HDMThere is a new report on the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), this time from the Lifelong Education Institute: The Missing Middle. Its recommendations focus on progression pathways, funding incentives, flexible higher technical learning, employer engagement, and local partnerships.
All of these matter.
But as I read the report, I found myself drawn to something slightly different: the language we use when we talk about lifelong learning. As a linguist, perhaps that is inevitable.
The title of this post is deliberately ambiguous. It is about matters relating to language, but it is also about the fact that language itself matters. If the LLE is to succeed, we need to think not only about policy design and funding systems, but also about how we describe the opportunities we are creating and the people we hope will benefit from them.
The LLE is often presented as a funding reform. Increasingly, it is also being recognised as a pedagogical challenge. Yet it is something else too. It is a communication challenge.
If people do not understand the opportunities available to them, do not recognise themselves in the language we use, or do not see the relevance of qualifications and pathways, then even the best-designed policy will struggle to achieve its ambitions.
From Exit Awards to Hiatus Points
The report highlights support for enabling people to “step on and step off” Higher Education, with recognised points at Levels 4 and 5 that are valuable in their own right.
Yet I have always found the phrase “exit award” slightly uncomfortable in the context of lifelong learning.
Exit suggests completion, departure, and finality.
If lifelong learning is genuinely lifelong, should we be talking about exits at all?
My first thought was that we might all instead agree to talk about “break points” in a learning journey. But even that has uncomfortable associations. People might hear “breaking point” and think of stress, overload, or failure.
Academics take sabbaticals. Agreed time off to focus upon something else, usually research (as I am currently doing). If we are purposefully designing curricula for lifelong learning, and the ability to step on and off, should we design sabbaticals for our lifelong learning students.
What if we thought instead about hiatus points?
A hiatus implies a pause with the expectation of return. It acknowledges achievement while recognising that learning continues. It frames study as something people may pause and resume throughout their lives, rather than as a journey with only one legitimate destination.
That feels much closer to the spirit of lifelong learning.
Are Higher Technical Qualifications Really Technical?
The report also raises important questions about Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs).
It notes that many employers, particularly smaller employers, struggle to understand what HTQs are and often associate them narrowly with engineering, construction, or manufacturing. Yet many of the occupations they support are practical, applied, digital, and professional in nature.
The language may be part of the problem.
Why do we call qualifications “technical” when many of the skills they develop are practical, applied, and relevant across a wide range of sectors?
Similarly, many employers, as reported in the Lifelong Education Institute report, still struggle to understand Higher Nationals, despite their long history and proven value.
Perhaps the challenge is not simply awareness. Perhaps it is naming.
If qualifications are applied, why not call them applied? If they are technical, call them technical. If they are higher-level, call them higher-level. The important thing is that the title communicates clearly to students, employers, and the wider public.
Learners, Students, or Something Else?
Another question that frequently emerges in discussions about lifelong learning is what we call the people participating in it.
This is not merely an academic question. At a recent conference, there was sustained discussion about exactly this issue – what terminology should we use for lifelong learning students? Does it matter? Could the wrong word actually put people off engaging?
The sector often talks about learners. Universities tend to talk about students.
UNESCO defines a learner as anyone engaged in acquiring knowledge, skills, or competencies through a range of educational methods. A learner may participate in formal education, non-formal education, or self-directed study. Lifelong learning is defined as the continuous pursuit of knowledge and skills throughout life.
A student, by contrast, is generally understood as someone formally enrolled within an educational institution – implying a structured, teacher-led environment. A learner is broader and process-oriented: anyone actively acquiring knowledge or skills, regardless of setting, including the self-taught.
The LLE sits squarely in student territory. People are formally enrolling, accessing funding, accumulating credit, and achieving recognised qualifications. This is not informal self-directed learning. Yet “student” may not be how these people think of themselves.
Indeed, many people engaging with the LLE will not see “student” as their primary identity. They may be employees, carers, parents, business owners, or professionals seeking to retrain. Their engagement with Higher Education may be episodic rather than continuous.
So, what should we call them?
My suggestion is lifelong scholar. Not as a provocation, but as a genuine alternative worth considering. A scholar is more than a self-directed autodidact on a personal quest for knowledge. A scholar engages in sustained, recognised study. The word carries dignity without implying that study is the person’s primary identity. Crucially, it accommodates the stop-start model. You can be a scholar whether you studied last year or last decade.
If we want people to engage with lifelong learning, the words we use should help them recognise themselves in the opportunity.
Language Shapes Participation
Much of the discussion around the LLE has focused on funding mechanisms, modularity, and credit accumulation. These are all important.
But if lifelong learning is to become part of the mainstream educational landscape, we must also pay attention to how we communicate it.
Policy is communicated through language.
Opportunities are communicated through language.
And identities are shaped through language.
Very little marketing of the LLE has yet reached the people it is intended to benefit. Before that changes, we need our language in order. So here is a suggestion:
- Call them lifelong scholars.
- Stop talking about exit awards. Call them hiatus points.
- Give qualifications names that do what it says on the tin – applied, technical, higher-level – and then tell the world.
- Language matters. Let’s use it deliberately.
Further Reading
The Missing Middle (Lifelong Education Institute)
UNESCO Definitions:
Related Posts
