What Could V Levels Take From The T Level Experience?

It’s very early days for V Levels and there is much to absorb and understanding from the announcements of yesterday. The launch of T Levels in September 2020 marked one of the most ambitious reforms in technical education for decades. Designed to bridge the gap between academic study and skilled employment, T Levels aimed to provide a streamlined, high-quality alternative to A Levels and apprenticeships. Their rollout tested the resilience of policymakers, awarding organisations, providers, and employers alike, and still does. Yet, despite these hurdles, T Levels have endured, and the latest reforms embed them further into our post-16 education system. With V Levels now a reality, what lessons can we draw from the T Level experience?

Why Have T Levels Survived?

T Level learners and colleges view the qualification positively, and employers have become increasingly supportive. This reflects the dedication of those involved in delivery and development, and despite lower-than-expected learner numbers (11,900 T Level results were issued on results day out of 1.1M learners), higher than expected withdrawal rates, accessibility concerns, and very challenging commercial outcomes for Awarding Organisations. Alongside cross-party political support, this commitment has been critical to sustaining momentum and particularly during the very early stages of development and introduction. If one of these communities had turned away or the political consensus had faltered, it is difficult to imagine that T Levels would have survived this latest round of reforms.

The Reality of Implementation

Politicians have acknowledged that they could have been clearer about quality being central to the T Level ambition and there is a wider feeling that the case for change and the place of the programme was not communicated comprehensively or effectively. Moreover, the focus of T Levels shifted, with university progression overshadowing its original workplace purpose as a priority which drove more content into the courses.

The Sainsbury review proposed T Levels at levels 2 and 3

The Sainsbury review proposed T Levels at levels 2 and 3. Removing Level 2 eliminated a key on-ramp and stepping-stone. The transition programme has struggled to meet the requirement, lacking the Guided Learning Hours (GLH) needed to help learners cope with the rigour of T Levels and it has been used for wider purposes.

There is no doubt that delivering T Levels has been challenging for all stakeholders. The rollout was demanding, with an overlap of the first two waves reducing opportunities to learn lessons. The Permanent Secretary at the Department for Education at the time even sought formal direction from his Secretary of State on the pace of the rollout. Awarding Organisations faced significant demands without full clarity on expectations, while providers underestimated the pedagogical changes required. Employers, meanwhile, were slow to offer the placements that students value so highly, an on-going struggle which will require local and centralised solutions if V Levels are to prepare students for the workplace adequately.

What Could V Level Implementation Learn From T Levels?

The purpose of V Levels must be clear and communicated in language that resonates with students, their supporters, and employers. ‘Sector focus’ alone does not feel enough and, as purpose-based qualifications, V Levels should stand independently and prioritise workplace preparation. The Prime Minister has signalled a shift away from the 50% university target, and achieving parity of esteem requires this bold step. From the outset, we must avoid framing V Levels as merely complementary to A Levels if we truly want to elevate vocational learning to the standing of A Levels; it is concerning that the language of accompaniment is emerging so freely.

Secondly, rollout planning must consider all elements of the delivery system and be realistic with regard to the development capacity and financial resource available, as well as Awarding Organisation’s on-going delivery commitments and the impact of change in adjacent vocational programmes. Taking into consideration the T Level experience, less than 2-years does feel hugely optimistic given the processes that are now in train and the on-going changes to apprenticeship assessment, as well as the need to equip schools and colleges with the marketing detail they need for future students.

The reality is that Awarding Organisations need to be working on V Levels now for a first teach in 2027

The reality is that Awarding Organisations need to be working on V Levels now for a first teach in 2027. This may make the system appear over-engineered, but it is this complexity that makes it truly effective, safe and respected world-wide; Awarding Organisations access the needs of the market and provide the independent assessment essential to the quality and credibility of our vocational qualification system. Moreover, blending public and private delivery creates a mixed model that encourages innovation and offers choice, and notably for employers. And employers are critical to the delivery of work-place experience, for whom we may need to adjust expectations of their role in state-funded education pre-18. The early and thorough engagement with these three core communities will be critical to the success of V Level implementation planning and delivery.

Moreover, all these stakeholders will need and deserve the opportunity to deliver this change in full. The precedent of T Levels is encouraging, but generally we have really struggled to bring this level to stability to the vocational market over many years, including in the apprenticeship programme.; the success of V Levels will not be clear until well into the next parliament.

Looking Ahead

T Levels now appear firmly embedded in the Government’s vision for vocational education, underlining the value of broad political support and stability. They have succeeded despite significant implementation challenges, to which this sense of certainty has contributed significantly. V Levels, however, represent a larger and more disruptive proposition. They could move vocational education to new heights if we stick by them and understand that they are self-standing qualifications that are true to the concepts of purpose-based education and training.

Naturally there are issues to be resolved, such as how DWP tackles provision for adults as responsibility has now transferred from DfE, and everyone has the opportunity, and for many of us the responsibility, to help by contributing to the Consultation by 12 January. Notwithstanding, we need to make the introduction of V Levels less painful, and thereby more successful than that of T Levels.

We must learn from T Levels by truly adopting a systems approach, making the case for change clearly and in a manner that is understood, and design a rollout that prioritises programme needs over other considerations. We must also start to weigh the benefits of continual change against optimisation in our vocational education offer.

CASLO

The CASLO (Confirming the Acquisition of Specified Learning Outcomes) research published by Ofqual in 2024 reinforces these lessons. It points up the criticality of clarity of purpose, systemic planning, and stakeholder engagement. This could be the best place to start implementation planning. If V Levels are to deliver on their promise, all those involved in their delivery need to understand and act on the Ofqual research and lessons of T Levels.

By Rob Nitsch, Chief Executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB)