Spot the difference
Changes to the student finance system could help so-called 'needs', writes Helen Carasso
The prediction in Alan Milburn’s recently-published interim report Young People and Work that there would soon be over one million people aged 16-24 in the UK not in education, employment or training (the so-called Neets) has since been confirmed by the Office for National Statistics. This means that more than one in eight young people are starting their adult lives facing the challenges of finding their place within their community with-out the focus and support that work or study can provide. Over 60 per cent of young people in this ‘Neet’ group are categorised as ‘economically inactive’. The underlying causes are clearly complex, and social and health factors no doubt play their part. But questions about education are fundamental. What role should education play?
What modes of delivery and funding can reduce the links between educational and social disadvantage in childhood and the likelihood of becoming ‘Neet’? And what types of courses should be offered that suit the needs and interests of both students and potential employers?
From January 2027, student funding will be delivered as a lifelong learning entitlement(LLE) in an attempt to move beyond the traditional model of post-compulsory education in England, in which school or college is followed immediately by a full-time, award-bearing course. The combination of fee and maintenance loans currently offered to those on a three- or four-year degree will also be available to people studying accredited ‘units’ (equivalent to at least 30 of the 360 credits required for a full undergraduate award) at approved providers. Adults in England will therefore be able to draw on loans equivalent to four years of undergraduate study at any point until they are 60.
The flexible patterns of study that the LLE will support offer the potential for people to update their skills and knowledge as the field in which they are working develops. This is intended to increase take-up of degree-level education and training, whether in module-level chunks over a number of years or as a full course. It has also been suggested by some specialists that this ‘bite-sized’ approach to post-compulsory education will widen participation in higher education by reducing barriers for those who are daunted by the prospect of an average graduate debt of over £53,000.
This hope is certainly consistent with the evidence that has been built up over two decades of research showing that debt-aversion has greater impacts on the choices made by potential students who are older, are single parents, or from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In theory, then, the LLE sounds as if it should be a surefire policy success for the government (even though it was originally mooted by its predecessors). And in one sense at least, it is unlikely to fail: from next year, all loans for full undergraduate degree courses will operate under this model, meaning that some 1.25 million borrowers will automatically be signed up. As a result, it should avoid the initial inertia seen when the apprenticeship levy (AL) was introduced in 2017.
Under the AL scheme, employers with wage bills over £3m paid a sum equal to 0.5 per cent of those wages into a central fund. Employers could then draw on this fund to support apprenticeships for new or existing employees at any level up to a masters degree. In the early years of the AL, however, take-up was limited, resulting in £604m in unspent funds (24 per cent of the total pot)being reclaimed by HM Treasury in 2020/21.Following adjustments to arrangements for learners, and wider changes in study patterns post-pandemic, just1 per cent of the fund is now routinely unused, and the government has felt able to remove support for masters-level qualifications – which had been characterised(perhaps unfairly) as giving support to middle-managers undertaking MBAs – from eligibility for AL funding.
Since April, the renamed growth and skills levy can be used to support education from GCSE level through to degree apprenticeships and sub-degree units supporting ‘critical skills’ (such as AI and battery manufacturing).With the experience of the AL in mind, the question now is whether higher education in England is ready to accommodate the government’s wider ambitions for the LLE through its support for short courses as well as degrees. A recent pilot of such courses carried out by the Office for Students (OfS), however, raised as many questions as it answered.
The pilot shared an award of £2m between 22 providers to develop a total of 96 short courses. It was hoped that around 2,400 learners would enrol on at least one of these during the 2022-2023 academic year. In fact, just 125people enrolled, and only 17 courses across 10 institutions proved viable to run. Almost half of the students who did enrol were funded by their employers. Among the remaining 62 students, two-thirds took advantage of the new-style loan modelled on the forthcoming LLE, and 33 of those learners said they would not have been on the course were it not for the LLE-style funding.
In terms of raw percentages, the outcomes of this trial could be presented as encouraging, but the unavoidable issue is the incredibly low levels of demand for short units of sub-degree level study. Furthermore, more than two-thirds of learners already had an undergraduate degree. This is not necessarily a concern in the context of lifelong learning and upskilling. The pilot does raise questions, however, about the extent to which the LLE will widen participation in higher education, especially considering that the proportion of students with a declared disability or learning condition, and the share from a minority ethnic background, were both consistent with the current participation rates for these groups. With such small take-up, it would be wrong to make long-term predictions about the impact (or lack thereof)of the LLE from this one pilot. It does, however, raise questions about whether there is actually a demand for amore flexible model of study and, as a result, the extent to which higher education providers are likely to take the risk of investing in the development, marketing and operation of such courses.
On the demand side, there are the students themselves, but also employers. The large majority of students on the pilot who were in work had their study funded by their employers as part of their continuing professional development (CPD). However, follow-up interviews indicated that many firms hoped that, once these courses became established, their contribution could be taken from the AL. What, though, of potential students on the new-style units? Will those who are concerned about graduate debt or unsure whether they want to study at degree level feel more confident to enrol on a 30 credit unit that potentially represents part of a degree? While taking one or two such modules may serve as a toe in the water for some, it remains unclear whether learners will be able to accumulate credits over time – potentially across multiple providers – and then have them evaluated together as equivalent to a single, coherent degree programme.
For at least three decades, there have been calls within the sector for universities to operate a common credit accumulation and transfer (CAT) scheme. Admirable as the underlying ambition is, any credible implementation would have to accommodate the differences in course content, pedagogic approaches, and forms of assessment that are core to the English model of course validation on an institution-by-institution basis. And that is to say nothing of the secure, reliable, GDPR-compliant storage of records at a national level that would be needed.
Major changes will also be necessary in universities and colleges that do not already offer short courses. In addition to reviewing and restructuring their own student records system, they will need to consider how to recruit and work with learners who may only be engaged with the institution for a few months. Recruitment will need to target a much wider group of possible applicants and lead to many more enrolments, which is significantly more labour- and resource-intensive than campaigns to attract people to sign up for longer periods. Regular induction periods will also be needed throughout the year, and institutions will need to consider which teaching and assessment processes might be more suitable for those who have not been in formal education for some time.
These are just some of the adjustments that institutions will need to make if they are to work successfully with those who enter higher education through the more flexible patterns of study that the LLE is intended to encourage. The financial and reputational risks are substantial, and providers ignore them at their peril if they decide to design and offer shorter accredited courses. With 43 per cent of institutions last year forecasting deficits, many simply lack the seed corn funds needed to underpin investment in this form of delivery.
The slow start to take-up of the apprenticeship levy is evidence – if any were needed – that it would be unfair to write off the LLE just because of the limitations of its pilot. Yet the question remains: how is the government going to support and incentivise universities and colleges to take the lead in helping almost one million Neets to start their working lives? There will be many principals and vice-chancellors looking to Milburn’s final report, when it is published later this year, for an answer to that question
