Rushing qualification reform risks deepening NEET crisis

England’s post-16 qualification reforms are driven by the right ambition. Creating a clearer, more coherent technical education system is overdue; a stronger third route at level 3 alongside A Levels and T Levels, and structured pathways at level 2 should benefit learners and employers alike. Awarding organisations continue to support this intent.

But intent alone does not guarantee impact. As reform accelerates, there is a growing risk that parts of the current system will be dismantled faster than alternatives replace them.

If that happens, the number of young people not in education, employment or training could increase.

There is a new opportunity to ensure this is avoided.

Andy Burnham has consistently championed technical education, the link between skills and inclusive growth, and locally responsive systems.

His work in Greater Manchester to align skills provision to economic priorities and create clearer pathways into employment demonstrates the value of grounding reform in labour market reality.

Qualifications are the backbone of the education and skills system. Ultimately, they connect learners to labour markets and classrooms to careers.

Vocational and technical qualifications make a substantial contribution because they are flexible and so can reflect both sector needs and how learners progress into work.

That flexibility is now being reset.

The disappearing middle

At level 3, the emerging system increasingly offers only two options: small qualifications or large T Levels.

The middle is disappearing, removing the option that tens of thousands of learners currently take. These pathways are not marginal; they are central to how many young people succeed.

Learners do not automatically realign to policy design. We all have a responsibility to guide, but some are likely to disengage if they no longer see a route that works for them.

The link between qualification reform and disengagement is real. Practical and vocational subjects, such as sport, leisure and the creative arts, play a vital role in keeping young people engaged.

Recent impact analysis by the Federation has shown how narrowing these routes without credible alternatives increases the risk to potential learners.

The ambition for T Levels is rightly increasing; they are transformative. But this success does not mean they can scale to meet emerging expectations.

In sectors such as creative and performing arts, tens of thousands of learners currently take large level 3 qualifications each year.

The T Level model is evolving, but significant expansion is reliant on a step change in employer engagement – something even more challenging in sectors with freelance or fragmented employment.

Nor can apprenticeships act as a universal safety net. Apprenticeships are jobs, driven by employer demand rather than learner need.

Even with growth, they cannot absorb large volumes of displaced learners and are unlikely to be prioritised beyond key industrial sectors. In many contexts, opportunities remain limited and constrained.

Replacing existing qualification routes with apprenticeships would require significant investment, and access would remain uneven. More importantly, apprenticeships are a longer-term solution, while the NEET challenge is immediate.

More than a quarter of learners completing level 3 currently move directly into employment outside apprenticeships. Yet V Levels are geared towards progression to higher education. That route really matters, but balance is essential. A system that marginalises transition into work risks failing a substantial cohort of young people.

It is precisely this alignment, between skills, employers and growth, that leaders like Burnham have prioritised.

Greater Manchester’s approach shows the value of embedding technical education within a broader economic strategy. National reform should build on that principle, not narrow the system in ways that reduce flexibility or responsiveness as a creed.

Refine, not reset

There is much to welcome in the ongoing reforms, and policymakers are commendably co-creative. But as we approach the next phase of reform and a change in prime minister, we can take stock.

We are on the right path. The task is to refine, not reset.

Policymakers and regulators need time to assess how reforms are working in practice, particularly the interaction between qualifications, apprenticeships and labour market demand.

Reform timelines should not be driven by political cycles when this endangers the reforms themselves.

There is also a strong case for preserving more flexibility at level 3 and doing more to support young people into work.

Young people get one chance at post-16 education. The system must meet them where they are; we should not be experimenting unnecessarily on any cohort.

With careful adjustments, we can strengthen the ongoing reforms and improve their longevity.

If we do not, we risk repeating a familiar cycle of reform, disruption and under-delivery, and leaving more young people behind.