Ministers have refused to share the terms of reference for a “short review” into controversial level-3 qualification defunding plans.
Announced by education secretary Bridget Phillipson in late July, the review will examine the Conservatives’ planned cull of BTECs and other vocational courses, which aimed to shift students towards studying T Levels.
But since the announcement, the government has not confirmed who is conducting the review or published terms of reference, leaving the exact aims and scope a mystery. Despite this, findings are expected by the end of the year.
In contrast, the government published details of its longer-running curriculum and assessment review, including its chair and terms of reference, in late July.
‘Safe space for policymaking’
The Department for Education refused to share details of the level 3 short review with FE Week following a freedom of information request.
Officials in the technical education and qualifications reform division cited section 35 of the FOI Act, which is designed to “protect good government” by providing a “safe space for policymaking”.
They argue the government needs a “self-contained space” to consider its options and that sharing the review’s terms would “have a potentially corrosive effect”.
They also refused to confirm which staff in the department were responsible for the review, arguing this is “third-party personal data”.
FE Week has asked the DfE to carry out an internal review of its FOI response, arguing that releasing details would enhance public understanding without undermining the government’s ability to govern well.
In a recent letter, skills minister Jacqui Smith said the short review would assess “how best to improve” the qualifications landscape and ensure learners have “high quality options”.
The DfE has told FE Week it will shortly begin engaging with a “representative sample” of providers, awarding organisations and other key stakeholders as part of the review.
Withholding review terms ‘unusual’
Maurice Frankel, director of the UK Campaign for Freedom of Information, said it was “unusual” for a government to withhold the terms of reference of a policy review, which may indicate the options the short review will consider are “constrained”.
He added: “By announcing the review, the case for disclosing the terms of reference may have been strengthened.
“It’s also not clear that identifying who is carrying out the review will be unfair to the individuals involved.
“Disclosure might not be unfair if the individuals are senior or if they hold publicly facing roles.”
‘Half of students affected’
Campaigners say BTECs and other level-3 qualifications play an “invaluable” role in helping young people from disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education or employment.
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, which has led the Protect Student Choice campaign, said the review should be conducted in a “transparent way” given its impact on an estimated 54 per cent of students in England.
“That might at least help to dispel the widespread perception that the objective of the review is to boost T Level numbers at any cost, rather than ensure that every young person has access to an appropriate, high-quality qualification in the future,” he added.
“Government decision-making in this area has been dysfunctional precisely because it has taken place in a ‘self-contained space’ and has ignored the views of students, colleges and schools, and employers.”
Colleges hamstrung by delay
An urgent concern for campaigners is the timing, which makes it difficult for colleges and schools to plan what vocational qualifications they can offer in the next academic year.
“No government would decide the future of A Levels by conducting a four-month internal DfE review and this approach should be considered equally unacceptable for applied general and other qualifications,” Kewin said.
“Providing this information in December is far too late, and that’s why the plan to conduct a rapid review without a pause is so unhelpful.”
Refusal to budge ‘disrespectful’
The public debate over the qualifications cull has become increasingly heated in recent weeks.
The government’s refusal to budge in response to a last-ditch public plea from more than 450 school and college leaders backing the Protect Student Choice campaign was described as “disrespectful” by Kewin this week.
When in opposition, the Labour party promised to “pause and review” the Conservative government’s plan to scrap applied general qualification (AGQ) courses.
But in July, the Labour said it would only pause the defunding of a limited number of level-3 qualifications set to be scrapped from August this year – which had minimal enrolments and were already removed from most school and college rosters.
Campaigners have called this a “betrayal” of Labour’s commitment.
Phillipson has said pausing future defunding of qualifications at this stage could “prejudice the findings” of the short review.
A DfE spokesperson said: “Too many young people leave education without the qualifications they need to get into high-quality apprenticeships, higher level education and good jobs, and the post-16 skills system is confusing for everyone involved.
“Our short, focused review along with other measures like the curriculum and assessment review and the creation of Skills England, will allow the government to improve skills training, unlock opportunities for young people and harness their talents to drive growth and fulfil the government’s missions.”
Your thoughts