FPQ0074
Written evidence submitted by The Joint Council for Qualifications
X
Delivering T Levels, and changes to T Levels that may be needed to ensure they are accessible to all students:
T-Levels are a positive development in technical education but need time to fully embed within the existing landscape which is why we welcome the recently announced one year delay to reform. However, the new timeline still does not give enough time for T-Levels to become properly established before funding is removed from many other existing technical qualifications. This seems to be a high-risk strategy for such a significant reform.
The proposed technical T level route is a big commitment for a 16-year-old and more demanding and restricted in many ways than the A Level route. It would be preferable to offer learners the option of some limited combinations of vocational/technical and academic qualifications.
Existing qualifications serve a multitude of learner needs and employer needs. There is no guarantee that T-levels alone can fulfil all of these needs, especially in the short term.
Regional inequality remains an obstacle to the success of T-Levels, the availability or lack thereof of local work experience places will limit the ability of learners to take up a T-Level course, making it crucial to learner choice that an alternative qualification in their chosen sector remains available.
Among the largest vocational subject areas without a T-level route, DfE has for the most part acknowledged that there will be a need for qualifications to remain (Sport, Art & Design, Public Services, Performing Arts). However, the Health & Science T -Level or Childcare T-Level may not meet all the needs that are met by the current diversity of provision in Level 3 health and social care or childcare qualifications. We also suggest that the construction/BSE, engineering and science sectors, among others, are not best served by one large two year programme at 16-18.
Brenda Yearsley from Siemens UK who recently spoke at a JCQ Policy Event explained that her organisation’s success is all about inclusivity and diversity of recruitment. Despite the quality of A-Levels and potential of T-Levels, defunding a number of vocational qualifications will definitely leave some technical skills gaps, added to concerns about the availability of T-Level industry placements; there is a strong case for applied generals as part of a mixed programme which Siemens considers provides breadth and depth alongside A Level programmes. This echoed insights from the early years sector, Gill Mason from Kids Planet Day Nurseries emphasised the importance of a variety of routes into a sector which is experiencing an ongoing recruitment crisis exacerbated by the pandemic and which requires a constant stream of new recruits to meet mandatory ratios. As Gill put it the most important thing is to get the right people on board, enthusiasm is more important at the outset than a specific qualification.
The strengths and weaknesses of the current system of post-16 qualifications
The removal of funding for some post-16 vocational qualifications risks putting a lot of unnecessary pressure on young people to make a binary decision at 15/16 years old, when many of them aren’t ready to do so. This is because the removal of some of the existing vocational and technical qualifications would reduce the option to blend academic and vocational qualifications, forcing a stark choice that risks limiting flexibility in progression either to higher education or straight to employment. Among the qualifications that could be defunded are many that are proven to be highly valued by learners; millions of whom have chosen them to progress into higher education, into work or further training. These same qualifications are also held in high regard by HEIs, many of whom provide skills-based courses, and employers. It would be a mistake to lose this multiplicity of options for progression if choice is constrained too strictly.
The narrow choice between A-Level, T-Level and apprenticeships would not meet the needs of a large proportion of the 16-18 cohort. JCQ would like DfE to allow more time for reforms to be successfully implemented, following a clear withdrawal model including standard annual reviews that take into account possible unintended consequences such as:
The benefits and challenges the Government’s proposed changes to Level 3 qualifications would bring
The Government’s reforms work well for individuals who know exactly what they want to do at a young age and though there are great career advice improvements being made through the Gatsby Foundation network and it’s important benchmarks , it’s still unusual for that certainty to exist. Much more will need to be done to ensure that young people who cannot or do not pursue T-Levels are given the advice they need to progress into employment or the next stage technical training.
The Government reforms suggest a re-routing away from Degree level HE options, despite the increasing variety of Level 4 and 5 qualifications creating a much broader picture of what HE looks like. Vocational HE courses are often a route into highly skilled technical and professional employment. HE is incredibly diverse and vocational provision in HE needs to be valued and understood when drawing up the provision for both the academic and technical routes.
It will be important that where there is no alternative option to an apprenticeship, a classroom-based course be made available as a funded option so as not to limit options, especially for key occupational pathways at a time when options to employment and further study should be kept as as broad as possible. Accessing an apprenticeship relies on employers being able to and having the inclination to create the opportunity, in areas where there are no such opportunities learners are automatically disadvantaged by not being able to study a subject they are interested in. This in turn could have negative consequences for future labour market demand and succession planning.
The extent to which the Government’s review of level 3 qualifications will impact disadvantaged groups, students from minority ethnic backgrounds, students known to the care system, and students with special educational needs or disabilities, and what measures might be put in place to mitigate any negative impacts
JCQ is proud of the breadth and strength of the range of options provided by its members; qualifications that are designed to be representative of the population at large and to be aspirational for all learners.
