New V Levels qualification must build on the best of BTECs

What a start to the week for FE.  The Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper marks a significant shift in the system of vocational education for young people that will help tackle the UK’s widening skills gap in industries vital to economic growth.  

We believe the UK needs a broad qualifications landscape, offering clearly defined pathways from foundational levels through to degrees and higher technical and professional qualifications. This will build a highly skilled workforce capable of delivering on the ambitions of the UK’s industrial strategy.   

As the UK’s largest awarding organisation, Pearson has extensive experience of delivering a range of post-16 qualifications, including BTECs, A levels, and T Levels.  Throughout the swirling debate around the future of vocational education in this country we have maintained that there should be a third route for students alongside A levels and T Levels.  Every young person should have access to high-quality technical and vocational qualifications, supported by clear progression pathways that offer choice, flexibility, and opportunity.  We are encouraged that government has now set a clear ambition and statement of support for this third route in perpetuity. The task ahead now is to define and deliver this in practice. 

While it is right to update and review our qualifications system so it’s fit for the future, we mustn’t dismiss or forget what has worked well. For decades, Pearson’s BTEC Nationals have helped millions of people enter the workforce, progress to further and higher education, and achieve their career ambitions.  

Changes like this don’t happen overnight and much of the finer, practical detail remains unclear in these early stages.  This will come in due course and we look forward to bringing our extensive experience in designing and delivering vocational qualifications to V Levels, working with the Department for Education and Ofqual to ensure the new qualification helps people build successful careers and equips employers with the skills they need to drive productivity and growth.   

One in five of the UK working population has one or more BTECs – it’s part of the fabric of people’s lives and careers in this country. From these many years of providing vocational qualifications to millions of students, we have learnt a number of valuable key lessons that we urge the government to consider as they begin this journey to create and launch V Levels: 

Progression to higher education

V Levels must have the same level of recognition from higher education as existing smaller vocational qualifications. BTECs provide a valuable route for students into higher education – around 20 per cent of entrants to nursing degrees hold a BTEC Level 3 National qualification, for example. We know that the demand for higher level skills will increase in the future and students taking vocational qualifications must be supported to progress both into employment, and into degrees and higher technical and professional qualifications, as a route to higher level employment. 

Accessibility of larger qualifications should be addressed on sector-by-sector basis

The ongoing defunding of larger vocational qualifications in key sectors – including BTECs in digital, health and social care, engineering, and creative media – remains a major concern. These qualifications are crucial pathways to both employment and higher education. Removing them before clear, scalable alternatives are in place risks leaving students without viable routes into industries already facing acute skills shortages.  Larger qualifications need to be made available until T Levels are made more accessible, and where occupational standards are not appropriate for the sector. Occupational standards at Level 3, and therefore T Levels, will not be relevant for all sectors.  

Relationship between qualifications and occupational standards

V Levels should not be based solely on occupational standards but based on content drawn from occupational standards alongside broader knowledge and skills such as critical thinking, problem solving and research, to ensure that learners can progress to higher level study. 

The assessment model will be critical

One of the strengths of BTECs is that they offer students, who may not thrive under a qualification based entirely on high-stakes exams, a path to succeed and progress through practical learning.  We welcome the recognition that V Levels will generally have an increased proportion of non-exam assessment compared to many A levels. A one-size fits all assessment model does not work and this approach will allow for valid assessment of applied knowledge and skills. 

Designing and delivering new qualifications will take time and we stand ready to work closely with DfE and Ofqual to understand the details, and start the process of developing new qualifications.  Our teams will also be working hard over the coming days, weeks and months, to support colleges, schools, teachers and students through any changes ahead.  

V Levels can streamline, but beware a re-badging exercise

The skills white paper sets out a promising vision for a streamlined post-16 system. But to avoid yet another iteration of the continuous and exhausting cycle of FE reform, care must be taken to ensure this vision is delivered on, not just re-badged.

The post-16 qualifications landscape has long been overcrowded and confusing, making it extremely difficult for students, parents and employers to navigate.  In our research at EPI, we showed using Ofqual’s VTQ (vocational and technical qualifications) landscape tool that students and parents often have hundreds, if not thousands of potential qualifications to choose from. 

