Training ‘accidental’ scientists is key to tackling STEM skills shortages

Young people are finding that it’s never too late to start a new career in science, even if they lack the formal STEM qualifications that employers might normally expect. Others have fallen into a science-related job by accident, but now require certain qualifications and training to progress to the next level in their career.

Identifying these ‘accidental’ scientists and giving them access to flexible, higher-level training, which doesn’t require them to attend university could help employers to attract and retain the talent they need to grow their businesses. Crucially, it could also help to close the STEM skills gap which, if left unaddressed, could undermine the UK’s economic prosperity.

Recent data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that demand for STEM skills is growing. In April to June 2023, just over three million people were employed in science and technology roles, which represents about 9 per cent of the UK’s total workforce.

During the pandemic, the world of scientific research and development was thrown into the spotlight as pharmaceutical and biotech companies were forced to recruit teams of unskilled people to support them in the race to find an effective Covid vaccine. Some retail and office workers took up opportunities to work in laboratories or help with the delivery of vaccination programmes. Many of these people have since chosen to continue their career in science but have got stuck in low-level roles doing data entry or sample preparation, unable to take things further.

What these individuals might lack in terms of formal qualifications, they make up for in a willingness to learn and attain new skills. Some already have several years of work experience under their belts. As a provider of higher-level science apprenticeships, The S&A Science Academy can spot people with the right characteristics and aptitude to complete a three-year course leading to Higher National Diploma and a recognised apprenticeship qualification, accredited by the Institute of Apprenticeships.

Accidental scientists are spread across our workforce now

Initially, some learners are unaware that doing a science apprenticeship could lead to a degree-level qualification, and that they can choose to specialise by opting onto an adjacent course in chemical science or life science. These career-minded learners are not only well-motivated to complete their training, but they are also committed to their employer and often have a positive impact on workplace culture and productivity long after their training has finished.

While places on Level 5 technician scientist apprenticeship programmes are currently in high demand, there are a variety of entry points available for those with relevant experience and those without.

For example, a learner can train to become a skilled technician scientist by attending training on a day-release basis in agreement with their employer, or through a period of block study. As well as enriching their company’s talent base, employers that choose to place the training and development of their employees in the hands of an Ofsted-regulated apprenticeship provider are able to do so free of charge. They also aren’t liable for employer national insurance contributions while the training is underway.

By far the most popular choice for employers and learners is to complete training on a day-release basis. This means that the learner spends 80 per cent of their time at work and 20 per cent with the training provider. This option is popular with employers because they start to see the value of the training in the workplace immediately. It’s also popular with learners as they gain a sense of progression as they work, and they can clearly see where their study is taking them.

Accidental scientists are spread across our workforce now, with large and small employers alike. They are in jobs that are easy to replace and just waiting for the opportunity for a more fulfilling career. Many more are in our colleges, unaware of the opportunities available to them to jump across from adjacent courses.

With STEM skills in growing demand, all in the education sector could be doing more to look-out for this under-realised talent pool and persuading businesses that upskilling these employees could become a key differentiator for them in the future.

ONS reclassification demands a new way of thinking about staffing issues

An immediate impact of the reclassification of FE colleges as public sector institutions has been that the Department for Education now requires colleges to follow the overall financial control framework for all central government bodies. This is set out in HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance, which aims to achieve value for money across the public sector and touches on many areas, including staffing costs. 

While a level of financial decision making remains delegated to individual institutions, certain classes of transactions require prior approval from the treasury. This includes controls over senior pay and some severance arrangements.

Senior Pay Controls

Colleges face a constant battle to attract and retain talent. This is exacerbated by the fact that they often have to compete with other areas of the education sector as well as the private sector. 

Prior to reclassification, colleges were generally free to set levels of senior pay, subject to applying a value-for-money test and affordability within their own budgets.

Now, treasury approval is required where a remuneration package for a new starter is valued at or above £150,000 per annum or where any bonus arrangements could exceed £17,500 per annum. 

Approval is also required if adjustments to an existing employee’s pay will take them over these thresholds and for pay awards above 9 per cent for those already above them. 

For these purposes, remuneration includes pay, fees, pension “in excess of normal levels” and allowances. Private medical insurance and salary sacrifice schemes should not be provided unless the treasury has given prior approval.

The limits on a college’s delegated authority have been made relatively clear. However, the criteria that the treasury will apply in deciding whether to approve any request to exceed the limits remain less transparent.    

