Lifelong Learning Entitlement roundtable in partnership with AHEP Consulting

By Cheryl Watson, Vice President, Education UK – TechnologyOne

The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) is often positioned as a funding reform. In practice, it represents a far deeper challenge to how higher education is structured, regulated, and operated.

A sector roundtable hosted by AHEP Consulting and sponsored by TechnologyOne, explored what it really means to be LLE-ready, surfacing not just opportunity, but the practical barriers institutions are already encountering.

Across slides, sticky notes and discussion, one message was clear: flexibility cannot be an aspiration layered onto existing models. It has to be designed deliberately, supported by frameworks, data and systems that reflect how students actually move through education.

Credit, transfer and the reality of student movement

Credit accumulation and transfer are fundamental to LLE, but participants were candid about how complex this becomes in practice. Mapping current system landscapes and student journeys showed how funding rules, assessment regulations, reporting requirements and institutional boundaries quickly collide once students are able to transfer in and out.

Sticky notes clustered around common concerns:

• How do we track students once they leave?
• Who owns the student when they are between providers?
• How many versions of the truth exist in our data?

There was broad agreement that flexibility needs limits. Students benefit from choice, but not from being presented with an unstructured catalogue of modules. Clear pathways, defined entry and exit points, and a shared understanding of what credit “means” are essential if LLE is to feel navigable rather than overwhelming.

Awards, assessment and breaking inherited cycles

Discussions focused on the tension between LLE ambitions and inherited academic rhythms. Exam boards, assessment cycles and award structures are still largely designed around full-time, linear study. Participants questioned whether these cycles unintentionally block flexibility, even where regulations technically allow it.

The group explored the idea of accumulation of awards over time, including smaller or non-standard outcomes that still have value for students. Sector leaders displayed both excitement and anxiety: recognition that this could widen participation and access, alongside concern about quality assurance, workload and risk.

What emerged was not a call to remove structure, but to rethink it. Flexibility within a framework, rather than flexibility without guardrails.

Governance, data and the rising cost of standing still

Insights from UK universities on improving financial governance and decision-making with TechnologyOne Financials.

Learn more

Starting with the student, not the intake

One of the most consistent themes was the need to reverse traditional design logic. Instead of starting with intakes, cohorts and academic years, participants argued for starting with the student's point of entry and asking a different question... what does the next stage look like for them?

There was strong emphasis on the need for systems that support dynamic cohorting, rather than locking students into static groups. Being able to see where they are in their journey, not just whether they are enrolled, was seen as critical to delivering meaningful flexibility.

Success depends on insight as much as intent. Early retention and intervention models were viewed as essential, particularly for students who pause or step out. Several contributors challenged the sector’s default response to disengagement: if a student stops studying, the relationship should not stop with them.

Wrap-around support depends on joined-up data

Conversation repeatedly returned to data: who holds it, who trusts it, and who can act on it. Disconnected systems make it difficult to spot risk early or provide timely support, particularly as student journeys become more complex.

There was a strong sense that LLE exposes existing cracks. Students already fall between the gaps; more flexible pathways increase that risk unless institutions design explicitly for continuity of contact, support and insight.

Compliance, innovation and the weight of readiness

While institutions are not being told exactly how to implement LLE, compliance was described as unavoidable. Funding flows, data submissions and audit requirements will shape what is possible, particularly as new funding models come into effect from 2027.

Many institutions are taking a pragmatic approach, focusing first on core business, regulatory readiness and internal alignment before expanding provision. Internal communications were seen as critical, with a shared understanding of what LLE is, and what it is not, needed across the organisation before it is positioned externally.

At the same time, participants voiced concern that the sheer breadth of possibility under LLE can be paralysing. Without clear strategic choices, institutions risk trying to do everything and delivering none of it well.

New student profiles, familiar pressures

LLE brings new student profiles into sharper focus: those returning to education later in life, students studying multiple elements concurrently, and those combining provision across different providers or sectors.

This raises questions about consistency of experience, assessment expectations and support models. It also challenges traditional marketing and engagement approaches. There was broad recognition that no single narrative will resonate equally with prospective students, internal teams and partners.

The financial wake-up call

If flexibility is the aspiration, cost is the constraint. Financial modelling featured prominently in both slides and discussion. Participants highlighted uncertainty around demand, take-up and student behaviour, alongside very real concerns about increased administrative overhead.

• How many students make a module viable?
• How many transcripts are we prepared to issue?
• What happens to cash flow when study becomes non-linear?

There was consensus that more flexible models are likely to be more expensive to run, at least in the short term. Managing this impact may require limits on numbers, careful phasing of provision, and a clearer understanding of cost at both module and pathway level.

Bold Moves and Real Change: Rethinking Higher Education at a Pivotal Moment

Higher-education leaders explore policy flux, financial pressure, student expectations and the bold changes needed to future-proof universities.

Learn more

Systems, capacity and the readiness gap

LLE is landing at a time when many institutions are already stretched. Core system replacements, moves to SaaS and wider transformation programmes are absorbing capacity, leaving little headroom to think end-to-end about LLE delivery.

Participants questioned whether current systems and system providers are ready to support flexible curricula, complex funding models and evolving reporting requirements. The risk is not just technical, but organisational: when teams don’t talk to each other, students feel the consequences.

Will LLE change behaviour?

The roundtable ended without a definitive answer on whether LLE will fundamentally change student behaviour. Views ranged from cautious scepticism to guarded optimism. What felt more certain was that LLE will expose how ready institutions really are to support students whose journeys do not follow traditional patterns.

LLE will not succeed through policy intent alone. It requires leadership, strategic focus and systems designed around the student rather than the intake. For institutions, the question is not simply how to comply, but how LLE aligns with their purpose and strengths.

Ultimately, the conversation kept returning to a simple test: if a student steps in, steps out, and comes back later, will our systems, data and people still recognise them, and know how to support what comes next?

TechnologyOne’s commitment to LLE readiness

For TechnologyOne, these conversations reinforce our responsibility to work closely with the sector as LLE moves from policy to implementation. We continue to partner with institutions as they address the operational, regulatory and systems implications of more flexible study models.

We are actively preparing to support course design, funding, reporting and delivery ahead of the first LLE-funded intakes in January 2027, including participation in a monthly software suppliers working group to address emerging requirements and shared dependencies.

In collaboration with colleagues across the global Higher Education community, we are applying lessons from similar reforms to help institutions avoid unnecessary complexity and administrative burden.

Our focus is on future-proofing systems, simplifying complexity and enabling institutions to support students across non-linear journeys, delivering flexibility in a way that is both sustainable and compliant.