The lifelong loan entitlement doesn’t fit around the situations of learners

14 Mar 2022, 6:00

Minimum eligibility requirements are being applied in a generic way, writes Marius S. Ostrowski

A flagship item in the government’s recent Skills and Post-16 Education Bill is the lifelong loan entitlement. This is a system of financial support that allows people to take up to four years of additional courses to retrain and upskill.

But to realise this vision the government will need to become far more sensitive to the actual situation of potential lifelong learners. By adopting a one-size-fits-all approach to skills development, the current regime unfortunately fails to capture the full range of forms that lifelong learning can take.

Take someone who learns a language or an artisan skill in evening or weekend classes while holding a full-time job. Or someone who takes on-the-job accountancy, management, or computer training sponsored by their firm. 

Or indeed someone who dips in and out of an eclectic roster of interests by tuning into “massive open online courses” in sociology or astrophysics.

And what about those who take law or veterinary “conversion courses” after a degree, or those who return to full-time study during a career break?

Unfortunately, the more “non-traditional” forms of post-18 learning are often overlooked by policymakers, whose choices have tended to make lifelong learning easier for some and arbitrarily more difficult for others.  

One such choice is the byzantine system of exemptions surrounding minimum eligibility requirements to access the lifelong loan entitlement.

There is a byzantine system of exemptions

These include learners over 25, part-time learners, learners with a level 4 or 5 award, a foundation year, or an access to HE qualification (but only to undertake level 6 study).

Why only from 25? This means that, if someone leaves school at 16 or 18, they will have to work for the best part of a decade before becoming eligible for financial support. At the very least, cutting this to 21 would make financial support more accessible.

Another innovation could be to integrate “in-work” skills development into existing accreditation frameworks. This would give learners a “fast track” to lifelong loan entitlement eligibility regardless of age, if they can show that they have already reached a skills level equivalent to the entry requirements of the qualifications they wish to pursue.

At the same time, minimum eligibility requirements cannot be applied to every qualification in a generic way. Certainly, some standards of literacy, numeracy, or vocational competence should be universal.

But learners should not be disqualified from accessing funding if they have not met a minimum standard in areas irrelevant to their next qualification.

Instead, minimum eligibility requirements need to be tailored to a system of vocation-specific lifelong learning pathways. These should be a joined-up series of courses from sixth form to higher degree study, provided by a learning ecosystem of schools, FE colleges and HE institutions.

The exit requirements for each course level should dovetail seamlessly with the entry requirements for the next level up.

This would eradicate learners’ concerns about not “making the grade” to access further funding. It would also make it easier to “step on and off” this lifelong pathway as and when works best for them.

To make the lifelong loan entitlement truly lifelong, the government must also replace the four-year limit on funding availability. Courses can deliver skills improvements over very variable stretches of time ̶ compare a year of night classes to a week of training days, or a term of college study.

Instead, the government should set a limit on the total number of course credits it will fund ̶ say, 600 credits, equivalent to five years’ worth of full-time degree study.

Then learners can see how much of their entitlement they have “left”, and it becomes easier to attach funding precisely to courses on a per-module basis.

This relies on a transparent, overarching accreditation framework for technical, academic and integrated qualifications. Scotland has already led the way on this, and Wales is close behind. It is time for the rest of the UK to follow suit.

The government has created a space for a genuinely radical transformation of lifelong learning.

It now has to ensure it creates the system that works best for learners, no matter who they are or what situation they are in.



More from this theme

Skills reform

Who’s deciding the future of BTECs? Secrecy surrounds DfE’s ‘independent assessors’

Transparency demanded as DfE refuses to publish details

Billy Camden
Qualifications, Skills reform, T Levels

Revealed: 38 BTECs facing the chop to clear way for first T Levels

They're among 160 level 3 quals set to be defunded from 2024

Billy Camden
Qualifications, Skills reform

Level 2 qualifications review ‘materially flawed’

Providers and awarding organisations have had their say on the government's level 2 qualifications review. Here's what the sector...

Shane Chowen
Skills reform

DfE begins local skills improvement plans national rollout

It is hoped that “most” of the country will be covered by an LSIP by summer 2023

Will Nott
Skills reform

Ofqual voices concern over DfE reforms to level 2 and below qualifications

Plans risk adding confusion to landscape and 'overhwhelming' educators

Billy Camden
Skills reform

Delivery challenges ahead as skills bill finally gains royal assent

New laws will bring in an official list of post-16 skills providers and rules for increased apprenticeships guidance in...

Shane Chowen

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

One comment

  1. You only need to look at the USA to see what a loans funded education system does to social mobility metrics and the ever widening gap between rich and poor.

    If Govt expects only 25% of current loan recipients will ever pay off their loan in full, that says a lot about how effective it is in terms of raising earnings and the inflating bubble of unpaid loans that the public will eventually have to pay.

    However, it is a handy tool for the Treasury. They can get the expenditure off the balance sheet and flog off the good part of the loan book when they need some beneficial economic news. (irrespective of who is in power)

    So, back to USA. As of 2021 the US student loan debt was $1.58 trillion (that is 12 zero’s). Or $4,800 for every single one of the 329 million people living in the US.

    In the UK, with loans having been introduced in the early 90s. The first 10 years of debt got to about £10 billion, the next 10 years it was up to about £40 billion, then in the last 10 years stood at £160 billion in March 2021.

    In the world of finance, that type of growth trajectory makes people salivate. In the real world it makes people cry.