Skip to content
13 July 2026

Latest news from FE Week

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.

Minister eyes bursary to tackle apprenticeship benefits penalty

Ministers are considering topping up low-income household benefits to close a loophole that penalises families when a young person starts an apprenticeship.

Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden has asked officials to scope out a targeted bursary for a “small number” of universal credit-claiming households who can end up worse off under the current benefits rules.

It follows warnings that some disadvantaged families can lose between £17 and £339 a week in child benefit, the universal credit child element and work allowance if a 16-year-old household member becomes an apprentice instead of remaining in full-time education.

An April report by the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC) found that the financial impact is discouraging some parents from supporting their children to take up apprenticeships.

When questioned on the SSAC report in the House of Commons earlier this year, McFadden rejected MPs’ requests for the government to step in because “a young person taking up an apprenticeship will be earning money that contributes to the family income”.

Speaking at a Good Growth Foundation event today, McFadden said the government was now exploring targeted bursaries for the families who are financially worse off after a young person starts an apprenticeship.

He said: “I want to make sure that no young person is disincentivised for taking up an apprenticeship. When you start one at a young age, the wages you earn almost always mean that your family is better off, but for a small number of universal credit, they can be financially worse off, even after apprenticeship wages are taken into account.

“So, I want to look at what we can do to support that group of young people, for example, through a targeted bursary.”

McFadden added that he had asked officials to examine what such a scheme would cost.

“What I’m trying to do, I can’t completely promise this today, but I’ve asked the department to look up and work up is: what would it cost us to give in those defined and targeted circumstances a bursary to help make that more of a positive decision to get into work?

“What I’m trying to do on these cliff edges and disincentives is to go through them and try to make them pay at every stage of the process.”

The work and pensions secretary described what has become known as the “apprenticeship penalty” as one of the welfare system’s “quirks and cliff edges” that can influence family decision-making.

However, he argued that in most cases families are still financially better off when a young person becomes an apprentice because apprenticeships are paid.

According to the independent advisory body, households that include disabled family members are among those hit hardest by the current rules.

The SSAC found some young people are choosing to remain in full-time education so they continue to be treated as dependants and their families retain access to benefits.

Researchers also heard multiple examples of single-parent households discouraging children from starting apprenticeships because of concerns about losing child maintenance payments. In one case, a parent asked their child to quit their apprenticeship or leave the family home.

McFadden said universal credit should be a bridge into work rather than “a trap that people cannot escape”.

It follows the recent publication of former Labour health secretary Alan Milburn’s interim report from his review of Britain’s youth unemployment and inactivity crisis.

Milburn estimates the annual economic cost of around one million young people being not in education, employment or training (NEET) to be about £125 billion.

A full report that includes recommendations is expected to be published later this year.

In the last year, the government has announced incentives to get more young NEET people into work, including an employer bonus of £3,000 for hiring a young person who has been on universal credit for six months or more.

Construction secures rethink on apprenticeship assessment reforms after industry backlash

Construction apprenticeship assessment reforms have been overhauled after Skills England agreed to a sector-specific, risk-based approach designed to protect competence in safety-critical jobs.

The agreement comes almost a year after the government’s original reforms sparked opposition from a coalition of 35 construction and built environment organisations that warned assessment changes risked “dumbing down” apprenticeships and allowing unqualified learners to pass.

Following that backlash, Skills England paused the reforms for construction and established a dedicated Construction Taskforce involving industry bodies, the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB), the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) and the Building Safety Regulator.

The taskforce has now agreed a new methodology that uses “risk profiling” to tailor assessment requirements according to the level of occupational risk rather than applying a single model across all construction standards.

Instead of prescribing the same level of assessment detail for every apprenticeship, occupational groups will now be able to mandate assessment methods, reduce the use of “sampling” for higher-risk skills, set tolerance levels and align assessment plans with industry competence standards and card schemes where appropriate.

Risk-based approach agreed

Last year Skills England, which now sits in the Department for Work and Pensions, announced plans to ditch the end-point assessment model introduced in 2017 as a flagship reform to raise the quality of apprenticeships.

It has tested new “principles” since February 2025 to slim-down and simplify assessment plans in a bid to cut bureaucracy and improve completion rates while maintaining rigour.

But employers argued the changes could weaken assessment, particularly in safety-critical trades covered by the Building Safety Act.

