Picture two people you probably know. Amira works in a GP surgery and wants to move into health data. Ben’s a video editor who keeps bumping into AI tools he doesn’t quite understand.
The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) looks built for them: pay per credit, learn in chunks, fit study around life. It’s a real step forward. But a finance switch rarely rewires a whole system. Who recognises learning, who lets you progress, and who supports you while you study still decide who actually gets through the door.
In simple terms, the LLE funds learning at levels 4–6 (from Higher Nationals up to bachelor’s) and lets people use an entitlement over time (currently up to age 60). Providers are paid per credit. Early emphasis is on areas with clear employer demand (for example computing, engineering, health) and on Higher Technical Qualifications. Funded modules typically need to be at least 30 credits, assessed, and housed inside an approved “parent course”. Subjects are tagged using a national list (HECoS), and modules are expected to align with the parent course’s main subject tag – a guard-rail that ties funding to real, quality-assured programmes.
Money fix won’t deliver system fix
Being able to pay isn’t the same as being able to progress. One university ultimately decides whether learning you did elsewhere counts towards its award, and practice varies. Modularity also isn’t cost-free: even short units need admissions checks, timetables, advice and assessment, so institutions may scale cautiously or stick to subjects with clear prerequisites. And performance metrics were built for whole degrees, not “step-on, step-off” study, so departments worry about being penalised when learners pause between modules.
At the most selective end of the system, mid-course entry and external credit are rare. That’s not special pleading; it reflects how recognition works in England: one university confers the degree and decides what counts. The LLE can pay for learning in many places; it doesn’t compel acceptance.
Colleges and universities can make progress quickly by acting as one system: align first-year expectations so college students aren’t starting cold; recognise T Levels and Higher Technical Qualifications clearly in admissions; share transition data so support follows the learner; co-deliver study-skills content; and publish simple maps showing which level-4 modules count towards which degrees. Otherwise, too many learners hit the boundary and bounce off it (see this practical bridging agenda from Imran Mir at Apex College Leicester).
In countries where adult study is normal, systems don’t just fix tuition; they also help with the time cost of learning and make credit transfer routine. The pattern is tuition + time + transfer solved together. England’s LLE chiefly tackles tuition; the other two levers still need work.
The wider growth story is that systems that reach more adult learners tend to do three things at scale: institution-wide digital delivery (not a side-project), employer-linked curricula and experiential learning, and a clear identity around inclusion and student success. The LLE can be the catalyst, but only if leaders build for lifelong learners across the whole institution rather than at the edges, with enterprise-level innovation in online and hybrid learning, partnerships, brand reach, and transfer-friendly design.
Interdisciplinarity without contortions
A live tension is the HECoS rule: a module’s main subject tag is expected to match its parent course. That keeps data tidy and protects students, but it can blunt genuinely cross-field learning just as employers ask for blended skill-sets (AI plus a domain like health or media; green and digital transitions).
Createch – where creative practice, design, computing, data/AI and business models meet – is a good test case. There are two practical tracks. One is provider-led, inside today’s rules, and would involve setting up interdisciplinary parent programmes (for example, Createch and Digital Production) so the main tag stays compliant, and using secondary or proportional tags to reflect the mix. Institutions would co-deliver paired modules across departments with published progression maps and build employer-validated outcomes so transfer is easier to justify.
A policy-led approach would require government and regulators to clarify guidance on proportional coding and run time-limited pilots allowing defined exceptions to the strict primary-code match where labour-market need is clear (Createch is a strong candidate). After consultation, there could be small, targeted tweaks so specified cross-disciplinary modules can be funded without awkward rebadging.
Options for system development
Portability needs to be easier to plan. A credit-transfer guarantee in a few defined subject areas, backed by shared learning-outcome descriptors and a standard digital transcript, would give learners and providers confidence. Publishing typical acceptance rules – and deciding transfer requests within indicative timeframes – would also help.
Fund time as well as tuition, selectively. A wage-linked maintenance pilot for priority level 4–6 modules, with pro-rata childcare and disability support, could unlock participation for adults who can’t take a pay hit to study.
Commission where demand is obvious. A small national fund could buy short university courses in shortage areas with colleges and local employers.
Build planned pathways. Federated degrees and regional FE–HE compacts can publish simple maps from level 3/4 to degree entry (including any bridging) and show how 30-credit modules stack inside an approved parent course.
Tune the measures. Outcome metrics that recognise pauses between modules would reduce the risk of doing the right thing for modular learners.
Balance selective and inclusive levers. Any growth money might come with contextual admissions and targeted pathways at high-tariff universities, alongside serious student success investment where most low-income learners actually study and, crucially, institution-wide innovation rather than pilots at the margins.
The LLE widens options but on its own it won’t rebalance outcomes. If England wants fair access and attainment, the system can combine portable recognition, realistic support for time out of work, and commissioned provision where need is greatest – and pair it with institution-wide innovation that treats adults as core learners, not extras. That’s how Amira and Ben actually get through the door, and how the sector grows again.