And yet the launch still appears to be going ahead
Remember the Short Courses Trial, that multi-million pound programme to bring the benefits of lifelong learning entitlement style loans to 41 people?
DfE proceeded to build on that success with the £5m Modular Acceleration Programme (MAP). At 18 providers, and on 50 modules from existing Higher Technical Qualifications across six occupational areas, this new effort saw (according to today’s interim report) 352 students enrol on a module between April 2024 and Spring 2025.
More people went to see Melania on general release.
The combined expectation among providers is that they would attract 1,800 learners to 108 modules. And apparently nobody had any expectations at all as to whether anyone would continue on or complete these modules – there was no attempt to gather consistent data on what is a central regulatory requirement (although a small survey suggests that around a sixth did not complete their module).
Seven providers on the project had not been able to deliver a course during the period in question because of low numbers – half of provider senior leaders were dissatisfied with recruitment. The most successful provider in the pilot – Herefordshire, Ludlow, and North Shropshire College, with 69 enrollments – appears not to be currently offering short courses at Level 4 or above.
Of the 350 learners with demographic data, we know that more than half (192) already had a qualification at level 4 or above, and 81 per cent of 285 learners with data available were in paid employment.
The report goes into more detail, but given the low numbers involved there is only one real conclusion that can be drawn – meaningful demand for modular provision will not appear organically, and even with dedicated funding for promotion and a specific effort over and above what providers would usually do it is very difficult to drum up interest.
The majority of learners heard about their module from their employer (39 per cent of a tiny sample of 80 learners) suggesting that the offer of free staff training is most compelling. Of course the design of the full LLE puts this cost onto the employee via the student loan system. Most learners in this position reported no additional support from employers once they had signed up
Providers found that, when they were able to recruit learners, many were apprehensive about assessments or returning to education – most appeared not to know about modular learning or even HTQs. Several learners had concerns about committing to a 30 credit module – time commitment was cited by more than half of the sample as a significant barrier.
It almost goes without saying that very few learners knew anything about the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, and there was equally low awareness among staff. A big selling point of the MAP courses was that learners did not have to pay – with one noting:
I didn’t know that we had an entitlement and that was being used up. That wasn’t explained to me prior to doing the course. I don’t know how much the entitlement is in total across your lifetime.
Let’s hope that learner doesn’t apply to do a four-year undergraduate course in the near future.
It is not clear that any meaningful national promotion of the LLE is planned before the soft launch next year – beyond, at least, its use as padding for ministerial statements touching on skills and higher education. Growing concerns around student loans and repayment, and the low value of the maintenance offer, make the point of differentiation between this and – often very successful – existing higher education short courses a negative one.
LLE is a programme that appears to be being driven by a sunk costs fallacy: that the time and effort already put into the programme by DfE and the Student Loans Company. There has been no movement on regulatory oversight for short courses, no sign of the enactment of any part of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act that makes it possible to fund short course through the student loan system, and the enormous marketing campaign that is clearly needed shows no signs of arriving any time soon.
When I talk about LLE to anyone in the sector the default position has become that it probably will not happen, and if it does happen it would be an irrelevance. Though there are things that this system could do that would be of value to learners (imagine being able to vary your study intensity to fit learning around your life!) these appear not to be on the cards. And, at the cost of another £5m, we now have further proof that there is very little learner demand.