Latest news from FE Week

New ‘class unit’ must decide what problem it’s trying to solve

Despite its slightly sinister name, the government’s decision to establish a “class unit” within the Office for Equal Opportunities to “drive forward government work to improve life chances” and to abolish the Social Mobility Commission will undoubtedly have supporters. But it is not clear who the class unit is going to help, largely because it has an unresolved problem of purpose.

So far, it has been described in terms of class; the white working class, low-income groups and the disadvantaged. This is muddled. Those categories can only be treated as interchangeable if we assume class background is a fixed identity that is easily defined and closely aligned with income and disadvantage. It is not.

Class is very messy. It still matters in shaping identities. The Social Mobility Commission’s research found that 54 per cent of people say they are working class and 65 per cent say their family was. Yet what they mean by this varies enormously. Some define their class in terms of parents, others include grandparents. Many keep the identity even when their occupation and income suggest otherwise.

Consumption, culture and lifestyle are all influential in shaping perceptions of class. But so is social mobility. There have been huge changes in Britain’s occupational structure, particularly upwards. In 1971, 25 per cent of the male workforce were in professional jobs and 45 per cent in technical or routine occupations (working class). Today, these figures are almost completely reversed.

Fewer people are working class and fewer come from working class backgrounds – despite what they say. Alongside this is a smaller but significant group who have experienced downward mobility. Once they are added in, most people (two thirds) are in a different social class from their parents. And this pattern has remained remarkably stable for decades.

This raises an obvious policy question. Should interventions focus on class origins, even though many people from working-class backgrounds are progressing successfully without special assistance? Or should policy focus on those most likely to experience poor outcomes, regardless of where they started?

Low income is in some ways a simpler focus than class, and it is misleading to conflate the two. Every FE college knows there are occupations commonly perceived as working class that earn significantly more than many graduate professions. Train drivers, electricians and plumbers often earn more than primary school teachers, social workers and journalists. It would be contradictory for government to champion technical education while simultaneously implying that working-class status, low income and disadvantage are synonymous.

If ministers wish to focus on low-income households, they should just say that. There is a case for concentrating on persistent low income, which is different to being poor temporarily. The Commission is aiming to publish research which shows how “sticky” the welfare system really is. But even this is not the full story. Income alone cannot explain outcomes.

Many children from low-income families do extremely well. Chinese pupils on free school meals are an outstanding example. Outcomes between low income families differ. Those in London generally perform better than those living elsewhere. And it is difficult to correlate improved income with better outcomes, as the evidence from projects such as Baby’s First Years shows.

All of this points to the need for a much clearer definition of what we mean by disadvantage. If it is not synonymous with class or income, what does it mean? And how do we remedy it? The class unit will need to grapple with these complexities if it is to develop policies that genuinely expand opportunity.

The recent Independent Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes illustrates the challenge. Despite its title, the report does not actually analyse “white working-class” outcomes because it struggled with definitions and data limitations. So it used free school meal eligibility as a proxy for low income and analysed achievement gaps on this basis.

The report’s claim to be examining class rests largely on qualitative research into attitudes and experiences. From this, it concludes that the education system is not designed to serve white working-class children and families effectively. This conclusion sheds more heat than light on the problem, and the methodology highlights the dangers of clumsy class analysis.

Participants are divided into broad A/B and CDE groups, categories commonly used in market research. This produces average differences between the groups but obscures variation within them. It assumes that skilled, high earning “Cs” hold the same views and values as “Ds” and “Es”. There are likely to be differences and they may be important. Not all children in CDE households perform poorly. Why do some succeed while others struggle?

The report itself offers clues. It shows that too many children across all backgrounds spend too little time reading, but the problem is most pronounced among white children in the CDE categories. Reading is crucial to cognitive development, emotional, educational and later lifetime outcomes.

Understanding why some families foster strong reading habits while others do not would give policymakers a far more practical route to improving opportunities than broad claims about the class character of the education system.

English resits are treating the symptom, not the cause

Decades of data show GCSE English resit pass rates languishing at historic lows – hovering under 20 per cent overall, and barely 10 per cent for 18- and 19-year-olds. If Ofsted inspected the Department for Education on this dismal record, it would be a severe finger-wagging moment. Yet successive policy interventions have done nothing to alter the downward trajectory.