This bloated and confused landscape is clearly not conducive to a high-quality and sustainable post-16 system. As such, the newly announced V Levels have the potential to make welcome improvements to a flawed system.

While T Levels were supposed to simplify this landscape and become the main vocational level 3 offer, there are clearly too many learners left without suitable qualifications – they want to study for a level 3 vocational qualification, but not to study for a narrow and large T Level. V Levels are a welcome arrival designed to sit alongside A and T Levels. In 2024, we proposed the introduction of smaller T Levels and we are pleased the white paper is following in this direction.

V Levels will also actively promote and enable students to take mixed-level 3 pathways, combining academic and vocational education into one programme. Our work has shown that these mixed tracks are becoming increasingly popular with learners over time. And wider research shows hybrid programmes tend to deliver good outcomes for students.

The true test for the policy will be whether this momentum can be sustained without creating more complexity. A question going forward will be: what scope will V Levels have to genuinely simplify the landscape?

If existing vocational qualifications are simply badged as V Levels without reducing the number of different awarding bodies, sizes, content and assessment structures, there will still be an unhelpful and complex qualifications landscape. The focus on simplifying the post-16 qualifications landscape in its entirety must remain a key focus as V Levels are developed.

Critical to V Levels success will be forging clear pathways between level 2 and level 3 qualifications. The removal of the T Level foundation year (which we found was doing more harm than good for many students) is a step in the right direction.

Resit reforms fall short with current model

The white paper also proposed changes to the resit policy. Specifically, the government plans to introduce a new level 1 foundation, GCSE stepping stone qualification that students can take before doing their GCSE resit. Skills minister Jacqui Smith argues this will “end the resits treadmill”, yet this is far from clear given the information we currently have.

The proposed changes aren’t a massive departure from the current condition of funding policy. Students who achieve lower than a grade 3 can already take level 1 stepping stone qualifications (typically functional skills qualifications) to build towards achieving their GCSE. However, this is an increasingly uncommon approach used by colleges, as our research shows. For example, the use of stepping stone qualifications fell by around 50 per cent between 2015-16 and 2021-22, as colleges substituted them for GCSEs.

As such, new stepping stone qualifications need to be designed very closely with the sector to ensure they meet provider and student needs. Many students and providers prefer GCSEs over existing stepping stone qualifications because they are graded on a scale and allow students to feel a sense of progress. New stepping stone qualifications should also be graded on a scale to allow such progress to be measured and demonstrated.

Additionally, the white paper doesn’t say enough about addressing a range of other underlying challenges in delivering resits, including funding and staffing shortages in the FE sector and the need for more targeted support for disadvantaged students.

Ultimately, introducing a new level 1 stepping stone alone will fall short of addressing challenges with the current resit model. Until the underlying problems of acute staffing shortages and the need for targeted investment (such as a 16-19 student premium for disadvantaged learners) are solved, resits will struggle to deliver for all students.

Funding Is Flowing, Demand Is Rising — It’s Time for FE to Deliver on Green Skills

For Further Education colleges, this is no longer a niche opportunity — it’s a national mission. And the clock is ticking.

The Ambition: Big Numbers, Bold Promises

In the government’s Net Zero Strategy, the goals are crystal clear:

  • 440,000 jobs in net zero sectors by 2030
  • 190,000 of those by 2025 — that’s now
  • Up to £90 billion of private investment leveraged by 2030

From retrofitting old homes to rolling out EV infrastructure, the UK needs tens of thousands of skilled workers across energy, construction, transport and tech. In theory, the FE sector is at the heart of that delivery.

The Reality: Colleges Are Catching Up – But Slowly

The latest ONS data (July 2025) shows there were 690,900 green jobs in the UK in 2023 — up 35% since 2015. Green job ads are rising fast too, especially in construction and renewables.

But here’s the problem: very few learners are currently enrolled on explicitly green programmes.