Settlement agreements

Like other employers, colleges often want to enter into settlement agreements. These avoid costly and protracted HR disputes and provide protection from future litigation. 

Prior to reclassification, colleges were generally free to decide to make payments to settle employment disputes as long as they could demonstrate that any sums paid were affordable and value-for-money. 

Since reclassification, colleges continue to have delegated authority to pay an employee’s statutory and contractual entitlements on termination. They can also make “special staff severance payments” that do not exceed the equivalent of three months’ pay or £50,000, whichever is lower.

Any proposed payments exceeding these limits will generally require treasury approval.  

The three-month limit on severance payments is not consistent with other parts of the education sector.  By way of example, academies only need to seek approval for severance payments that exceed £50,000. 

It should also be noted that unless the right to pay in lieu of notice is specified in an employee’s contract, any such proposed payment may be regarded as non-contractual and therefore count towards the limits on special staff severance payments. 

Colleges should now consider including an express right to pay in lieu of notice in their contracts of employment. 

As with controls on senior pay, the treasury’s criteria for granting approval in any particular case are somewhat opaque.

What it means in practice

Institutions are being required to comply with guidance that was written with central government in mind rather than a college sector that has until recently had a much greater level of autonomy over financial matters.

The handbook due to be published in the next year may provide more clarity for colleges on their obligations. In the meantime, colleges may wish to think about three immediate practical effects:

Forward thinking is key. Treasury approval takes time. Factor in a number of weeks, if not months for decisions. 

Approval is not guaranteed. Factor this possibility into your risk management plan.  Applications to exceed the delegated authority limit will need to be supported by a detailed business case, and DfE will often ask to see legal advice in support of that business case.  

Keep an audit trail. Even when treasury approval is not required it will remain important to show how decisions were arrived at, and in particular how each represents value for public money. 

In all cases, colleges should be willing to defend decisions on pay or an exit in the face of regulatory or public scrutiny.

FE needs to be its own most vocal champion – now more than ever

Amid party conference season, it is easy to get lost in the flurry of policy announcements and commitments. Each sector vies for primacy, setting out its needs and a compelling case for investment and prioritisation. Stepping back, you begin to see common themes and consistent messages.

Persistent recruitment and retention issues are present in almost every sector, further exacerbating existing skills gaps. It has been encouraging to see, for the first time, a Skills Hub at the major party conferences, shining a light on these issues.

Further education plays an integral role in supporting sectors that are essential to the UK’s prosperity and productivity, now and in the future – from social care and early years to digital innovation. Yet we shouldn’t just consider what FE can do for other sectors; we must also recognise the importance of the sector itself and champion its needs. This point has been brought into sharp focus through data and expert insights in our new spotlight report.

Alongside skills gaps and workforce demand projections, the views of prominent voices including Association of Colleges chief executive, David Hughes, London South East Colleges group principal and CEO, Dr Sam Parrett CBE and NCFE’s head of policy, Michael Lemin present a stark and sobering picture. But what also comes through loud and clear is not just a diagnosis of the issues. There are tangible solutions to these challenges.

First and foremost, it is evident that we need to close the gap between school teachers and FE educators. But the challenge is much more complex than simply ensuring parity of pay. We are in a catch-22 situation whereby FE supports many industries that command far higher pay than our sector can offer. Individuals are trained up to enter well-paid jobs and are then reluctant to re-enter FE to teach. It’s both a credit to the career paths we forge and detrimental to attracting skilled professionals to the classroom.

We need to be ambitious, bold and assertive

We need to look at a broader set of measures, such as upskilling our existing educators. It’s something we’ve seen, for example, through the work we’re doing with WorldSkills UK on the Centre for Excellence.  Since its launch in 2020, more than 2,000 educators have benefited from the programme which equips leaders and teachers with the knowledge and skills to raise the quality and standard of technical and vocational learning within their organisations. The programme’s next phase will see even greater numbers of educators in growth sectors such as digital, net zero and advanced manufacturing.

While much of the focus is rightly on the outcomes this produces for learners, what can’t be ignored is the impact this has on retaining people in the sector.

Another point that emerges from our report is the importance of industry partnerships – something we’ve long known to be essential. It’s this reciprocal nature that makes localised approaches so powerful – from relevant and accessible work placements to answering regional skills needs in a targeted way. 

