We might not have heard much from the new government about the prospects of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), but Labour’s manifesto commitment to facilitate easier student mobility means the issue of credit transfer isn’t going anywhere.
Credit transfer is often referred to as the “third rail” of the LLE – an aspect necessary to deliver on the ambitions of the policy, but probably the hardest one to realise. There’s nothing stopping credit transfer from happening in the current system; indeed, it does. We might not have a sector-wide system, but recognition of prior learning is included in the UK Quality Code and therefore most providers have a process for it.
So, what is it about current practice that has policymakers talking about credit transfer like it’s some fancy new idea?
The miserable reality
The answer is in the execution. QAA has today published a comprehensive review of credit transfer policies across UK providers. The headline finding ? We’re miles away from a coherent system.
For starters, the policies themselves are often not easy to find. The language and terms used differ from policy to policy. You say APL, I say RPL. It’s a miracle so many applicants don’t call the whole thing off.
So, what happens if a potential student does manage to locate and translate a provider’s credit transfer policy? Well, they will then find that the responsibility for evidencing any prior learning is likely to be very much upon their own shoulders, sometimes with precious little guidance apparently on offer.
Credit crunch
They may also discover that not all credit was created equal. Some providers are more welcoming of credit gained in an educational setting than gained through experience. They’re also unlikely to be allowed to carry their marks or grades over with them, putting them on an uneven footing with their peers who have gained all their credit in one institution. Not all their credits will be recognised – or some may indeed have expired by the time they hope to use it.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach for credit transfer. The diversity of providers and the sheer volume of disciplines available in higher education mean that there will inevitably be nuance across the sector. But that’s no reason why students and potential applicants shouldn’t be able to clearly understand those processes and the rationales which underpin them. It might indeed even prove desirable that providers wishing to promote learner mobility – and all the opportunities that come with it – might seek to achieve some degree of consensus in these areas.
However, as we await such collaborative efforts, these ongoing barriers may well end up preventing the participation of precisely those people whom higher education most wants and needs to attract.
Access to credit
Given the value of credit transfer mechanisms in the promotion of widening participation and in the development of the agile, skilled workforce essential for the country’s industrial and economic future – and the commitment made by providers to meet these key points on the new government’s policy agenda – the continuation of these barriers might come to seem like something of an own goal.
There are some big set pieces the sector could deliver to demonstrate it’s serious about making this work. A sector-owned template so that policies are comparable is one. Engaging with the government and regulator about how the system could better incentivise the credit transfer process – for example through OfSAccess and Participation Plans – is another.
But there are also some quick, easy wins.
Navigating the credit transfer process would be made infinitely easier if providers made the policies easily accessible on their websites. And while this may seem insignificant and pedantic, an active hyperlink to the policy when it is mentioned elsewhere would’ve halved our research time. We can only assume it would have similar benefits for applicants.
Creating the kind of seamless system that’s often touted in the policy debate will inevitably require a heavy lift from everyone involved. An overarching system might not actually allow for the nuance and autonomy that the sector thrives on.
But by taking stock of where we’re at, it’s clear that there are some simple steps we can take as a sector to make this less of a slog for everyone involved. That way, we can deliver on the government’s agenda in this space but, more importantly, deliver for the learners that the current processes are keeping out in the cold.
Well said, Helena.
There is, I think, a role – and, perhaps more importantly in terms of potential progress – an opportunity here for UCAS. The offers/tariff system is well established and is a form of transparency about credit for prior achievement (albeit at Level 3 and below rather than 4 and above).
It is understood by applicants and providers alike that not all tariff points are equal when it comes to different courses. As a result the tariff/offers systems has become more ‘three-dimensional’, by which I mean it looks not just at the X and Y axes of what qualifications and what grades, but also the Z axis of whether the subject mix of qualifications matches the requirements. (There’s another axis too for context admissions, but let’s not go into that right now.)
There’s scope for UCAS to go far further in making the existing 3D system more transparent – and to their credit, they’ve been taking steps to do so. Once the model is built, whereby applicants can enter their multidimensional expected qualifications, providers can enter their multidimensional requirements and the algorithm can show matching, there is no reason why that same model cannot be used for credit transfer beyond Level 3.
As well as markers for type of qualification, grade and subject, you can start to add further markers for level, accreditation, date/recency, study mode (including, perhaps, workplace/life experience), awarding institution, etc. While providers may not be able to agree on a common currency for credit, they may at least be able to acknowledge a common set of markers about credit.
This allows institutions to autonomously determine their own entry criteria while at the same time creating the clarity about and navigability of the options for potential students.
It would be right to point out that, such as they are, most of the courses (or course switches) for which a credit transfer system might be needed aren’t listed on UCAS. That’s true and that’s where the opportunity lies for UCAS to tap into whatever potential market there may be for lifelong learning.
UCAS is in an almost monopolistic position in the domestic undergraduate market. If LLE (or something like it) starts to become a more significant proportion of the HE sector, UCAS will want to be part of that and owning the ‘currency’ would place it in an excellent position to serve institutions and students well, not only with a searchable directory and clearing system, but also scaffolding that with additional information, advice and guidance.
One of the great things about HE is the ability for old arguments and battles to be resurrected, and it is good to see credit transfer coming back.
I think this article (and the report) entangle two different things. There are arguments for clarification and standardisation of process, where there is a fairly clear benefit for students and no obvious significant drawback based on the evidence presented, and there are arguments for the expansion of RPL on the grounds that RPL is something to which all students should be entitled, which is much more contentious, and seems more driven by opinion. The article and report assume that we need more RPL.
There will always be the challenge of a UK-model which priorities specialist degree programmes with sequential learning (particularly in STEM), and which grants institutions autonomy to be different, which makes straightforward transfer of credit more difficult (and not always in a student’s best interests) – it is not good to let a student transfer if it sets them up for failure, or leaves their skills and knowledge less well developed.
The implication that a refusal to recognise grades from previous institutions is wrong is also open to debate, as is the suggestion that not accepting grades from elsewhere somehow means students are not on a level playing field (they are not on a level playing field because they have transferred from one from institution to another, and they will be different for that reason, regardless of whether the grades are accepted). The current OfS regulatory regime (and the previous QAA one) place responsibilities for standards with the provider issuing awards, and we aren’t supposed to delegate that.
There is also a philosophical argument that students studying for a qualification should be given RPL against learning from which they will genuinely not benefit (as they have covered it and meet the LOs already), rather than given RPL for as much as possible to enable them to gain a final qualification more quickly.
Maybe the LLE will sweep all objections away and mandate credit transfer so that we see the kind of movement which the previous government always hoped to encourage. But I don’t think this would be good news for students or institutions.