Take adult learners in the West Midlands: just 56 signed up last year to a course in carbon awareness and energy management. Nationally, green apprenticeships remain a fraction of total provision. And fewer than 1 in 10 workers receive green skills training at work.

Meanwhile, employers are crying out for people who can install heat pumps, maintain wind turbines, or build sustainable homes — and they’re struggling to find them.

The Funding Is There – But So Are the Gaps

In fairness, the government has begun backing the sector with serious money. A £302 million capital upgrade fund is now supporting colleges to expand and modernise their facilities. Several major institutions are developing green tech workshops, EV labs and net-zero training hubs.

Institutes of Technology are also expanding — with programmes in sustainable engineering, clean power, and construction tech.

But the patchiness remains. Provision is uneven across regions, and many colleges still lack the facilities or staff to deliver truly hands-on, industry-relevant green training. And with no central data tracking how many green learners there actually are, it’s hard to measure progress.

What FE Needs to Do — Now

FE colleges are the engine room of the UK’s green skills revolution. But to deliver, they’ll need to move fast — and with focus. Here’s what the sector must prioritise:

1. Specialise to local demand

Use LSIPs and employer partnerships to align provision with local green sector needs — whether that’s offshore wind in Grimsby, heat pumps in Bristol, or EV tech in the Midlands.

2. Invest in people and kit

It’s not just buildings — it’s trainers. Colleges must attract and retain industry-standard tutors in green trades and technologies, from electricians to retrofit assessors.

3. Track and showcase impact

Colleges should start collecting and publishing their own Green Skills enrolment, completion and job progression data. The sector can’t manage what it doesn’t measure.

4. Make green careers visible

Too many learners still think “green jobs” mean climate science or tree planting. Colleges must raise awareness of high-paid, hands-on roles in solar, construction, hydrogen, and tech.

5. Embed sustainability across the board

From business to beauty therapy, all courses should integrate sustainability — not just specialist pathways. Green Skills aren’t a silo; they’re the future of work.

Conclusion: No Time for Half Measures

The government says it wants a clean energy workforce, a net zero economy, and millions of new green jobs. The money’s starting to flow, the policy is in place — but the skills system isn’t yet at full speed.

FE colleges are crucial to delivering this transition. But they need to be empowered — and held to account — to meet the scale and urgency of the task.

Green jobs are coming, whether we’re ready or not. The question is: will FE lead the way — or be left behind?

We can help!

Green Skills Solutions has a suite of City and Guilds Assured Training programmes, including: Understanding Decarbonisation; Smart Home Heating Systems; Understanding Wind Technology; Introduction to Electric Vehicles and Charge Points and Understanding Heat Pump Technology. We can also work with you to create bespoke programmes.

We are proud to partner with Sabre Rigs, who can provide the physical resources and equipment to support your delivery needs. 

Contact us today to learn more or visit “Team Sabre” at the Association of Colleges Conference on 18th-19th November in Birmingham at Stand F16.

Contact Information

For more details on programme delivery, partnership opportunities, or any additional inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us.  We look forward to hearing from you and exploring potential collaborations:

Sabre Rigs Website

orders@sabre-rigs.co.uk

Telephone: 07468 759 512

Green Skills Solutions Website

hello@green-skills-solutions.co.uk

Telephone: 07468 759 512

FE is no longer Cinderella, it’s the government’s Fairy Godmother

FE is often talked about as the Cinderella sector. It is a phase of education that, proponents of this metaphor say, is too often overlooked by policymakers. Having spent time working across different parts of the education system, I always find myself drawn back to vocational education and training. That’s where it all happens.

Each new skills minister – and, increasingly, Prime Minister – wants to stamp their mark on the system, usually just as the ink has dried on next year’s college prospectuses. So far from treating FE like Cinderella, the government is treating it like the Fairy Godmother, hoping it will make all their wishes come true.

The post-16 white paper grants us a first look at this government’s vision for the skills system in the round. It is fully loaded – trying to present a coherent strategy for a national skills system that works locally for young people and adults, the unemployed and in-work, employers and individuals, and for FE and HE. You can feel the tussle between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Treasury as you read the 72-page document. A single overarching narrative is hard to find – the kind of omission that no amount of fairy dust can cover.