The overriding theme throughout the report is that FE can and must be a better champion for itself. In my experience, most people in our sector are modest, committed professionals who don’t seek the limelight. But we do need to do better when it comes to showcasing why it’s such a great sector to work in, the diverse opportunities it offers and the impact it delivers.

This all feeds into a wider need to raise the profile of vocational and technical education overall. Much has been done in this regard over the past decade, but we must not be complacent about the journey we need to go on with employers, parents and learners themselves. As well as vocal support from central government, it is vital that we have our own say in ensuring the sector is not overlooked. We need to be ambitious, bold and assertive about ourselves and for our learners.

This report (alongside upcoming others on social care, early years and digital) is designed as a conversation starter. It doesn’t contain all the answers, but it does add further weight to ongoing discussions and debates around the future of FE. Our work is too important for these conversations to go quiet.

Employers may be in the driving seat, but the skills system’s engine has stalled

According to the latest Employer Skills Survey, employers invested £46 billion in on- and off-the-job training in 2022, including the wage costs of employees while they were training.

That’s a big number, but Learning and Work Institute analysis shows it’s actually a 26 per cent fall in training investment per employee since 2005 after accounting for inflation. That’s a huge drop, equating to £15 billion in lost investment each year.

With the government also investing £1 billion less each year in learning and skills in England, it’s no wonder we’re falling further behind other countries.

Who gets the training?

There’s been little change in the proportion of employees getting training each year. This sits at around 60 per cent. But the average number of days’ training per employee is down from 4.3 to 3.5.

Part of this could be a shift to new ways of learning. For example, two-thirds of firms provided online training compared to one-half before the pandemic. It’s also possible that employers are getting more bang for their buck and spending money more effectively.

Nevertheless, they are spending half the EU average on training. So are they really twice as effective at spending it? Given that overall our productivity is lower than many EU countries, this is questionable.

The sensible conclusion is that employers are clearly investing less in training; there’s not enough jam and it is being spread ever more thinly.

The Employer Skills Survey also shows that the decline in employer training investment per employee is broad-based, but larger in sectors that were already investing the least before. Construction, one of only two sectors to see a rise over the past decade, invests more than twice as much per employee as sectors like retail.

This holds back growth and productivity; unsurprisingly it is the sectors with the lowest investment in staff development and training that generally have the lowest productivity. And the fall is starkest among large firms: training spend per employee is down one-third in large firms. This suggests that the apprenticeship levy hasn’t increased large firms investment in skills.

The problem with policy

The reasons this is all happening are complex. Lack of investment in training is both a cause and a consequence of poor economic growth since the global financial crisis, coupled with ongoing political uncertainty for much of the period since. Employers will invest less in skills if they can’t see their markets growing. To stop this negative feedback loop, we need better economic growth and certainty for businesses to invest.

But it’s also down to shortcomings in skills policy. Our research shows that policy increasingly just passively follows employer decisions, rather than also seeking to tackle areas of under-investment. For example, three-quarters of skills bootcamp participants already had a level 3 qualification, while the number of adults improving their literacy and numeracy each year is down 62 per cent over the decade.

It’s little surprise then that you’re three times more likely to get training at work if you’re a graduate than a non-graduate. But a society that doesn’t invest enough in more than half of its population isn’t one that’s going to succeed long-term. The government should be more active in setting a framework  within which employers make their choices. So that we tackle, rather than reinforce, market failures.

There have been so many initiatives, many with the stated aim of putting employers in the driving seat. Their consistent focus has been on how employers can help to direct the publicly-funded skills system. Far less attention has been given to how we can get employers to invest more and use skills in the workplace.

And yet, this is ultimately the heart of the challenge. There is a good case for setting local skills investment plans the task of increasing employer investment in training as well as setting priorities for public funding.

The findings of this report make one thing certain: We must do better, or face sleepwalking ever onwards into stagnation.

Toxic? Online learning can be better than the classroom

This year’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference in Birmingham saw Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman take to the stage to declare that online learning and self-study can be a “toxic combination” if overused or used too soon in an apprenticeship. Spending too much time studying at home or alone could “can damage apprentices’ motivation and enthusiasm” and unsurprisingly lead some to drop out.

In reality, when executed properly online learning offers a formidable platform that can prove even more effective than in-person teaching in some instances.  

We have not conducted an in-person session for two years. And having successfully transitioned from in-person to online teaching, we have consistently maintained our Ofsted ‘outstanding’ status.  