One of the most controversial reforms is the proposed use of “sampling”. Instead of proving every knowledge, skills and behaviour requirement, apprentices are now to be assessed on a smaller selection of the criteria, with overall competence inferred. Critics warned this could create inconsistent standards and encourage lighter-touch assessments.

A spokesperson for the Construction Taskforce said it has worked with officials and occupational groups to develop new assessment plans that “satisfied industry concerns and secured the benefits of the reforms”.

Eight apprenticeship standards have since been used to test the new model.

Examples include level 2 painter and decorator, where limited additional prescription has been added with “defined tolerance levels in certain areas”; level 4 construction site supervisor, which will retain the standard Skills England assessment structure but include a mandatory professional discussion; and level 2 carpentry and joinery, where safety-critical skills will require mandatory observation or simulation, reduced sampling and tighter assessment tolerances aligned with blue CSCS card requirements.

Three revised assessment plans are now out for consultation until August 2: level 2 carpentry and joinery, level 2 general builder and level 4 building services engineering senior technician.

Helen Hewitt, chief executive of the British Woodworking Federation and founder of the Construction Coalition, said the new approach represented a major improvement on the original proposals.

“From the outset, the construction industry was clear that the proposed reforms could undermine the apprenticeship assessment quality and individual competence in safety-critical roles,” she said.

“The introduction of a new risk-based approach means each occupation can now be assessed on its own merits and aligned with the competence requirements expected by industry. As occupational lead for the level 2 carpentry and joinery apprenticeship, I am pleased that this has resulted in an assessment plan that both industry and Skills England can support.”

Jonathan Mitchell, Skills England’s deputy director, said the revised model would deliver a more streamlined assessment system while maintaining employer confidence.

“Together, we have developed a more streamlined approach to apprenticeship assessment that manages risks, maintains employer confidence and reflects the realities of the regulatory landscape.

“The close collaboration and constructive challenge from partners across industry, government and regulators has been critical in reaching this point.”

Second union to join AQA strikes as staff ‘struggling to afford basics’

Unite members at England’s largest exam board AQA are to strike in a dispute over pay, as Unison reveals plans for seven further days of walk-outs on the issue.

More than 100 Unite members at AQA are to walk out across 16 and 17 July, as the union says members are “struggling to afford basics”.

Meanwhile around 400 members of Unison will walk out from 13 to 19 July, as their pay dispute with AQA rumbles on.

Unite said a poll of its members employed by AQA found more than 10 per cent “regularly use or are considering using” food banks. Meanwhile half said their debts have increased in the last year.

The union said its lowest-paid member at AQA is earning £24,479 a year.

Unite members have rejected a pay offer from AQA, saying it doesn’t go far enough to redress years of “real-terms pay cuts”.

Meanwhile annual accounts for 2025 show AQA has free reserves of more than £88 million.

‘Completely unacceptable’ says general secretary

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “It is completely unacceptable that workers at a wealthy organisation have been left struggling to afford the basics. AQA can more than afford to fix this by paying its workforce properly.

“AQA must change tack and invest in its hardworking staff.”

Unite regional officer Jesika Parmar said: “Any strike action is the fault of AQA, who has refused to give its staff a meaningful pay rise.” She urged AQA to return to the table with an improved pay offer.

But an AQA spokesperson said: “In April, AQA awarded a generous pay increase above the rate of inflation to all AQA staff. Around 90 per cent of AQA staff received a pay rise of at least 4 per cent, and the overall pay increase averaged 5.2 per cent.

“AQA also adheres to the Real Living Wage and has done for several years. For this reason, AQA has not agreed to further talks about this year’s pay settlement.”

But AQA says settlement is ‘competitive’

The spokesperson said the pay settlement was “affordable, competitive and sustainable for AQA – bearing in mind the rate of inflation is 2.8 per cent, according to the Bank of England. The union’s claim is flatly wrong: our pay rises in recent years have consistently exceeded inflation.

“AQA is an education charity that doesn’t seek a profit and yet we have awarded a pay increase in excess of our fee increases, which is a generous approach by any standards.”

They also assured young people sitting AQA qualifications “that the summer exam series will be delivered smoothly. Exam results will be delivered on time.”

AQA has offices in Guildford, London, Harrogate, Manchester and Milton Keynes.

Unite members involved in the dispute are employed across roles including in communications and marketing, data analysis, and typesetting.

Striking staff are set to visit Parliament on 17 July, to lobby MPs “on the issue of low pay at AQA”.