This feels like shaky ground to embark on a programme of ambitious reforms from. Ministers should learn from recent qualification reform agendas as they plan the introduction of V Levels.

Most vocational qualification reform begins with good intentions: often, to simplify and to strengthen. The 2005 white paper that underpinned the 14-19 Diplomas following the Tomlinson Review referenced an “alphabet soup” of vocational qualifications. The 2019 ‘case for change’ to consolidate level 3 qualifications, following from the 2011 Wolf Review and 2016 Sainsbury Review aimed to shed light on an “extraordinarily complex and opaque” system. And, the 2023 Advanced British Standard (ABS) consultation document sought “clearer options” post-16.

While there is a zeal for change, too often the purpose of change either isn’t clear or isn’t shared. The 14-19 diplomas promised a bridge between academic and vocational routes, but their aims became muddled and neither universities nor employers really knew what they stood for. The Advanced British Standard (ABS) promised breadth, but quickly became shorthand for something that might simply replace A Levels and T Levels without a clear rationale. There was confusion over what T Levels were preparing young people for: work, apprenticeships, higher technical study, university, or all of the above at different times to different people.

The lesson for the V Levels rollout is simple: before thinking about structures, we need a unifying purpose – one that is sufficient enough to justify the upheaval and public investment of wholesale qualification reform.

What is the problem the government is trying to solve, and where does the current offer fall short? Is it about coherence, about quality, about labour market value, or is it a rebranding of the existing options?

Skills minister Baroness Smith said that V Levels would “build on what’s good about BTECs”. Applied general qualifications like BTECs, Cambridge Technicals and others have currency with the public and, crucially, employers. There will need to be work to ensure the value of V Levels is understood.

If V Levels are about creating a “line of sight” into work, there is too little in the white paper on careers information, advice and guidance. Too often, qualification reform focuses on simplification for employers without thinking about how young people will navigate the new system.

For learners who are still deciding which career path to take and want to take a mix of courses, retaining “A Level sized” Level 3 qualifications feel like the right way to go. The model is popular with industry leaders, and it polls well with the public: 74 per cent of adults think young people should be able to “mix and match” academic and vocational subjects to suit their interests.

But without a shared “why”, implementation could become a firefighting exercise. For those rolling out V Levels, the real test will be whether this reform finally learns the one lesson its predecessors never did: that coherence begins with purpose.

Skilled migrants should train British workers in colleges – report

Skilled migrants should train and mentor domestic workers in places like colleges to fill shortages and quell fears about immigration, a think tank has said.

Under a proposed new “work and teach” programme, skilled foreign workers would have to share their specialist expertise with local businesses and colleges as a condition of their visa.

The proposal was made in a new report by The Good Growth Foundation, a think tank with links to Labour ministers, which recommended linking immigration policy to a “revitalised” national skills strategy.

Experts at the think tank said a “lack of focus” on skills and opportunity for domestic workers is the undercurrent driving growing anti-immigration rhetoric.

Former education secretary Lord David Blunkett, who wrote a foreword for the report, said: “The public’s unease about immigration cannot be separated from their frustration about opportunity.

“When people feel locked out of progress, resentment grows; when they see investment in skills and prospects, confidence returns.”

‘Take back control’

The “take back control” report polled over 2,000 adults from across the country and held focus groups with former Labour voters who intend to vote for the Reform party or alternative left-wing parties in the next election.

Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) said adult and lifelong learning would have the most positive impact on the country and 57 per cent said colleges should play a “leading role” in adult skills.

But only 43 per cent “express confidence” that their local FE college “delivers high-quality, job-relevant training”.

Four in 10 (41 per cent) said funding cuts were the biggest barrier to skills and training opportunities while over half (52 per cent) called out employers for failing to provide enough training or apprenticeships.

Just less than half, 49 per cent, of polled participants approved of the work and teach programme, which would address shortages where there are not enough British workers to train the next generation. Among Labour voters, the approval rating reached 57 per cent.