Online vs online 

Key to understanding our success – and much of the derision directed towards online provision – is the distinction between virtual classroom-based learning on one hand, and the loathed (but sadly much embraced) pre-recorded ‘lessons’ on the other.  

Crafting effective engagement strategies is crucial to maintaining high-quality learning experiences online. Platforms like Moodle and pre-recorded content have serious limitations in advancing student learning. Their inflexible content lacks interactivity and real-time feedback, limiting engagement. They may be suitable for basic level two courses, but advanced apprenticeships demand a deeper understanding and require more innovative techniques. 

Instead, a hybrid model that combines virtual face-to-face sessions with small interactive cohorts and personalised one-to-one monthly sessions maintain vital flexibility. It offers a learning experience that is engaging and tailored to individual needs, providing apprentices with the chance to choose content according to their needs. They can focus on areas where they require assistance or skip to coaching sessions where they feel more confident. 

Furthermore, well-structured webinars with focused content can effectively replicate in-person interactions offered in traditional classroom settings. They aren’t without limitations; students are easily distracted and studies show that keeping webinar durations to around two to three hours enhances engagement and overall productivity. Regular breaks also play a crucial role in sustaining focus and optimising cognitive performance.

We have not conducted an in-person session for two years

Follow-up one-on-one coaching sessions further reinforce learning by bridging the gap between theory and practical application. As apprentices develop, transitioning from tutoring to coaching model shifts the focus onto real-world application.  

Elevating Education with Advantages 

Online learning also fosters a unique ecosystem of peer support and cross-sectoral conversations among apprentices from diverse backgrounds that in-person provision can’t consistently deliver.  

The logistics of arranging eight to ten students from different sectors to sign up to the same programme at the same time and in the same location is immensely challenging. Roll-on, roll-off recruitment allows apprentices to be seamlessly recruited across various sectors and locations.  

Apprentices can engage with colleagues in open cohorts at any time. This virtual format breaks down geographical barriers, enabling cross-sector interactions that enrich experiential learning.  

Meanwhile, virtual breakout rooms facilitate collaborative learning and enable apprentices to gain insights into challenges across various sectors. This promotes a holistic perspective that transcends the limitations of physical classrooms. Virtual classrooms can, in some cases, be more effective than physical ones.  

The benefits of online learning also extend to educators. An online setup reduces stress for tutors who no longer have to worry about timekeeping. No one is disadvantaged by traffic making students late in the morning or tiredness affecting focus on late afternoons. Tutors also cite reduced stress and improved teaching focus in an online environment, which can only benefit learners. 

Online learning benefits everyone else too, as it reduces our carbon footprint. Not only does that bring us closer to our net-zero commitments, it reduces costs for learners and educators at a time when the cost-of-living crisis poses a real risk to finances. 

Our corporate responsibility to deliver good outcomes for our students is a commitment we are devoted to. We would not deliver learning online if we could not provide high-quality education effectively.

Expertly implemented, online learning is far from toxic. Rather than damaging motivation and enthusiasm, it can deliver learning more effectively than traditional classroom-based provision for many learners. 

Inspectors recognise that in our practices. We hope a new chief inspector will too for the benefit of all apprentices.

Advanced BS? Perhaps, but hot dog, there’s good news for skills too

If you’re an online person, you’ll be familiar with the “hot dog” meme, known formally as “we’re all trying to find the guy who did this”. If you’re not aware, it’s taken from a previously obscure comedy sketch in which a man in a hot dog costume drives a novelty hot dog car into a shop window, causing massive damage. 

The hot dog driver then walks around in his costume with all the other customers, tutting about who on earth would have done such a stupid thing, and promising retribution when he finds them.

Anyway, changing topic completely, Rishi Sunak gave a speech today in which he told the Conservative Party conference everything that was wrong with education and what needed fixing. 

Actually, that’s not quite true. He stood there with big brown eyes and told the audience about the power of the Tories’ education reforms. He loves them. Really, really loves them. Especially the ones Michael Gove and Nick Gibb did, about knowledge-rich curricula and academic merit.

But skills? Those brown eyes looked up sorrowfully. 

Skills was a mistake. A 30-year mistake. 

Abolishing diplomas? A mistake, presumably. Cutting FE funding? Definitely a mistake. Introducing a new, gold-standard A level equivalent qualification called T Levels? The biggest mistake of all. 

Because it turns out he doesn’t like A levels after all. Or T Levels. That’s why he’s fixing the mistakes that unnamed other ministers made and scrapping them all, including the knowledge-rich curricula and reformed exams he was so proud of five minutes ago. 