The union is also calling for an independent equalities review of AQA’s pay structure, currently scheduled for 2028, to be brought forward, something AQA has now said it is doing.

They also want changes to the pay framework to address pay gaps and for apprenticeship pay increases to be backdated to 2024.

Unison announces ‘coordinated’ strike action

Meanwhile Unison – whose hundreds of members at the exam board staged a four-day walk-out over pay at AQA last month – has confirmed plans to strike for seven further days this month.

Members “have voted to approve a new round of strikes which will run from Monday 13 July until Sunday 19 July,” said a union spokesperson.

“Unison is working in coordination with Unite on its two strike dates on Thursday 16 and Friday 17 July.”

Members walked out last month as AQA leaders reportedly refused to meet to discuss allegations staff have faced a 10 per cent real-terms pay cut over the last five years.

The fresh strike follows what the union described as “minimal progress” during talks with AQA.

Around 400 Unison members are expected to take part, including assessors, exam paper authors and customer service staff.

Unison is calling for pay restoration, which it previously said would require a 7.3 per cent rise this year.

NCFE chief executive David Gallagher dies aged 45

NCFE chief executive David Gallagher died yesterday aged 45 following a cancer diagnosis.

Gallagher had led the education charity and awarding organisation since March 2019, having joined the Newcastle-based organisation in September 2018 as managing director of its end-point assessment business.

He also played a prominent role beyond NCFE, becoming vice chair and then chair of the Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB), and serving on a number of sector boards and advisory groups.

In a personal update shared in January this year, Gallagher revealed his cancer diagnosis and said he would step back from his responsibilities while undergoing treatment.

A statement from NCFE said: “It is with deep sadness that we announce the death of our chief executive, David Gallagher, following a short illness.

“David served as chief executive of NCFE for eight years and played a pivotal role in its development, helping to grow the charity while strengthening its focus on its founding purpose: to promote and advance learning.

“Throughout his career, David was a passionate champion of education and skills and was dedicated to improving opportunities for learners. His leadership, integrity and commitment to NCFE’s mission have left a lasting legacy across the organisation and the wider sector.”

A distinctive voice

Gallagher was among the further education and skills sector’s most visible and outspoken leaders, frequently challenging policymakers and the sector on social mobility, technical education and apprenticeships. He was a persistent advocate for disadvantaged learners on these pages and beyond, publicly arguing for learner-centric approaches to reforms, fair education funding, and access to high-quality training for all.

He was equally willing to challenge regulators on behalf of the awarding industry. At the Federation of Awarding Bodies’ 2023 conference, he described a “waterfall of mistrust” running through the sector, and argued that the toll of regulatory pressure on professionals’ health and wellbeing was something the sector should refuse to accept.

Gallagher often drew on his own unconventional educational journey. In a 2021 interview with FE Week, he spoke candidly about being disengaged at school, being suspended several times during his A Levels, and how family circumstances contributed to a difficult adolescence before he found direction through work and mentoring.

Ian Bauckham, chief regulator at Ofqual, said: “We’re deeply saddened to hear of David’s death. Our thoughts are with his family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

“David was an extremely experienced and knowledgeable force in the vocational sector where his work will leave a lasting positive legacy.”

Rob Nitsch, CEO of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said: “David Gallagher was deeply immersed in the federation and our industry.  He was absolutely committed and ambitious for the success of all awarding organisations – had had a bold vision and was tenacious in its pursuit; David was one of our most prominent advocates and was always ready to assist others.

“He supported individuals, helped awarding organisations and ensured that NCFE has contributed to the development and impact of the federation. He was known and well-regarded exceptionally widely – we have missed his presence and will continue to do so.”

A career across the sector

After college, Gallagher’s career began at BT before he moved into recruitment and then the welfare-to-work sector. He went on to work across the public, private and charitable sectors in employment and skills, including senior leadership positions at Working Links and Ingeus, and roles with independent training providers including Workpays and Babington.

In 2011, he founded the Institute of Employability Professionals, developing qualifications and an apprenticeship standard for frontline advisers and managers – an achievement he later described as the one he was proudest of.

He joined NCFE in September 2018 to head up the organisation’s apprenticeship end-point assessment business. In less than a year, he was promoted to chief executive. Since then, he backed a range of learner-focused initiatives, including the WorldSkills UK Centre of Excellence and a £1 million assessment innovation fund.

