Preparing for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement: What Higher Education Leaders Told Us

The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) is one of the biggest policy changes facing higher education, but a recent roundtable hosted by Instructure and joined by Rose Stephenson from HEPI found that the conversation has already moved beyond legislation.

Bringing together 14 senior leaders from multiple UK higher education institutions, the discussion centred on two questions:

• How are learner expectations changing, and what does that mean for institutions?
• What would need to change for lifelong learning to succeed?

While views differed on the pace and direction of policy, there was broad agreement that universities will need to rethink how they attract, support and engage learners throughout their careers.

How are learner expectations changing?

The discussion opened with a simple observation: today's learner is not always an 18-year-old beginning a three-year degree.

Increasingly, institutions are seeing professionals looking to reskill, upskill or change careers, often while balancing work, caring responsibilities and other commitments. As Sidharth Oberoi, VP of Strategy at Instructure noted in his opening remarks, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement did not create this trend—it is an attempt to accommodate it.

When participants were asked how learner expectations are changing, one theme dominated the discussion: flexibility.

Attendees described learners who increasingly expect education to fit around their lives, rather than the other way around. Across the Slido responses, participants highlighted demand for:

• more flexible delivery models
• learning that can be completed alongside employment
• bite-sized and modular learning opportunities
• clearer links between learning and career progression
• teaching that responds to the pace of industry rather than traditional academic structures

Several also noted that learners are becoming more focused on outcomes than qualifications alone, placing greater emphasis on employability, return on investment and immediately applicable skills.

Others cautioned that there is no single "lifelong learner". Expectations vary depending on the institution, programme and learner demographic, suggesting universities will need a more nuanced understanding of different audiences rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all approach.

The policy opportunity is significant, but so are the barriers

Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Strategy at the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), outlined the opportunities the LLE presents for stimulating Levels 4 and 5 provision, while also highlighting several policy challenges that continue to create uncertainty.

Among the concerns raised were:

• the current cap below master's level, which participants felt could exclude professionals seeking higher-level upskilling
• restrictions around maintenance loan eligibility, including requirements for modules to be linked to a parent course and delivered in person
• uncertainty around annual certification requirements and how these might affect institutional retention models
• conflicting policy decisions that participants felt risk undermining the government's own ambitions for lifelong learning

There was also concern that awareness of the LLE remains extremely low among prospective learners. Several participants questioned who should be responsible for promoting the policy, noting that frequent changes in government and implementation timelines have made consistent communication difficult.

Rather than waiting for government messaging to improve, some institutions are beginning to promote lifelong learning opportunities themselves. Others argued that universities should focus less on explaining policy and more on communicating the value of flexible learning for career progression.

What would need to change for lifelong learning to succeed?

The second breakout shifted the conversation from strategy to readiness.

While participants believed the opportunity is real, many questioned whether institutions are operationally equipped to respond.

Legacy systems remain a major obstacle

Perhaps the strongest consensus of the day was that many university systems are still built around traditional three-year degrees rather than modular learning.

Participants described student records, enrolment and finance systems that struggle to support:

• short or stackable provision
• co-funded learners
• employer-sponsored learning
• flexible enrolment models
• tracking learner progression across multiple learning experiences

Others pointed to the need for streamlined processes and better technology infrastructure if institutions are to deliver lifelong learning at scale.

The discussion also highlighted an important challenge around measurement. Some institutions have already launched successful modular provision—for example in healthcare—but because these learners sit outside traditional systems, universities struggle to measure enrolments, learner outcomes or financial return. Without that evidence, it becomes difficult to build the internal business case for further investment.

Several participants argued that securing CIO-level support will be essential if institutions are to treat lifelong learning infrastructure as a strategic investment rather than relying on temporary workarounds.

The learner experience needs rethinking

Participants also reflected on whether current university experiences are designed with adult learners in mind.

A recurring observation was that universities often speak in the language of "credits" and "levels", while learners think about skills, careers and outcomes.

The discussion explored whether concepts such as "belonging", so important within traditional undergraduate education, are equally relevant for lifelong learners. For many adult learners, participants suggested, success may instead depend on frictionless enrolment, high-quality teaching, flexible delivery and credentials that can be used immediately in the workplace.

There was also recognition that today's learners increasingly expect the seamless digital experiences they encounter elsewhere in their lives. As one participant observed, universities need to think carefully about how they meet the expectations of the next generation of learners, rather than expecting learners to adapt to institutional processes.

Marketing and organisational change

The discussion extended well beyond technology.

Several institutions acknowledged that marketing strategies remain heavily focused on school leavers, with relatively little attention given to alumni, career changers or mid-career professionals.

One participant suggested that institutions should shift a proportion of recruitment activity towards non-traditional learners, while others argued that universities first need better labour market intelligence to identify where genuine demand exists before investing heavily in new provision.

The InsideU platform was highlighted as one example of using labour market data to identify regional demand, analyse competitors and inform future course development.

Participants also emphasised that lifelong learning cannot become the responsibility of one department alone. Success will require collaboration between marketing, IT, finance, academic registry, academic teams and senior leadership.

Looking beyond individual institutions

The discussion concluded by looking beyond institutional change towards regional collaboration.

Several participants suggested that Combined Authorities could play a much greater role in shaping regional lifelong learning provision by identifying priority skills gaps and commissioning targeted modular learning across local providers.

There was also recognition that further education colleges will be important partners, given their employer relationships and experience delivering flexible learning.

Looking ahead

Perhaps the strongest message to emerge from the roundtable was that institutions see themselves not as critics of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, but as partners who want to make it work.

The discussion ended with a call for universities to move from reacting to policy towards shaping it, articulating the funding, systems and regulatory changes needed to make lifelong learning successful.

Whether through regional pilots, stronger employer partnerships or modernising institutional systems, participants agreed that supporting lifelong learners will require more than introducing new courses. It will demand changes to strategy, technology, operations and learner experience if universities are to deliver on the ambitions of lifelong learning.

Don't miss the next opportunity to network with your peers, chat all things education, and of course - pick up some swag! Register for CanvasCon Europe here.