Sector overview of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement
The ambitions of the LLE are laudable. The rationale for the approach as set out in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper is that the government wants to ensure the UK develops the skills needed to drive sustained economic growth, break down barriers to opportunities and improve the living standards of working people.
The rationale provided is through delivering a transformational change to the current student finance system, it is hoped that it will broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training, and support greater learner mobility between institutions. It should also - hopefully - provide the opportunity for individuals to learn, upskill and retrain across their working lives, as well as creating opportunities for young people and adults to develop the skills needed to succeed in life, contributing to growth across the entire country.
So where are we in the journey?
The information and structure for the Lifelong learning entitlement provided by Government so far has focused on high-level information such as: who is entitled, what courses are included and what national bodies are expected to oversee the process, namely the Student Loan Scheme and UCAS. There have been many national sector meetings to discuss how this will work. It has generated lots of questions, such as The Lifelong Learning Entitlement is not just a funding reform. It is a pedagogical challenge, as Visiting Fellow at Oxford Lifelong Learning Centre, Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris, argues.
What has not yet been fully formulated are the practical things we need to consider and how we will do it.
So what do institutions need to consider?
Module size
- We know modules must be part of a full-time course and be worth at least 30 credits. This could exclude quite a lot of appropriate offerings because a university has a module structure where they are worth 20 credits.
- Equally, it may force universities with 20-credit frameworks to either create bespoke 30-credit pathways or change frameworks to match, both of which are costly and time-consuming propositions.
Delivery
- Will it be hybrid, online only or in-person only?
- Will it be daytime or evening delivery? How will this fit with those in Fulltime employment?
- Will it be run over 1 or 2 semesters- short or long?
- Will it be undertaken with full-time degree students or only with other LLE registered students?
- Will it impact on the module assessment process?
Cost of the module
- Modules will be price-capped. Will this stop universities from offering more costly modules such as lab-based ones?
- What happens if uptake does not make the module financially viable? Will it be required to run, resulting in it being a lost leader? Or can it be cancelled?
- Is there a student number threshold for delivery?
Reasons for undertaking the module
- Is it employer- or individual-led? There is also a risk that what has traditionally been employer-funded CPD will be pushed to employees to fund through the LLE.
- What are the motivations of the individual for doing the module?
- What are the student and employer expectations of outcomes?
- Will just one module be needed or is there a desire to undertake more?
Route in
We need to think about the route into study and the student’s prior learning and work experience background. This all impacts the onboarding support and information that is provided.
Participation in the pilot of the first national pre-arrival-questionnaire, led by the University of East London in collaboration with Advance HE and JISC, could help with universities understanding the needs of these particular students. They will have different support needs from full and part-time students signed up for a three-year course. So who will our LLE students be?
Who will our LLE students be?
Based on our current experience, the LLE student journey is likely to be short journey focused- module by module. Students who are full or part-time signed up for a 3/4 year course will be long journey course focused. Our only real current understanding of the issues these students could face will be from the parttime data and research we have already. So what are the issues we know and what challenges do they create for the student learner and the institution?
Issues and challenges of the part-time learner
We know from HESA data that of UK-domiciled students - ‘Other undergraduate courses’ and ‘institutional credits at undergraduate level’ - only represent 10.9% of entrants across all undergraduate courses in 2024/5. This pattern has been consistent in the past five years. When we look particularly at the parttime mode, this increases to 46.7%. The aim may be to encourage 18-25 years due to unemployment rates but this mode of study is traditionally undertaken by older students (Table 1). So how will the former be encouraged to engage and whose responsibility is that?
(Source: HESA - Experts in higher education data and analysis)
We know:
- Part-time students have a higher Non-continuation rate than full-time
- The type of entry qualification impacts early withdrawal regardless of mode of study
- A high proportion come from disadvantaged backgrounds or have disabilities.
- Non-continuation rates are generally higher among part-time students aged up to 30 than those over 30.
- Commitments: High dropout rates are often attributed to the difficulty of balancing study with financial problems and external commitments like work or family.
- Institution providers with high proportions of "widening participation" students or extensive online provision tend to see higher non-continuation rates.
Do we need to balance this last point with the view that if those on the LLE modular route are going to be mature students wishing to enhance or undertake a career change they may be more motivated, and therefore more likely to succeed?
What we don’t know:
The reopening of maintenance allowance, removal of the requirement to be studying at an equal or higher level and the ability to study in a flexible modular way all, on the surface, support the stated objectives of widening participation. But will this actually work in practice as it does not address:
- Opportunity costs - these might still be too high for learners with insecure employment, those who are supporting families, and who are time poor.
- Reopening maintenance allowance does not necessarily provide adequate living support as real term value is eroded due to inflation.
- Dept aversion disproportionally affects learners form low-income backgrounds.
- Flexible module delivery routes benefit confident entrants more than uncertain entrants unless there is wrap around support.
- Lack of digital experience and worries about academic environments may hinder participation.
- Cultural and informational barriers will remain untouched without trusted guidance and meaningful local support.
There are practical things institutions offering LLE offerings can do, but there are also many issues and challenges that need to be addressed if universities are to actively engage and provide offerings that are desirable, valuable and impactful. In order for that to work, it requires multiple sectors to work together. Sector engagement with The Post-18 Project that is looking at new collective thinking, ideas and policy solutions, could be a good place to start in sharing good practice to bridge these gaps.