He was also a board member of the St Martin’s Group, a non-executive board member for Together for Children, a company overseeing Sunderland City Council’s children’s services, and a devoted Middlesbrough FC supporter.

He is survived by his wife and two sons.

Readers can add their messages of condolence in the comments, which FE Week will pass on to David’s family.

NCFE’s statement added: “NCFE remains committed to supporting its customers, partners and learners. The executive team will continue to assume additional leadership responsibilities and will be supported by Deborah Jenkins, chair of the board of trustees, who is acting as executive chair.

“At this difficult time, our thoughts and sincere condolences are with David’s wife and their two sons.”

Careers support for college students halves in two years

College learners are pleading for more careers support after activities halved in two years – leaving many feeling unprepared for their next steps, a student survey has found.

New census data shows careers lessons, face-to-face careers advice, mentoring and employer engagement have all fallen sharply since 2023 as college leaders struggle with funding pressures that limit their ability to provide tailored support.

The findings come weeks after Alan Milburn’s interim report on youth inactivity revealed that careers guidance, while improved in recent years, remains unequal and work experience is too often treated as an afterthought.

Researchers found college and sixth form students wanted more work experience, higher-quality placements and greater employer interaction to improve their routes into employment and career prospects.

Today’s report, commissioned by the Association of Colleges (AoC) and produced by Youth Employment UK, analysed responses from 2,174 college and sixth form students who took part in the 2025 Youth Voice Census, which collected more than 8,200 responses overall.

Just over half (51 per cent) of respondents said their college or sixth form supported them to develop the skills they will need for the future – unchanged from 2023, when careers support was delivered far more widely.

Six in 10 students said employer visits, trips to employer sites and careers lessons helped prepare them for the future.

However, delivery of careers activity declined considerably between 2023 and 2025.

Careers lessons saw the steepest fall, dropping from 80 per cent of students in 2023 to just 32 per cent in 2025.

Face-to-face careers advice fell from 75 per cent to 49 per cent over the same period, while mentoring more than halved from 45 per cent to 22 per cent.

Employer visits also declined, with one in three students saying an employer had visited their college in 2025, compared with 63 per cent in 2023.

Visits to employers also fell from 26 per cent to 12 per cent over the same period.

The report said students were clear that they wanted more employer interaction and tailored one-to-one careers support.

“They asked for clearer information about apprenticeships and employment routes, and stronger links between courses and careers,” the census said.

The report also found that more than two in five (43 per cent) students had completed work experience in the past year, with many relying on family connections to secure placements.

Lauren Mistry, deputy CEO at Youth Employment UK, said: “Young people are clear that work experience and connections to employers matter. If those opportunities depend too heavily on personal networks, the young people who need them most are at risk of missing out.”

1 in 4 absent from college for 10 or more days

The census also highlighted stark inequalities in attendance, with one in four students missing more than 10 days of education in the previous 12 months.

Just over a third (36 per cent) had missed between one and four days, while 18 per cent had missed between five and eight days.

Lack of motivation or interest was the leading cause of short-term absence, followed by financial and transport difficulties and mental health or stress.

Illness and health problems were also a common reason for absence, cited by nearly two thirds (64 per cent) of college and sixth form students.

The report said disadvantaged learners face additional barriers to attending college and are at greater risk of becoming NEET (not in education, employment or training).

A third of students with additional needs missed college because of mental health or stress, compared with 19 per cent of those without additional needs.

Disadvantaged students were also more likely to miss college because of caring responsibilities.

Catherine Sezen, director of education policy at AoC, said the findings on attendance and careers education needed “serious consideration”.

“It’s obvious that those who are disadvantaged, or those with additional needs, need extra support when at college,” she said.

“The findings on their absence, and around work experience opportunities, are deeply worrying and, when combined, clearly show that they are at greater risk of becoming NEET than their peers.

“Colleges do so much for their students, against all odds, but these findings underline the growing strain on the further education system, with funding pressures limiting colleges’ ability to provide tailored support, particularly for those who need it most.

“We are yet again calling for increased investment, better integration of support services and a stronger national strategy for employer engagement.”

More ‘scrutiny’ of coursework plans to protect exams from AI

Plans for written coursework will face “far, far more scrutiny” under reformed qualifications to prevent the “AI-fuelled subversion of assessment”, the boss of England’s assessment regulator will say.

Ofqual boss Ian Bauckham is set to issue the warning at the Festival of Education today ahead of the planned launch of the first three V Level subjects next year.