There are qualifications that have a higher number of SEN students, not because they are of a different standard but because they offer a different course structure, assessment type or adapted learning materials. To remove funding from these would have a disproportionate impact on those learners according to the Government’s own impact study. Impact on the most disadvantaged cannot be dismissed so lightly and we hope that Government will work with stakeholders to ensure that these risks are satisfactorily addressed.
At a recent JCQ Policy Event, Lee Hornsby from the Federation of Creative Industries explained the impact that the reforms would have on his sector where there are serious skill shortages with employers struggling to find crew and productions staff in particular; in the meantime there has been a drop in take-up of creative courses. In 2019 about 2.1 million people worked in the creative industries with a further 1.4 million jobs were directly supported by the creative industries contributing around £116 billion to the UK economy; the creative jobs pipeline is a vital component of the UK’s economic growth.
Any reforms that might further limit options and access of learners throughout the UK to pursue creative careers should be of concern to everyone. Creative T-levels when they start could well be a good option for learners, not just for those living around creative and cultural hubs but for those in more rural areas where providers might face more challenges to secure industry placements. For those learners who don’t suit T-Levels – there have to be other options available to equip learners for a creative career, including via university study options. It is also important to note that working class voices are already missing from the creative industries and that reducing the number of qualifications available will likely exacerbate the impact on opportunity and social justice.
The benefits and disadvantages of a post-qualifications admission system.
JCQ AOs share some key concerns regarding Government proposals for a post-qualifications admissions system but we are supportive of reform. We understand the compelling arguments made in favour of reforms and the importance of levelling the playing field of higher education admissions for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Our primary concern is that the proposals would include either compression of the examination timetable or of the marking process. The former, we believe, would have an adverse impact on student wellbeing, the latter would jeopardise quality assurance and public confidence. We believe that incremental moves should instead be made at every stage of the process and by all key stakeholders with the focus being as smooth and stress-free an experience as possible for students at such an important time in their lives.
We would also like to emphasize the importance of ensuring that any new HE admissions model not disadvantage VTQ and combination students who do not always receive results at the same time or in the same way as A-Level only students.
Current proposals would require earlier Level 3 results days, possibly achieved by compressing the marking period, while JCQ understands the need for this we don’t believe it is possible to substantially compress the marking period without affecting quality assurance and public confidence.
Student wellbeing is also at risk from public perception of diminished quality assurance which is likely to push up the number of appeals. There would also be an impact on teachers required to support students at a time when they would normally be on holiday. We are further concerned with teacher workload as the majority of assessors are active teachers and would be required to fit more marking into less time. Successful delivery of marking in a normal year is predicated on the ability to recruit sufficient assessors, and especially sufficient experienced assessors, with a full life cycle of recruitment and training starting each September.
Any change to the timetable should be subject to a stand-alone consultation with stakeholders including schools, colleges, learners and parents to gauge centres’ ability to deliver and the impact on students, especially those who require access arrangements including extra time. Assuming that no learning time is lost to avoid compressing the exam timetable, there will inevitably be an increase in the number of students who have exam clashes and will require bespoke and resource-heavy arrangements to be made. In a non-compressed series AOs have feedback from centres needing to utilise weekends because of clashes. Those learners most acutely affected would be those with 100% extra time. It would be exhausting for them and difficult for the centres to manage.
Although it is not a core part of the JCQ process, we are concerned about how students will be supported to make their applications. Requiring students to make their applications with less support risks undermining the principal case in favour of a PQA Model which is to reduce unfairness in the system for more disadvantaged students.
The post qualification offers model, where applications would still take place before exams, fails to address a key issue highlighted in the Government’s consultation which is the lower aspirations of high achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds who will still be less likely to apply to top universities.
Furthermore, the risk of disadvantaging the most disadvantaged is heightened by the lack of attention given to the place of VTQs in the proposed models. New research by Pearson/ NEON shows that the proportion of students accessing HE with either VTQs or a combination of A Levels and VTQs is higher in more disadvantaged areas.
Finally, we believe that the impact on students with SEND should be the subject of further investigation to ensure that all parties are able to meet their duties under the Equalities Act.
Concluding Thoughts
JCQ’s membership covers all four nations of the United Kingdom. Portability is an urgent concern in an increasingly fragmented education and skills landscape. Despite devolution in education policy, many vocational qualifications are offered across the UK and their value is recognised in each country. This is particular true of the technical sectors where skills accreditation for employment sees UK geographical boundaries as meaningless.
Moves to take funding away from some of the qualifications on offer will create an uneven playing field for learner options in the different UK nations and limit their ability to move around for work purposes.
Finally, the Covid-19 Pandemic has impacted the economy and labour market in ways that we have not seen or experienced for decades. At a time of serious disruption, having a flexible and varied education, skills and training landscape is vital. This means having a variety of accreditation options to choose from plus curriculum and standards that are responsive to change and open to innovation from a vibrant qualifications’ market.
January 2022