V Levels Have Potential, but Colleges Need Time to Get Them Right

V Levels could offer something the post-16 system badly needs: greater flexibility for young people who want vocational learning without having to specialise as early as a T Level requires. But the Edge Foundation’s latest research suggests there is a risk that a promising idea could be undermined by the pace of its implementation.

Edge’s new V Levels: Reflect and Revise report brings together a survey of 27 FE practitioners and a roundtable involving colleges, awarding organisations, employers, government and sector bodies. Across both, there was cautious optimism about the principle behind V Levels. Practitioners could see the potential to combine vocational and academic subjects, maintain a broader programme of study and give young people more choice.

However, enthusiasm was accompanied by a much stronger message: colleges need clarity, resources and, crucially, time.

Our survey found that only three respondents felt prepared to teach V Levels. This was not primarily resistance to reform. Staff told us they simply did not yet have the specifications, assessment information, teaching resources or qualification combination rules needed to plan confidently. Planning is critical. Introducing a new qualification is not simply a question of handing teachers a specification.

Colleges must design curricula, construct timetables, train staff, allocate resources, market courses and advise prospective students and parents. Our survey found that 81.5 per cent of respondents anticipated challenges around student recruitment and awareness, while 74.1 per cent identified timetabling and curriculum design.

These findings echoed our roundtable discussions. Participants repeatedly returned to one deceptively simple question: “What problem are V Levels trying to solve?” That question needs a clear answer before implementation begins.

We have been here before. Edge’s earlier research into T Levels identified students feeling misinformed about course expectations alongside challenges around teacher turnover, teaching approaches and the availability of learning materials. The introduction of V Levels offers an opportunity to learn from that experience rather than repeat it.

That is why our report recommends delaying the first V Levels from September 2027 until the 2028/29 academic year. With materials for the first qualifications not expected until spring 2027, the current timetable leaves colleges only months to prepare for first teaching. A further year would give providers meaningful time for curriculum redesign, workforce development, employer engagement and communication with learners.

Time alone, however, will not be enough. Our research also points to the need for flexibility over qualification combinations, clearer progression pathways developed with employers and higher education, and funding that recognises the hidden costs of implementation – from staff training to new resources and facilities.

V Levels have the potential to broaden participation and give young people greater choice. The issue is not whether colleges can make them work. It is whether we give colleges the conditions they need to make them work well. Getting reform right is more important than getting it done quickly.

By Dana Dabbous, Education and Policy Senior Researcher at the Edge Foundation