“For the qualifications to be worth more than the paper they are written on, we cannot normalise the idea that AI-generated output is a substitute for genuine human endeavour,” he will say.

‘Subversion’

Bauckham will point to examples from higher education of universities struggling to grapple with the issue, including the UCL Law School decision to overhaul assessments to make them “AI-proof by making greater use of in-person formats”.

He will argue that unis “are fast waking up to the harsh reality that if they want their qualifications to continue to be taken seriously”, then they must get a handle on “AI-fuelled subversion of assessment”.

“So as we design new qualifications for 16- to 18-year-olds, and reform existing ones, expect to see far, far more scrutiny of any proposals for written coursework.

“For the qualifications to be worth more than the paper they are written on, we cannot normalise the idea that AI-generated output is a substitute for genuine human endeavour.”

Bauckham will also caution against the wider use of the tech in the classroom, arguing it prompts “less learning, less satisfaction, less usefulness in the workplace, and ultimately is a covert assault on the realisation of human potential”.

AI marking

But on the use of AI in the qualification system, he acknowledged it “has enormous potential to improve efficiency and can both cut costs and increase accuracy. It is doing so already.”

However, it is “not actually as good as you might think” at marking, “despite what the tech-enthusiasts would have you believe”. This is because it “makes mistakes, it hallucinates, and it reflects biases”.

It can also “extend beyond the rules initially set by humans, particularly when dealing with cases not anticipated in advance”.

“AI will have an important place, but we must remain in charge,” he will add.

“We must legislate and regulate to create clarity about what AI can be allowed to do to bring about benefits for humans, and what it absolutely cannot.”

‘Gold-standard’ T Levels still rarely lead to top universities

T Level students are only marginally more likely to gain a university place than the first cohort four years ago, and still struggle to enter the top Russell Group institutions.

FE Week analysis of data from 85 universities shows 70 per cent of T Level applications resulted in an offer for last September, up from 67 per cent for the first cohort who applied to enter university in the 2022-23 academic year.

Closer analysis reveals only 32 per cent of applications to Russell Group universities resulted in an offer, up from 23 per cent in 2022.

The data suggests universities treat T Level applicants much like they treat BTEC students, despite ministers’ ambition for the technical qualification to become the “gold standard” vocational route into higher education.

T Levels were launched by the previous government in 2020. They were designed to equip students to progress to skilled employment, apprenticeships and higher education, and carry the same UCAS tariff points as three A Levels.

Requests for data

FE Week submitted freedom of information requests to all 142 UK universities, with 85 providing usable data on T Level applications and offers for entry between 2022-23 and 2025-26.

Applications from T Level students rose from 951 for university entry in 2022 to 13,347 for last year, as more subjects were rolled out and more colleges and schools offered them.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said the small margin of improvement for applications was consistent with wider uncertainty about the qualification.

“T Levels are not as mainstream a qualification as the previous government hoped they would be,” he said. “They have always been a very confused qualification with confused goals and objectives, and policymakers have mucked around with them a lot. They obviously haven’t lived up to their original ambitions.”

Russell Group says no

The sharpest split was between Russell Group universities and the rest of the HE sector. The 16 Russell Group institutions that supplied data made offers to 23 per cent of applications from T Level students in 2022-23, rising to 32 per cent last year. Across the rest of the sector, the equivalent figures were 76 and 78 per cent.

Within the Russell Group there was wide variation. Cardiff, Newcastle and Exeter universities each made offers on more than half of their applications last year, from 202, 74 and 78 applications respectively.

Manchester received the most applications of any Russell Group university at 465, but made just 98 offers, a rate of 21 per cent. Warwick made two offers from 65 applications, University College London seven from 63, and Sheffield 27 from 178. Glasgow received 11 applications and turned them all down.

A University of Manchester spokesperson said T Levels were not accepted for all courses, particularly where degrees required subject content “not sufficiently covered” by the qualification.

They added: “It is essential that our students are appropriately prepared to cope with the demands of our programmes. Where any UK qualifications or subjects are less favoured, this is made clear within the published selection criteria for individual programmes.”

A Russell Group spokesperson said its universities would keep reviewing entry requirements as new subjects were rolled out and more students took T Levels, “to assess which qualifications best prepare candidates for degree-level education”.

They retained oversight of their own admissions, the spokesperson added, and were committed to “creating pathways for students from a wide range of backgrounds and educational experiences”.

