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.