
Over on Wonk corner, David Kernohan discusses the legacy of Keir Starmer on higher education.
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Keir Starmer was a prime minister who had a substantial influence on higher education.
Though overing the Starmer legacy, also in the article David says
…there are still important questions about demand for fee loan backed short courses. I’m not convinced the LLE was a good idea…
I have been looking at the infrastructure (and the importance of interoperability) in relation other student mobility in Europe, one reason for this is the applicability of the European Higher Education Interoperability Framework to the concept of the LLE in England.
When discussing LLE with colleagues in Jisc and in the wider higher education sector, that question about demand does come up quite often. Are there people out there demanding short courses and are they looking for fee loan to cover those costs? We are not seeing people wanting to do such courses, so does that mean there is no demand?
I always think that this analysis is a bit chicken and egg, and that I mean by that, there appears to be no demand for fee loan backed short courses, so the sector does not offer fee loan backed short courses. However, could it be that because sector does not offer fee loan backed short courses, there is no demand as a result,
Going back to why we are going to have LLE, the government say this.
As set out in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, the government is committed to ensuring the country develops the skills needed to:
- drive sustained economic growth
- break down barriers to opportunity
- improve the living standards of hardworking people
The LLE will deliver transformational change to the current student finance system by
- broadening access to high-quality, flexible education and training
- supporting greater learner mobility between institutions
This will enable individuals to learn, upskill and retrain across their working lives. It will create opportunities for both young people and adults to develop the skills needed to succeed in life, contributing to growth across the entire country.
The implication is that there is an untapped demand for high-quality, flexible education and training. It is currently not been provided as there is no demand for it. However that demand is based on charging actual upfront fees for the education and training. Remove upfront fees with fees backed by loans, then there will be renewed demand.
If this is the case then, how does the system ensure that once we have the demand, that there is a supply. Is the system agile enough to respond to changes in demand. The government believes that it is, the question is does the sector believe that too?



