Treated like a BTEC

Ministers describe T Levels as the “gold standard” technical route, with a design meant to appeal to universities more than the long-established BTEC, including a 45-day industry placement.

Universities made offers to 69.9 per cent of T Level applications last year, against 72.4 per cent of applications from students holding only BTECs. Applications from A Level students fared better, at 77.6 per cent.

Among Russell Group universities, T Levels and BTECs drew an identical 32 per cent. For non Russell Group institutions, T Levels were at 77.7 per cent and BTECs 78.2 per cent.

Hillman said universities appeared to treat BTECs as a proxy when weighing T Level applications.

“T Levels look and feel a bit like a BTEC and they’re meant to be a replacement,” he said. “In general, universities don’t want to admit people unless they’ve got a very good understanding of the likelihood of that person surviving at their institution and not dropping out.”

However, the University of Salford, which made offers to 91 per cent of its 666 T Level applicants last year, said T Level entrants performed in line with other students once enrolled, adding there was “no obvious differences in critical success factors such as retention levels or first-time pass module rates”.

The Department for Education said T Levels were “rigorous and high-quality qualifications” with a proven record of supporting students into work, and were already outperforming comparable level 3 qualifications.

It stressed university offers were increasing each year, adding the department would “continue to address the barriers, including through our T Level ambassadors network”.

Winners and losers

Offer rates varied sharply between institutions. Birmingham Newman University, London Metropolitan University and the University for the Creative Arts each made offers on at least 90 per cent of applications across all four cycles.

Among those handling large volumes last year, Liverpool John Moores made 649 offers from 733 applications, Nottingham Trent 451 from 525, and Portsmouth 360 from 431.

Conversely, Bath received 241 applications and made 12 offers. A Bath spokesperson said the figures reflected rising applications to courses requiring specific A Levels, where the equivalent T Level content “did not provide suitable preparation” for degree study.

Admission is a mission

Universities set their own entry requirements but ministers had pressed them to provide clarity.

In January 2023, then skills and universities minister Robert Halfon wrote to vice chancellors telling them to publish statements setting out whether they accepted T Levels, after warning of “too many instances” where students could not tell whether they were eligible to apply.

Since 2022, the DfE has published a list of institutions that confirm they take T Levels for at least one course, but it fails to reveal what those courses are.

Tobi Salawu, T Level digital students and founder of TLevelled website

Tobi Salawu, an 18-year-old digital T Level student at South and City College Birmingham, spent several weeks checking more than 40 universities before building his own website, TLevelled.co.uk, to list which institutions accepted digital, engineering and health T Levels – and on what terms.

He said: “During my first few weeks of second year in September 2025, I realised I couldn’t find any universities that actually accepted T Levels.

“The universities didn’t really list the exact pathway. I felt like I was just applying blindly and wasting my time. I went to the gov.uk site and realised it was just a list of universities. No grades, no courses, no pathway, nothing useful.”

Salawu, who held conditional offers from Cardiff and Newcastle but is now considering an apprenticeship, is extending his site to cover accounting, finance and construction pathways. “The goal is to eventually cover every T Level pathway,” he said. “Longer term I want TLevelled to be a genuine support hub for T Level students, not just a university directory.”

Top-level resistance

Most UK universities accept T Levels for at least one course, including 18 of the 24-member Russell Group, according to the DfE’s list. Six Russell Group members do not appear on it: Imperial College London, Edinburgh, Cambridge, Glasgow, Oxford and the London School of Economics (LSE).

LSE’s website, however, says it accepts T Levels in 11 subjects. It confirmed it received a very small number of T Level applications in recent admissions cycles and had made offers to fewer than five applicants.

A spokesperson said the university had chosen not to appear on the government’s acceptance register as the number of successful entrants was very small, and it did not “wish to imply there is widespread entry to LSE via this route”.

The University of Oxford said it “does not accept T Levels as a qualification for undergraduate study”. Cambridge said the same, adding that T Levels “do not adequately prepare students for a Cambridge degree, particularly in terms of the theoretical grounding that our courses require”.

However, Cambridge noted T Levels in arts, humanities and social sciences subjects were accepted for its foundation year where applicants meet the eligibility criteria. Two T Level students applied for this course but did not receive an offer.

Both Cambridge and Oxford each received five applications in total across all four years but offered no places.

Imperial College London, which received no T Level applications across the four-year period, also does not accept T Levels as its courses predominantly require subject-specific prerequisites including A Level mathematics and further science qualifications.