“The appeal lies in fairness: people welcome immigration when they know it is helping to build opportunity here at home,” the think tank said.

Under the “work and teach” proposal, skilled foreign workers would be “granted visas on the condition that part of their time is dedicated to training and mentoring domestic employees – sharing their expertise with local workforces, SME (small and medium sized enterprises) and colleges”. 

The think tank said this policy would “transform immigration from a perceived shortcut into a visible investment in Britain’s own talent pipeline”, adding: “In a labour market still recovering from years of undertraining and chronic shortages, this approach would make migration a tool for renewal rather than a source of tension”.

One example it gave was requiring an engineer hired from overseas to fill a technical vacancy to spend 10 to 15 per cent of their week teaching specific software skills or advanced manufacturing techniques to a cohort of junior domestic engineers.

‘This proposal is an exciting one’

The report’s authors said this pathway should be tied to “skills transfer plan”, which would mandate employers to build their own strategy for upskilling their workforce and would have to report the plan to the Home Office as part of their licence to sponsor skilled workers.

As part of the skills transfer plan, the government could “explore making safeguards available, such as colleges and other educational providers, for foreign workers to use for delivering training as part of their work and teach visa”.

Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “This policy proposal is an exciting one, bringing two problems together to create a solution: the political tension created by having to bring in skilled overseas workers and the shortage of skilled trainers.”

The foundation also recommended a migration budget that transparently shows how immigrants’ fiscal contributions, such as income tax, National Insurance, visa fees, and the immigration skills charge, are reinvested into the economy. 

Calls have long existed for the government to publicise where receipts from the immigration skills charge are invested. The Treasury has faced criticism for treating it as “simply a tax” that goes into its main “consolidated fund”.

It follows an FE Week investigation that found “zero transparency” over whether the tax actually funds domestic training as was promised.

Recent figures show ISC income fell for the first time in four years, by £100 million.

This week’s skills white paper confirmed the ISC is set to rise by 32 per cent.

The Good Growth Foundation said transparency would help “flip the narrative” that “every gain for newcomers is a loss for British workers”.

“For sceptics, this distinction is decisive. Immigration framed as a substitute for investment in Britons is resented. Immigration framed as a complement – directly tied to expanding opportunity at home – can command broad support,” the report said.

Praful Nargund, director of the Good Growth Foundation, said: “Linking immigration and skills reform flips the narrative from pressures to partnership, giving new arrivals and British workers the chance to work together to fix our country.”

White paper misses the mark by omitting adults

The government’s new post-16 education and skills white paper could have been the defining moment for a genuine lifelong learning revolution. Instead, it risks being remembered as the ‘pre-19 paper’ – a document that narrows opportunity to youth and higher education while overlooking the millions of adults who also need, and deserve, access to learning. 

Although the white paper consolidates the government’s technical and organisational reforms, it’s vision remains narrow. It treats adult education primarily as an engine for productivity – a valid goal, but one that misses its full social and economic potential. Without participation and confidence, the productivity it promises will remain out of reach. 

Adults missing from the story 

In a 38,000+ word document, adult learners like those at WM College barely get a mention. Yet the government says it wants to “level up” skills, drive growth and “leave no one behind.” That ambition cannot be realised while community education remains an afterthought. 

As chair and CEO of HOLEX – representing local authority and community adult education providers across England – we both welcome the ambition to strengthen skills. But economic growth will stall if education policy continues to focus on institutions rather than people. A system that prioritises young people, colleges and universities but neglects adults, communities and lifelong learning cannot deliver inclusive growth. 

Adult learners are not a niche group. They are parents, carers, jobseekers, mid-career workers and older people rebuilding confidence through learning. Providers have the infrastructure and trust to engage adults who are economically inactive or furthest from work. Yet their funding has been eroded for a decade, and the white paper offers little reassurance this will change. 

Essential skills review: the test of intent 

The proposed essential skills review is welcome, but it must not become another consultation that drifts. The consultation will focus on improving outcomes for learners who did not achieve expected standards in GCSE English and maths. It needs to be wider than English and maths, and look at core language, literacy digital and numeracy skills which will not only boost employability prospects, but support lifelong learning and reduce barriers to those who struggle with traditional academic formats.