A whole new qualification, the prime minister announced.

“Advanced BS,” someone sitting next to me muttered.

“Hold on,” I whispered back. “Let’s hear the end of the argument.”

“No,” he said. “That’s the name: Advanced British Standard.” 

“Oh come on,” I said. “Really? There’s no way they’ve picked something with that stupid an acronym. That would be like abolishing T Levels in the middle of the government’s own ‘T Levels Week’!”

I’m not saying there’s nothing good here for FE. Indeed, I can’t remember the last time a Conservative prime minister even talked about FE in a conference speech. Rob Halfon certainly welcomed it. In the hall, Gillian Keegan cried. (This was just after the PM had described her as a former degree apprentice, so it’s possible she was crying because she didn’t want anyone to know. She doesn’t make a big deal of it. One to check). 

Even Nick Gibb welcomed it, though I suspect he’ll need some remedial dental work once he’s unwound his rictus grin.

More money for FE lecturers is obviously a good thing. Additional funding and research into supporting maths and English re-sits, though less universally popular, is in my view a good thing. 

Explicitly recognising that improving terms and conditions for school teachers, without doing the same in FE makes the latter’s job so much harder, is long overdue. Extending learning hours for these new qualifications is also a good thing, and brings us back into line with other advanced education economies, as well as before the various changes to post-16 funding that some hot dog-loving guys cut successively since 2010. 

Normally, conference announcements come with supporting information that is as lean as the prime minister. But not this time. Shortly after he left the stage, the DfE published a 45-page document telling us all about the plan. 

‘Presented to Parliament’, it says on the front. I mean, maybe. It’s possible that we really don’t need HS2 because someone had managed to nip down to London from Manchester in the intervening period. Or maybe the document had been published in such a rush that no one realised this boilerplate sentence wasn’t true. Both possibilities are good!

I opened the document randomly. “For a long time, governments have claimed technical education is equal to academic, but in practice it is not”, it says.

Next sentence, “Since 2010 we have worked with employers to reinvigorate the quality of technical education and training in this country: we have introduced 18 T Levels…..”

Boy, when the prime minister catches the people who insisted we had parity of esteem and introduced these T Level qualifications that are for the scrap-heap, there’ll be a reckoning.

GCSE English and maths resit funding boost

English and maths GCSE resit students and apprentices are set to attract higher funding rates under government plans announced today.

The Department for Education said it will invest an additional £150 million per year over the next two years from 2024/25. It is part of a £600 million reform package being introduced while officials work on a new “advanced British standard” qualification to replace A-levels and T Levels.

The funding boost means that if a student is retaking English and maths GCSE while studying at level 2 or below on their 16 to 19 course, they will now attract the same funding as those studying at level 3.

And all apprentices who have not gained their level 2 English and maths qualification will have their funding lifted to match the adult education budget – moving the rate up by 54 per cent from £471 to £724 increase.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers said urged the DfE to implement the “long overdue” funding increases as quickly as possible.

A spokesperson added: “Although the content of [English and maths] functional skills qualifications still needs further consideration, as does DfE’s policy position on exemptions and exit requirements, this proposal to match the adult education budget rate is a welcome step forward.

Colleges and providers have this year been met with an influx of students who haven’t passed GCSE English and maths.

FE Week analysis suggests that 38,000 more students will have to continue studying English compared to last year after failing to achieve a 4 or above. This is a 28.6 per cent rise – above the 3.3 per cent rise in entries for both subjects. Nearly 22,000 students will have to continue maths compared to 2022 – a 14.9 per cent rise.

The DfE said: “We know poor literacy and numeracy holds young people, and our economy, back – so it is right we prioritise raising the floor of attainment now.”

The £600 million package will also include around £100 million a year to offer £6,000 tax-free bursaries per year to teachers in “key shortage subjects” if they are in the first five years of their career. DfE hopes this will help improve the recruitment and retention of teachers.

“We will invest c.£100 million each year to double the rates of the existing Levelling Up Premium and extending it to those teaching eligible subjects in all FE colleges,” the department said.

“This will mean that those teaching key technical such as engineering, electronics and digital, and key STEM subjects, will benefit from the support already given to maths, chemistry, physics and computing teachers in eligible schools.”

The cash will also include £40 million for the Education Endowment Foundation to expand its focus to post-16.

