Securing a broad offer: Our view of the DfE review into Level 3 qualifications in England

Background

Following the introduction of T Levels and in response to the recommendations of the Sainsbury Review, the Government announced a review of Level 3 qualifications to simplify the technical qualifications landscape. The ultimate aim once T Levels are fully rolled out is to have to have two pathways at Level 3 – the technical route dominated by T Levels and the academic route dominated by A Levels and alternative academic qualifications.

Edge’s position

We support in principle the Government’s aim to simplify the technical landscape post-16. As highlighted in the Sainsbury Report, the complex landscape of qualifications has muddied career guidance on technical routes post-16. This was also a key finding of our interviews with students as part of our Young Lives, Young Futures study with Kings College London. The interim report on the study shares concerns from participants that a limited understanding of vocational and technical routes has made them less appealing compared to traditional academic pathways.

However, we are deeply concerned by the decision to remove funding from all Level 3 AGQs that overlap with T Levels. While we are supportive of the rollout of T Levels and the Government’s ambition to make them the ‘gold standard’ in technical education, they should not be the only the option; smaller technical qualifications must remain available. T Levels are designed to allow a learner to specialise in a chosen field at 16 and then progress directly into employment in that field upon completion. A fantastic option for those ready to commit to a chosen career at 16, but not appropriate for those who are still undecided but willing to study technical subjects alongside other options. In 2022, there were 141,170 16-18 year olds studying AGQs alongside AS Levels and 13,710 taking T Levels.1 For those learners who would ordinarily mix and match AGQs (potentially along with academic qualifications) there may not be a technical qualification that suits their needs following the Government’s review. This is deeply concerning and could seriously restrict access to technical education post-16.  Youth Employment UK’s Commission on Level 2 and 3 Pathways raised concerns in its report that the DfE does not have sufficiently granular data to understand the impact of these reforms on pathways post-16. Until the DfE assures us that they have the data to prove that these reforms will not increase the possibility of young people becoming NEET or leaving school without a Level 3 qualification, we do not believe it sensible to continue with these plans.

Additionally, we are not convinced that T Levels have reached the ‘gold standard’ that merits doing away with their alternatives. Ofsted’s 2023 thematic review of T Levels raises serious concerns about their current quality, such as access to industry placements and their rigorous content. These findings are reinforced by the high drop-out rates in the first T-Levels cohort.

Furthermore, the review of post-16 qualifications appears out of step with other strands of government policy. The Advanced British Standard, due to be delivered in the next decade, would allow learners to mix and match academic or technical subjects as either majors or minors up to age 18. This is the right approach, providing the opportunity for a middle pathway between academic and technical education and bringing us closer to true parity of esteem.