The review must fund these routes properly, set a clear timetable, and give community providers a formal voice in shaping delivery. Without that, the review risks diagnosing a problem without backing the solution. 

Skills passport: make it genuinely lifelong

The proposed skills passport as part of the UK’s ‘plan for change’ is an interesting innovation, but it is focussed exclusively on the energy sector now.

It is designed to help learners transition between roles and to recognise transferable skills, but it must then record all learning, in all sectors; it would be good to have more details on what the learning has been to enable it to expand from energy into other sectors. 

Equally, if it only tracks accredited or employment-linked qualifications, it will ignore the vital informal and community-based learning that underpins many adult journeys. 

For thousands of adults returning to study after years away, the first step is a short course that rebuilds confidence or language skills. Those experiences must count. A genuinely lifelong skills passport should recognise every stage of learning – accredited or not – so that adults can see, and show, their progression. 

Investment and inclusion must go hand in hand 

Funding remains the core issue. Investment is still weighted toward higher education and Level 4 + courses, yet the greatest economic and social return often comes from supporting adults with the lowest starting points. HOLEX is calling for a £5 billion increase in the adult skills budget this Parliament and for funding to be distributed locally, through authorities that understand community and employer needs. 

A fair, locally driven model would empower the networks already proven to engage and upskill adults who are economically inactive or furthest from work. 

A people’s skills solution 

 The white paper’s emphasis on employment outcomes is understandable, but employment alone does not define success. Adult learning improves mental health, civic participation and family stability – outcomes that are measurable, proven and economically valuable, yet absent from the government’s metrics. 

If ministers truly want a skills revolution, they must recognise that people – not just institutions – are its driving force. A people’s skills solution would put learning power in citizens’ hands, value practical and vocational skills alongside academic ones, and build a system that works for everyone, everywhere. 

HOLEX and its members stand ready to help design and deliver that system. We urge government to embed community adult education in the essential skills review, make the skills passport genuinely lifelong and inclusive, and deliver fair funding so that adult learning can play its full part in growth, wellbeing and community renewal. 

Because adult learning isn’t an optional extra – it’s the backbone of an inclusive, productive and healthy society. 

V Levels: a victory for vocational education, or another V sign to the FE sector?

With the rumours of “V Levels” first revealed by FE Week three weeks ago and now finally confirmed in the post-16 education and skills white paper, many across the sector will no doubt be signalling a V in return.

If you believe this represents evidence of concerns around defunding finally being listened to, you’re likely giving V Levels a (cautious) Churchillian V for Victory. If you’re cynical or have sector reform fatigue, it’s probably more like the V sign off the front cover of Kes.

Of course, we should reserve full judgement until the details are clearer. What we know so far is that they will form a vocational alternative to the existing routes of A Levels and T Levels, they will commence for first teaching from September 2027, and they will be equivalent in size to a single A Level. We also now know that whilst these new qualifications are developed there is no pause to the current defunding timetable. Large and very popular vocational qualifications (known as applied general qualifications – AGQs) in areas such as business, health and social care and science are due for the chop from next year and the year after.

A main concerns around the defunding approach has been the narrowing of student choice through reducing the offer to a binary alternative of A Levels or the new T Levels. It’s a legitimate concern, but the binary choice argument against the reforms never quite stacked up. There were always alternative pathways built into the Level 3 changes. In addition to A Levels and T Levels, students would have the choice to study alternative academic qualifications (AAQs) replacing some of the AQQs and designed to be combined with A Levels; or alternative stand-alone technical occupational qualifications (TOQs) that didn’t neatly align with the T Level architecture. However, these additions to the reforms were arguably poorly understood, lacked the same promotion as T Levels and were largely sidelined in some of the polemics around the risk to student choice.

When the intention to introduce V Levels was first revealed, my immediate reaction was that the government had played a blinder. Given AAQs and TOQs were flying somewhat under the radar, the response was to give them greater visibility as “the third way”. And so simple – add the V to the existing A and T. It seemed a good solution to keep the existing direction of travel largely in place but address the presentation and “brand”.