Documents stated: “EEF will act as the independent authority on creating and sharing evidence for teachers and leaders on what works to support outcomes for 16 to 19-year-olds, with a particular focus on approaches that work best to narrow gaps in attainment.”

Another £60 million over the two years will “improve maths education, including through: expanding teaching for mastery approaches across the country, using our Maths Hubs; and increasing access to Core Maths through provider incentives and an expanded digital tuition platform”.

Advanced British Standard: Everything you need to know

Rishi Sunak today pledged to replace A-levels and T Levels with a new Advanced British Standard.

So what does this all mean? Here’s your FE Week explainer.

1. What is the Advanced British Standard?

Documents published after Sunak’s speech (read them here) say the Advanced British Standard (ABS) is a “new Baccalaureate-style qualification” for 16 to 19 year-olds “that takes the best of A-levels and T Levels and brings them together into a single qualification.

This is because the current “traditional parallel structure of A-levels and technical qualifications has constraints”, such as “limiting the breadth of young people’s education and prevents full parity across technical and academic routes”.

2. A-levels and T Levels scrapped – but would take TEN YEARS …

Yes, both A-levels and T Levels as individual qualifications would be replaced.

Under the ABS, most students would instead study a minimum of five subjects at different levels – either major or minor (so for instance, three majors and two minors).

But the intention is to make “majors” have the “comparable depth and rigour to A-levels (with at least 90 per cent of the content) so that they support progression, including to university”.

BUT BUT BUT. This is obviously all dependent on the Conservatives overturning the odds to win the next election.

And either way – the “long-term reform” would “take a decade to deliver in full”, documents state.

3. … however consultation soon and white paper next year

But plans are afoot to make some progress before the expected election later next year.

Government said the huge overhauls would “need careful development, in partnership with students, teachers, leaders, schools, colleges, universities and employers, as well as the public”.

They promised to “consult extensively, and in detail, over the coming months on the design of the new qualification”.

There will also be a white paper next year setting out “our plan for delivery”.

4. Post-16 studying time will be increased …

Under the plans, post-16 students would spend more time in the classroom, with a minimum of 1,475 taught hours over two years.

Currently, a typical A-level student in England studying three subjects is taught for 1,280 hours and a technical student for 1,000 hours.

5. … and £30k bonuses to recruit more teachers

But where will all the teachers come from (we hear you ask)?

Government will invest £600 million across the next two years to help boost capacity, including around £100 million each year to double the rates of the levelling up premium payments to teachers.

That means teachers in eligible shortage subjects in the levelling up areas will get £30,000 tax-free bonuses over five years. This will also extend to further education colleges.

“Delivering our new approach will rest on there being enough great teachers in every school and college, and this downpayment is the first step to ensuring that there are,” documents state.

6. ‘Major’ and ‘minor’ levels at 16-19 …

A bit more detail on the new qualifications that would make up the ABS…

So students would take a minimum of five subjects, but in some cases this could be four if they choose “to focus on a specific occupation”. 

There will be potential for “further ‘stretch’” for those who want to take four majors – similar to the four A-levels now. 

Those that want to take a primarily technical route such as structural engineering could study a “major in building service engineering and a double major in gas engineering, and minors in maths and English”.

Students wanting to keep a primarily academic route could, for example, study “three majors in history, French and English, alongside minors in maths and geography. Or, they could study mixed disciplines: majors in business, geography and maths, alongside minors in English and marketing.”

An example of the new system

7. … with maths and English requirement ‘to at least minor level’

DfE says they will “ensure that everybody has to study maths and English to the age of 18”. 

It will be delivered in “different ways for different people” – for some it will be a “major” like an A-level, while for others it will be a “minor” like the current core maths qualification. 

On core maths, DfE says it “will strengthen and support as part of the pathway to these reforms”.

For others, “it will be about acquiring the basic English and maths they need to succeed in work and life”. DfE will explore if an “essay-based subject” could work for English. 

DfE will also expand the teaching for mastery method for better maths teaching. 

8. Grading to be ‘carefully considered’ 

DfE said it will also have to “consider carefully how to design the grading that students will receive”. 

Currently, the letter system is used for A-levels in England and pass, merit and distinction grades are awarded for VTQs.

DfE said any grading will have to make sure employers and universities can understand a students achievement “both across the whole qualification and in the most relevant subjects to them, and can make the right decision about what is next for them”.

9. GCSEs could also be ‘streamlined’ 

Ministers are looking at what improvements can be made to GCSEs. 

