One of the interesting things for me this week was the WonkHE analysis on the three draft statutory instruments which herald the end game of the biggest change in the student finance system since 2011.

The article notes that…

…arguably the most interesting point in these regulations is section 9(2)(b) which puts into English law for the first time the idea that a single academic credit is equivalent to ten notional learning hours. 

This equivalency is important for LLE as it means a student can stack credits for a qualification from different institutions and times. This in itself creates another headache. Does a credit from one institution now mean it is equivalent to a credit from another? Will that be accepted by all institutions. Another question that I saw at a recent event was how long is a credit viable for, will it lose its validity over time, and does that matter, or if it does which subjects would need this. 

I did my Economics degree back in the 1980s, and much of what I learnt then hasn’t changed much, to be honest it hadn’t changed much in the previous forty years, let alone the last forty years. Some units I did are probably out of date, thinking about that unit I did on the Economics of European Community. Whilst others, such as that module on Economic and Social History probably hasn’t aged.

One of the other interesting things for me this week was the WonkHE analysis on who gets to offer LLE modules?

You might think that – given past failures to attract learners – that the government would want to spread the net as far as possible as regards lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) provision.

You would be wrong.

There are just 130 providers who have registered for LLE provision. Does this mean anything, will it result in a no one caring about LLE, or is this just the beginning.

I attended a webinar about open education early in the week. It reminded me of many discussions I have had about open over the years. Listening in to the conversations I did pitch in that we have to sometimes think open is the solution, not a problem in itself to be solved. Sometimes I think when we start talking about open, we are trying to solve the open problem, how do we ensure education is open, how do we publish open educational resources, etc… As with my recent post on bridge building, we have to remember that open is a solution. A solution to another problem. What we have to do sometimes is remind ourselves on what problem open is trying to solve.