Now, I’m not so sure. Are V Levels a rebrand of AAQs and TOQs? An evolution? Or a case of back to the drawing board? If the latter, you’d pity anyone taking these replacement qualifications whilst V Levels come on stream, given the lack of currency they are likely to have in the near future.

For V Levels to succeed, we all need to be clear about their intended market, purpose and the destinations they will lead students towards. I have said previously that the barrier to T Levels’ scalability is their size and difficulty compared to many AGQs, with many providers like us adopting entry requirements more in line with A Levels. It seems this has been recognised in the proposal for V Levels, with the consultation stating that it is believed these new qualifications need to be attainable for the average student currently taking AGQs. Whether this will address current concerns about defunding, Level 3 provision gaps and potentially reduced participation in education remains to be seen.

In terms of purpose, we need to understand what makes them distinctive to A Levels and T Levels. From what we know so far, they will be broader in scope than T Levels (although smaller), focused on an employment sector rather than a specific occupational area (although designed against occupational standards) and designed to sit alongside A Levels or other V Levels. There is a danger clarity will fall between stools if we are not careful.

And many people use the terms “vocational” and “technical” interchangeably. The importance of good and clear careers information, advice and guidance will be critical.

Finally, we need to know where these qualifications will take students. Is the primary aim university, given their intention to sit with A Levels? Is it employment, given their link to practical skills and occupational standards? Or are they designed to keep options fully open and align with the government’s new ambition to support two thirds of young people into a broader range and definition of higher-level study?

A lot of questions to be answered, but at least now we have some clarity – and a more defined “third way”. As for where I sit, my ‘V’ is probably more like Winston’s. A victory of sorts for the sector. But ask me again in twelve months.

White paper is a long-overdue vote of confidence in colleges – let’s make it count

The government’s new post-16 education and skills white paper places colleges at the forefront of the government’s ambitions for the country. That is where they should always have been, of course. But were grossly underfunded and overlooked for over a decade from 2010.

Being described as anchor institutions that deliver on economic growth, productivity, place-making and opening up opportunities everywhere for everyone marks a big, positive step forward. It shows a belief in colleges which we have not seen before and backs it up with some of the investment needed to overcome the long-term neglect the sector has suffered.

It also sets a challenge to college leaders and our sector. It is asking colleges to step up to build on the great work being done already to reach more people, including employers. It is asking the sector to open up new pathways and ensure that economic growth truly benefits everyone everywhere.

It is challenge that I am confident we will accept. For too long, our post-16 system has been fragmented, underfunded and overly focused on academic routes. This white paper offers a more joined-up system, one that is responsive to local labour markets, supports productivity and helps more people into good jobs.

V Levels welcome

The introduction of new V Levels alongside A Levels and T Levels is a welcome move. By taking a sector-by-sector approach, and working with fellow colleges and others, we must be ambitious. We must strive to develop pathways in every sector of the economy from Level 2, through Level 3 onto higher technical qualifications and apprenticeships as well as more traditional higher education programmes.

There is also long-overdue recognition that the English and maths resit policy is not working. The introduction of new stepping stone qualifications in English and maths should help more post-16 students achieve and build confidence at Level 1, before hopefully taking on GCSEs a year later. I would love to see that stepping stone available in key stage 4 as well, to offer a positive achievement to the 40 per cent of 16-year-olds who miss their grade 4. But we will need to continue to make that case.

Technical excellence colleges’ strategic role

The commitment to at least 29 technical excellence colleges is encouraging, with their strategic role in the system set out in lots of places across the white paper. These colleges are in essence a test of how far better investment in colleges can see them build their influence with employers, in the labour market and for helping more people get good jobs.

White papers rarely pledge new funding, but this one does pledge to maintain real-terms per-student funding in 16-19 study programmes and sets out the range of capital grants that will be open to colleges. These are important signals that the government is listening, and even more so with the promise to explore local and strategic authority lending to colleges. But of course, we must be clear: the success of this White Paper will depend on sustained investment and genuine collaboration across institutions. This is a topic we have covered extensively in our recent report with Universities UK.

