Category: credit transfer

  • Why the LLE may not radically reform tertiary education — and how it might still move the dial

    Why the LLE may not radically reform tertiary education — and how it might still move the dial

    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.

    Source link

  • We can all share the credit

    We can all share the credit

    I remain in two minds about credit transfer.

    The sector is so split on the issue it can seem at once both an intractable issue never to be fully realized and an obvious enough mechanism to promote access and mobility.

    In reality, it’s somewhere between the two and, today, a new report from QAA looks at where we might find that common ground. After looking at what the current state of play on credit transfer is last year, this year we’ve delved into why it is that way and what might instigate change.

    Hierarchies of need

    Credit transfer is the process by which a provider recognises the credit a student has accrued at another institution, exempting them from modules they’ve already undertaken elsewhere. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) doesn’t require credit transfer, but it will fall far short of its vision if more isn’t done to facilitate transfer between institutions.

    The current financial precarity of much of the UK’s higher education sector has also brought into sharper focus the value for students of being able to transfer their credit and their studies between providers – whether prompted by the threat of course closures, the movement of key teaching staff, or even the prospect of institutional collapse.The latest Office for Students board papers tell us that this has happened recently in the case of the Applied Business Academy.

    Last year’s Student Academic Experience Survey found that more than a fifth of students said they would, with the benefit of hindsight, have chosen a different institution or/and course. Smoother processes of credit transfer would make it possible for those students to change courses midstream. Those mechanisms wouldn’t just reinforce their rights as consumers; those opportunities should enhance their satisfaction, their chances of completion and academic success, and their employment prospects.

    Credit transfer is more important for some providers than for others. The Open University receives over 6,000 applications for credit transfer every year. At multiple specialist providers, credit transfer accounts for more than 10 per cent of their annual intake.

    Some providers may feel sufficiently confident in the profile of their provision to welcome an open system of credit transfer that would result in their net gain. Others have concerns about the administrative burden posed by credit transfer, the logistical complexities caused by the unpredictability of shifting student numbers, and its impacts on institutional autonomy and their academic brands.

    In short, it seems clear that a one-size-fits-all approach wouldn’t fit all, or indeed suit anyone. So, what might work? We thought it might be a good idea to ask.

    Mission: Improbable

    QAA’s latest research, published today, involved a survey of sector perspectives, and a series of stakeholder conversations and focus groups involving representatives both of providers and of professional statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs).

    Those we engaged in this research overwhelmingly agreed that credit transfer is a valuable tool for students and can underpin lifelong learning. The advantages most cited were the flexibility it provides and its impact on widening participation, particularly for returners to learning – as well as the practical benefits for students who can gain qualifications and learning in a shorter time and at a lower cost, by removing the need to duplicate learning unnecessarily. The benefits also extended to institutions, particularly as an instrument to promote retention and improve completion rates.

    The idea of a sector-owned framework was also welcomed by our participants, with 84 per cent agreeing it would be helpful to achieve credit transfer at scale. But our participants were rather less optimistic about the possibility of a more formal integrated sector-wide system of credit transfer. The providers themselves tended to consider this prospect unrealistic, while sector organisations were more likely to welcome the idea.

    While participants were positive about the effectiveness of institutions’ individual approaches, their responses expressed concerns around transparency, resourcing and cultural resistance. Though our stakeholders largely agreed that credit transfer was a valuable route and necessary to facilitate lifelong learning, they often doubted the feasibility of delivering it at scale.

    The art of the possible

    Action on credit transfer falls into three (fairly) neat buckets, each with its own level of impact and compromise.

    For starters, there’s some low hanging fruit that would make this process work more smoothly for applicants. Our participants observed that applicants often don’t realise credit transfer is an option – and that its processes are difficult to understand. We’d therefore recommend that providers embed greater transparency and promotion of credit transfer – and agree a sector-wide terminology to explain it.

    But there’s little point making the policies more accessible if what applicants find there isn’t great. We also have to work to improve the policies themselves. We’d recommend the development of a sector-owned good practice guide to the key principles of credit transfer policy; student engagement in determining the information required and how it should be presented; and that providers consider routes through which forms academic credit can be automatically recognized for transfer.

    The greatest challenge is to develop multi-institutional initiatives to ease transfer between providers. There are pockets of the sector where this would be welcome, and others where it would be hard to get it off the ground. We’re not recommending hard enforcement on credit transfer – frankly, the sector has enough to be getting on with – but some level of accountability through regional consortia or partnerships, a charter of best practice, or folding its focus into existing regulatory processes would be a start.

    What’s clear is that credit transfer remains in limbo until we get a clearer direction from the government on just where the LLE is going. It might help the policy’s ambitions, but without a better sense of what the government wants the sector to achieve, it’s understandably falling down the list of priorities.

    To move beyond this impasse, the government needs to make clear where the strategic imperative is for action, so the sector can get to work on addressing the cultural and practical barriers.

    Source link