Short Courses and the Lifelong Loan Entitlement: Are They Compatible?
At the University of Salford, we were one of the more successful providers in the OfS Short Course pilot last year. We developed six courses of 30 credits and after our marketing window, ran two. In this article, I examine the lessons we learnt institutionally from the pilot but also look at the inherent challenges for the government to make this scaleable.
Initial Research
This was critical for our decisions on what we would offer. We wanted something that was relevant to the region and related to the skills gap in Greater Manchester.
Using local labour market intelligence data, we worked with seven local large employer partners and concluded that we needed to concentrate on digital competencies. Fortunately, we had existing 20 credit modules that were relatively easy to augment into a 30-credit standalone offer.
Marketing Campaign
The window for the marketing campaign was short so we devised a 13-week campaign split into two phases. Initially we had a four week “test and learn” phase where we advertised through Google and on social media platforms.
After this period there was an analysis stage where we reviewed the performance and adjusted our tactics for the final nine-week campaign. Analysis included refining our geo-targeting based on modes of delivery, i.e. targeting those within one hour’s travel for campus-based delivery compared to the wider northwest for online delivery.
Delivery
The marketing yielded cohorts for two short courses: Data Analysis for Business and Data Analytics and Machine Learning.
Interestingly they had quite different demographics. Data Analysis for Business attracted an older age range, with nearly 40% over 40 compared with 40% of those on Data Analysis and Machine Learning being from the 26-30 age group. Unsurprisingly, this then meant that only 28% of the first group applied for the LLE funding as presumably they were less likely to be under financial pressures than the younger cohort.
Both courses showed a pleasingly even split on gender, while Data Analytics and Machine Learning was also almost evenly split between white and minoritized ethnic groups.
Lessons Learned
Our engagement with employers was very positive – it was clear that there was indeed an unmet need for upskilling in digital skills which was in line with the local labour market intelligence data. Short courses are therefore a useful addition to the options facing learners and employers alongside apprenticeships and Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs).
However, short courses are a competitive market with many private providers offering non-credit bearing provision of shorter duration at cheaper rates than most Universities could support. While we were satisfied that our approval processes were agile enough to create and quality assure modular provision, we found that there were systemic issues such as difficulties in charging for single modules or producing transcripts. For small numbers of participants this could be done manually but would not be scaleable without significant alterations to multiple interdependent systems.
The Policy Environment
While promising, the LLE short course trial raised more questions than it answered. Across our two cohorts of students, only 30% applied for the LLE funding. The rest paid individually or were supported by their employer. It is possible that with a national campaign, usage of the LLE for this would rise but that is not yet proven.
In my opinion, this sort of offering is far more likely to be utilised if there is flexibility in how the apprenticeship levy can be used, but of course this is not what was intended by the trial. If we look at the parameters of the LLE modular short course trial, each have their own challenges.
LLE funded modules must:
Be part of a designated full course (“parent course”) so that modules can be stacked towards full qualifications; this limits agility to respond to urgent demand and there has been no meaningful discussion of how the full qualification route would happen – stacking modules from different institutions makes the concept of the parent course difficult to maintain and the demand to build to a degree via this route is untested.
Have a single qualification level and credit value, which is the same as when the module appears in the full course; this is reasonably uncontentious, however the mechanisms for regulating modular provision are yet to be worked out. Existing OfS student outcomes monitoring is based on course- and full-year metrics, namely, continuation, completion and progression into professional employment/further study. Designing suitable metrics for modular learning is potentially complex and will impact a range of activities including B3 compliance, TEF and access and participation.
Be a minimum of 30 credits for funding purposes, also allowing this to be achieved by “bundling” smaller modules together; the jury is out on whether 30 credits is the right size of provision when employers and prospective learners may not have the opportunity or to make that time commitment when they can stack smaller micro-credentials from private providers to the same effect.
Be assessed and come with a standardised transcript on completion; as noted elsewhere there are implications for existing university systems which may be significant to the extent that changes may not be justified without significant demand.
In conclusion, while most people would agree that support for short courses and their funding is welcome progress in a landscape where part-time and life-long learning study has been decimated over recent decades, we need to ensure that it is not limited by excessive bureaucracy and funding sources are flexible. It is not clear whether the policy intention is rapid upskilling of the workforce or giving greater flexibility for those wishing to undertake full degrees. The two are not always compatible and greater clarity on the objective would allow for improved design of the approach needed.
About the author
Jo Purves is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic Development at the University of Salford. She is responsible for home and international partnerships as well as developing curriculum into new subject areas or new modes of delivery such as through the Greater Manchester Institute of Technology. She is also the University’s Executive lead on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.