Mind the gaps

There are also gaps. Adult education remains underfunded and undervalued. College staff continue to be paid significantly less than their counterparts in schools. And while the white paper rightly champions collaboration between colleges and universities, it is silent on the need for better alignment with school sixth forms. That is a missed opportunity. But we will keep pressing on these.

This white paper, including the new target announced by the Prime Minister of two-thirds of young people achieving higher learning, gives us a fantastic platform. It reflects many of the priorities that AoC and our members have been championing for years. But it is only the beginning. Colleges are ready to lead this transformation. But we need the tools, trust and time to do it properly.

If we embrace this white paper then together we can continue the momentum and build a system that works for every student, employer and community, with colleges rightly at the centre.

If opportunity is the goal, why scrap the courses that deliver it?

Yesterday morning, the government announced that its new plan to reform vocational qualifications would break down barriers to opportunity. We were pleased to see that the government had fully committed to retain a third qualification pathway to sit alongside A Levels and T Levels – one of the main objectives of the Protect Student Choice campaign.

But yesterday evening, once the details of the plan had been published, it became clear that the timing of the government’s reforms was more likely to create barriers to opportunity.

In July, the campaign published a report that showed tens of thousands of students would be left without a suitable post-16 pathway if the government implemented its plan to scrap applied general qualifications (AGQs) such as BTECs in subjects where T Levels are available.

However, it is now clear that BTEC diplomas and extended diplomas (equivalent in size to 2 and 3 A Levels) will be scrapped from 2026, before the new V Level qualifications become available. 

The government is committed to helping working class students to progress to university and reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), yet there is clear evidence that the plan to scrap diplomas and extended diplomas will make it much harder to achieve both objectives.

We want V Levels to be a success. But at the moment it is difficult to look beyond the huge qualification gap that will open up next year when these BTECs are scrapped, and the tens of thousands of students that are likely to fall through it.

The premature scrapping of these courses is also bad news for BTEC teachers in colleges and schools, and the huge number of employers that value these qualifications so highly. 

The government hopes that scrapping diplomas and extended diplomas will drive up the number of students studying T levels. In reality, it is more likely to drive up the number of students that disengage from education and/or are forced to enrol on unsuitable qualifications.

The government’s reforms are partly driven by the desire to simplify what they describe as a“confusing” system where “no one is truly sure the qualification they are doing is best for them”. But we have seen little evidence of confusion with applied general qualifications (AGQs). There are 97 AGQs that are available in 24 subjects (fewer than the number of A levels) and a college or school will typically offer a fraction of this number.

More confusing was the government’s decision to proceed with the launch of a new suite of qualifications (alternative academic qualifications) in July 2024, only to indicate yesterday – just one month after students enrolled on them for the first time – that they are being scrapped.

Many of our members were planning to use AAQs to stitch together a backup study programme if the government did not agree to pause the defunding of AGQs. But they will now be less inclined to enrol students on these qualifications given they will be discontinued in the very near future.

One of the benefits of studying an extended diploma is that students can manage their time and studies more effectively by pursuing a single qualification, typically with the same teachers and student cohort. What will objectively be more confusing for these young people (that typically have lower levels of prior attainment than students studying smaller AGQs) is the requirement to select three separate V Levels in the future.

We now know that colleges have enrolled their last students on diplomas and extended diplomas in key subjects such as health and social care, applied science and IT.

And we also know that V Levels – despite the high hopes we have for them – will not be ready until at least 2027 (an implementation timeframe that would break all existing records).

Our priority now is to support members through this transition over the next two academic years. Staff and leaders will be working flat out to minimise the number of young people left without a pathway in 2026 and 2027.

Our message to the government is a straightforward one: don’t scrap existing qualifications until new ones are available. Doing so will create, rather than break down, barriers to opportunity. Colleges and schools will try to find innovative ways to navigate these barriers, but yesterday’s announcement has made the transition to the new qualification system a good deal more difficult than it needed to be.