when one examines the current situation it becomes clear that, for a college like CCAT, polytechnic designation has actually become of even greater importance. There are two main reasons for taking this view:

  1. There will be about 90 PCFC institutions, of which 29 will be polytechnics. Of the rest, most will be specialist colleges of one sort or another, in fields such as teacher training, art and design and agriculture. There will be left about 10 institutions which are of the polytechnic type, each of which has already applied for polytechnic designation, and each of which continues to be an eager aspirant. This is because they all recognise that polytechnics have come very close to being regarded by the clients they seek to serve as credible and for some purposes preferable alternatives to universities. "Colleges" are therefore seen to be associated with either specialised subject provision or with a very broad range of levels, making it difficult for them to establish their place in the segmentation of the market which we are all experiencing.

  2. CCAT, like most of the other applicants for polytechnic designation, has, in addition to its local role, an important regional and national role. The regional role is one which the polytechnics are expected to play. In East Anglia there is no polytechnic, and there is only one applicant currently included within the PCFC ambit: the Essex Institute of Higher Education.

The attributes of the aspirant institutions vary, and some have profiles closer to the polytechnics than others. CCAT's current profile is one of those less like that of a polytechnic, although the transfer of students to CCFE will change the situation appreciably. The major difficulty faced by the NAB, and one that will be faced by the PCFC in assessing polytechnic designation, is that of size. None of the aspirant institutions is as large as the smallest polytechnic. The largest is Humberside, with 3,400 full-time equivalent advanced students, the smallest polytechnic is Teeside, with 3,800 full-time equivalent students. The average polytechnic size is 6,100 full-time equivalent students. Most of the aspirant institutions have something over 2,000 full-time equivalent students. CCAT has 1,800 full-time equivalent advanced students.

Turning to the regional dimension, Essex Institute of Higher Education, the only East Anglian applicant for polytechnic designation within PCFC at the moment, has 2,200 full-time equivalent students. Its range of work includes strengths in teacher training, telecommunications, nursing studies, and the built environment. It does not make provision in areas in which CCAT has major strengths, such as science, humanities, music, languages, and art and design. Essex, like CCAT, has strong departments of Engineering, Construction and Management and Business Studies, which remain the mainstay of Public Sector Higher Education provision. The idca that the two institutions might together form a Polytechnic of East Anglia has been floated before. It is the view of College management, at CCAT and at the Essex Institute, that the time has come to make this into a reality.

The Polytechnic of East Anglia so formed would have over 4,000 advanced FTEs, would offer a very wide range of higher education provision, and would have the capacity and will to develop into a major facility to meet the growing and unmet demands of our rapidly expanding region.

It is acknowledged that there are two major arguments against these proposals. Firstly, the College is in a state of some disturbance over the transfer of students to CCFE, and the proposals associated with polytechnic designation will simply add to the turmoil, uncertainty and strain. There is a counter argument, however, that when there is an atmosphere of change that is the time to effect whatever change is necessary. More important, we are presented with a congruence of opportunities which may never recur.

The second argument against the association with the Essex Institute is that of distance between the two. It takes about an hour to get from Cambridge to Chelmsford. That sort of travel time between sites is, of course, not uncommon within many existing institutions of higher education. Moreover, if provision in East Anglia is to be on a par with that in other regions it is inevitable that the difficulties arising from the distance between centres of population will have to be faced. The problem is one which will have to be tackled in other parts of the country.

CCAT is, with the support of the Local Authority, seeking to be included as a PCFC institution, and that must be a pre-condition for the formation of the Polytechnic, since it is difficult to envisage such an institution being formed, part of which would be self-governing, and part of which would be controlled by its Local Authority. The two issues are not separate. Support for CCAT's inclusion as a PCFC institution will undoubtedly be encouraged by the prospect of associating it with enhanced regional provision in East Anglia.

Much consideration will need to be given to the constitutional arrangements. The Polytechnic of East Anglia might have one supreme Governing Body and Academic Board, but could develop the strengths at its campuses through delegation of many responsibilities to Campus Councils of two types, one linked with the Governing Body, and one with the Academic Board. The Governing Body appropriate for a PCFC institution set up at CCAT in 1989 could be the Campus Council of the first kind for Cambridge, half of its members to go on to the Governing Body of the Polytechnic. An arrangement with the same objective could be made in respect of the Academic Board.

From informal discussions a possible programme of action emerges, as follows:

  1. September 1987 - Registration of 1,000 16-19 year old FTEs as CCFE students.

  2. September 1988 - Transfer of staff associated with transferred students to CCFE. CCAT (1988) established with two or three additional Governors foreshadowing PCFC arrangements.

  3. November 1988 - Application to PCFC for inclusion (when the legislation establishing PCFC is expected to become operative).

  4. April 1989 - Vesting of CCAT along with other institutions as a corporate body. New Governing Body set up as required by legislation with suitable membership and a remit to form the Polytechnic of East Anglia.

  5. September 1990 - establishment of Polytechnic of East Anglia.
These proposals are now put forward for consideration within the College and the Local Authority, and by all who may be interested. I shall be reporting them to College Staff, and they will be on the agendas of the forthcoming meetings of the Academic Board and the Governing Body. A brief Press Release will be issued on Monday, 14 September 1987.

Yours sincerely,

KEN SWINHOE

c.c.  Education & Further Education Spokespersons, Cambs. County Council
      G. Morris, Chief Education Officer
      D. Spreadbury, Senior Education Officer
      HMI Dr. M. Howarth

Back to Contents