A call for evidence – with an online form to complete – isn’t quite a formal consultation.

But it does represent the beginnings of a serious bit of regulatory thinking that needs to happen as we move ever closer to the 2025-26 academic year launch of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement (LLE).

This exercise (which closes on 2 November), and an evaluation of the Short Courses Trial, form the first part of a process that will lead to a longer formal consultation in next year.

It’s big, difficult, stuff.

And as such, I have to applaud the Office for Students for starting early, and starting in listening mode.

Given parameters

The opportunity for regulatory innovation is already constrained. OfS is anticipating a consistency between LLE regulation and what it does currently for longer provision, including the B3 (Outcomes) component. And we know that, initially at least, most attention has to be paid to the likely early constituents of a sector LLE offer – disaggregated Higher Technical Qualification (HTQ) 30 credit modules and courses abstracted from other provision at levels 4 and 5, including provision previously funded via advanced learner loans (ALLs).

The clear issue here is with outcomes regulation – to an extent exacerbated by a quality assurance focus on provision rather than providers. Had the LLE come to being ten years ago, it would be straightforward enough to assume that an institution that passed the QAA’s Higher Education Review would be able to run courses of any persuasion. The Office for Students has chosen a different route, which here necessitates thinking about “outcomes” measures for short courses that could last less than a single academic term.

For instance: the current B3 measures include “continuation” (whether a student stays on their course), “completion” (whether a student achieves their learning aim) and “progression” (whether a student goes on to a suitably graduate destination, be that further study, work, or something else).

OfS’s interpretation of the likely changes to provision in the light of LLE being available are an increase in student movements (between subject areas and providers – even multiple providers at the same time), a corresponding drop in the current focus on attaining named complete qualifications, and more flexibility around part-time offers. Each of these shifts makes the concepts that underlie “continuation”, “completion”, and “progression” harder to conceptualise.

Aims and contexts

OfS aims to continue to ensure students have positive outcomes – from modular study and from other study modes. In terms of accountability and reputation it sees a need for a minimum level of quality across all LLE provisions. And while doing so, it also wants to foster innovation within clear boundaries, and leave open the route for effective regulatory action.

It’s all good stuff – but it bakes in a number of assumptions that need to be taken apart. One of the criticisms sometimes made of OfS is that it ventriloquises a student voice rather than capturing authentic aspirations and concerns. It’s easy to assume, therefore, that a student embarking on a course of study has certain expectations and goals that the course would help them meet, and then regulate accordingly.

Short courses have value other than in themselves. They can act as a taster, to help students understand if a subject or provider (or even higher study itself) is right for them – a way to pursue an interest without committing to multiple years of study is right for them. For example, I sometimes think I might enjoy studying law – but I suspect 30 credits of a law course might set me straight on that, and that I’d probably know that within a few weeks of the start date.

Likewise, short courses may be a way to pursue interests secondary to a career – I would perhaps appreciate a short, intensive, music theory course (that could lead, say, to some private tuition or a few paid gigs) to help me better enjoy a hobby or passion that’s going to do very little for my career or likely future earnings.

Completion and progression

The initial OfS thinking is that “completion” (getting to the end of the course) is a fair measure of quality, and that an expanded notion of “progression” (what you do afterwards) is a reasonable question to ask in terms of value. In essence, I think this is right – and as the regulator notes providers may also collect data on module outcomes that tell us something about the likely outcomes for the full course.

But this approach does need an expansion of our understanding of these terms, and the risk here clearly is that either meaning is diluted to the point that such measures say very little of value, or that an over-prescriptive model of success rules whole swathes of worthwhile provision out of bounds.

There are, to be clear, no easy answers here. Certainly, it would be easier to regulate LLE-like provision with a focus on inputs (the quality of what is on offer in terms of teaching, resources, opportunities) and experience (an LLE-level student survey). But for its own reasons OfS has chosen another route – based on the laudable need to be accountable for the way public funds are spent.

The LLE is almost certainly the most radical rethink of tertiary study since 2012 (and probably a lot further back than that). It needs a thoughtful and considered regulatory approach that perhaps better sees tertiary education as an ongoing service as opposed to a single life experience. It needs a regulator willing to listen to students and others about hopes, mistakes, experiments, and expectations.

This early expression of a will to listen is encouraging.

Having a hot consultation respondent summer? There’s more out there:

The Office for Students is also consulting on including Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs) as a separate category within sector data (and thus, potentially, funding and regulation). You have until 9 November to get your thoughts on this in.