They say the year 11 tests can be “onerous for students and teachers, which can detract from the time available for teaching and learning time” so they will look “at where they can be streamlined while still retaining their inherent rigour”. 

Things being considered include whether to reduce the number and/or length of papers that children sit to save time spent on exams and on marking.

The second is “adopt digital solutions, such as on-screen assessment, which would open up new possibilities and allow us to assess performance in more innovative and less onerous ways”. 

10. Level 2 pathway with more teaching hours

Students not yet able to progress to the level 3 Advanced British Standard will be offered a dedicated pathway at level 2.

There isn’t a specially branded new qualification outlined in today’s announcement, but level 2 students “will have access to the same number of minimum hours – and high-quality teaching – as the level 3 pathway.”

Reforms to remove and improve qualifications at level 2 and below will proceed as planned.

The department said there will also be a “clear offer” with extra teaching hours for students studying below level 2, including those with SEND needs.

11. £150m for GCSE resits

DfE is committing an extra £150 million each year to support those that don’t pass GCSE English and maths. 

They say it means “that if a student is retaking English and maths GCSE while studying at level 2 or below on their 16-19 course, they will now attract the same funding as those studying at level 3”.

And all apprentices who have not gained their level 2 English and maths qualification will have their funding rates lifted to match the adult education budget – which represents a 54 per cent increase on the English and maths funding currently available to apprentices.

Funding to colleges and schools will be increased “so they can deliver maths to more students aged over 16”. 

12. £40m for EEF to expand post-16

The cash will also include £40 million for the Education Endowment Foundation to expand its focus to post-16.

Documents stated: “EEF will act as the independent authority on creating and sharing evidence for teachers and leaders on what works to support outcomes for 16-19 year-olds, with a particular focus on approaches that work best to narrow gaps in attainment.”

Another £60 million over the two years will “improve maths education, including through: expanding teaching for mastery approaches across the country, using our Maths Hubs; and increasing access to Core Maths through provider incentives and an expanded digital tuition platform”.

Sunak to replace A-levels and T Levels with ‘Advanced British Standard’ qualification

Rishi Sunak has pledged to replace A-levels and T Levels with a new single “advanced British standard” qualification.

The prime minister announced during his Conservative Party conference speech that he would create a “new single qualification for our school leavers”.

A-levels and T Levels will be merged into the new qualification, which would see 16 to 19-year-olds “typically” study five subjects including “some form” of English and maths.

More teachers will be needed to deliver “at least 195 hours more” teaching for sixth-formers, Sunak acknowledged.

Those who teach “key subjects” in schools and colleges will receive “special bonuses of up to £30,000 tax free over the first five years of their career”.

The policy appears to be a fleshing out of the “British baccalaureate” proposed by Sunak in his first leadership run last year.

Government said it would launch a consultation next month, with a proposed white paper next year.

But the reforms are dependent on the Conservatives winning the next election, and if implemented would take ten years to deliver in full, documents state.

The announcement, made during the government’s T Levels celebration week, comes despite ministers’ plans to scrap other level 3 vocational qualifications, like BTECs, and replace them with T Levels, which only launched in 2020.

Students will ‘major’ in subjects

A policy document published by the government said the new qualification would “build on the best of A-levels and T Levels”.

The academic subjects in the advanced British standard “will be based on the content and academic rigour of A levels, taking the same knowledge-based approach”.

Students would choose “majors” with “comparable depth and rigour to A-levels” and with “at least 90 per cent of the content” that “support progression, including to university”.

Technical subjects within the qualification “will be based on the content of T Levels and occupational standards that employers and IfATE have carefully designed, supporting progression into higher technical education, apprenticeships and employment”.

…but not for a decade

But the reform will “take a decade to deliver in full”, meaning it could well never come to fruition if Labour wins next year’s general election and decides to cancel it.

“It will need careful development, in partnership with students, teachers, leaders, schools, colleges, universities and employers, as well as the public.”

Government will “consult extensively, and in detail, over the coming months on the design of the new qualification, informing a white paper next year setting out our plan for delivery”.

“If we want to change the direction of our country and build a better future for our children nothing is more important than making our education system the best it can be,” Sunak said today.

“I want to build on our Conservative achievements and take a long-term decision to address the problems with our 16 to 19 education system.

“Technical education is not given the respect it deserves but today, I am changing all of that, pulling one of the biggest levers we have to change the direction of our country.”