Why? Because sector leaders and policymakers have consistently tried to address the symptoms of under-performance rather than root causes. As with any quality-improvement journey, the golden rule remains: you can never fix under-performance by treating the symptom. You can only fix the root-cause issue. But what is it?

During an inspection, I once observed a level 2 beauty therapy class. Resplendent in their uniforms, the students arrived early, took great pride in managing their learning challenges with minimal instruction. They loved what they were doing.

An hour later, my next observation was a GCSE English resits class. Sitting in that room were those exact same beauty therapy students. Their behaviour was appalling, exhibiting complete disrespect for a hard-working teacher. They hated English. They endured it, and coped only by humiliating the teacher to avoid studying.

They simply did not see the need or relevance of what they were being taught.

This is not the fault of the students, nor is it the fault of dedicated English teachers. It lies squarely with the individual vocational curriculum designers. We cannot expect resit teachers to magically reverse years of ingrained failure in a couple of hours a week. With pass rates sitting at 19.8 per cent, the data proves they cannot.

To understand the real issue, look closely at Ofqual’s nine assessment objectives for GCSE English language. They are fabulous. They set out the expert, independent learning skills needed to succeed in any subject: reading critically, writing for a specific audience, structuring thoughts, evaluating evidence, listening, and presenting ideas. In fact, if you stripped away the subject title, those nine outcomes form a perfect blueprint for a level 3 course in expert learning skills. They are precisely what every employer and vocational teacher wants.

‘To make this really explicit, I’ve created a mapping from ‘the GCSE nine’ (and the Functional Skills 28) to the 18 essential expert learning skills we all want our students to develop.

Now run a quick thought experiment: imagine asking your vocational teaching staff if they know what these nine objectives actually are. In my workshops across further education, the answer is almost universally no.

After nearly 40 years in FE and skills, I have become convinced that students’ poor attitude towards English is the most significant root-cause issue to address. An issue that, sadly, begins much, much earlier in school life.

Before Covid, I spent Friday mornings sitting on tiny chairs in my local first school’s reception class, researching an early reading scheme I was writing.

One day the teacher said she would include Lucy for extra support. Lucy had been on book nine for three weeks and was struggling.

Think about that four-year-old. She can’t do it, but for three weeks she has been forced to reopen the same book again and again. She squirms, looks around and searches for distraction. Eventually, through repetition, she memorises the story and appears to read it. Then she moves to the even harder book 10…

Now wind back to the first book in the Oxford Reading Tree scheme. In the first weeks of reception, children often begin by learning to read the sounds s, a, t and p. So what do you think are the first words in book 1?

“Oh, Floppy!”

Incredible. We teach a skill, then give children material that bears no relation to that skill. Is it any wonder that Lucy, and perhaps a quarter of her class, begin to hate reading?

So what should FE do?

Every vocational teacher should proactively include at least one learning outcome from ‘the nine’ in every lesson. Make the development of these skills explicit. Show students that these are not “English skills”; they are the expert learning skills they need for work, life and whatever technology comes next.

And finally, here’s thought experiment number two: what do you think would happen to GCSE English resit rates if every vocational teacher proactively develops every learners’ ability to understand, use and master the nine expert learning skills (GCSE English outcomes) in all of their lessons?

This isn’t about GCSE English. Every quality improvement initiative requires the staff involved to make an investment: in this instance, it’s the time needed to redesign their scheme of work.

But for an improvement initiative to actually work, there has to be a pay-off for the ones making the investment. And the pay-off for vocational teachers is students who will find it much easier to learn in class and and learn through the production of their course work, leading to more commitment in lessons and easier marking workloads. It will allow teachers to enjoy their vocation again.

And by the way, the primary aim of my reading scheme is not to teach children to read, but to teach them to love reading. It’s my attempt to resolve this ultimate root-cause issue.

WorldSkills 2026: Final competition day – follow live

Team UK flies the flag as WorldSkills Shanghai officially opens

Li Qiang, premier of China’s State Council, has declared the 48th WorldSkills competition officially open at a high-energy opening ceremony in Shanghai.

Twenty-eight young people representing the UK paraded through the arena, led by flagbearer and aircraft maintenance competitor Elyot Harmston.

Four days of competition begin tomorrow morning.

Earlier today, Harmston told FE Week that Team UK was “feeling positive about the coming days”.

This year’s competition features more than 1,400 competitors representing 68 countries and regions.

Each team entered to roars of applause from thousands of supporters gathered at the Shanghai World Expo Cultural Centre.

From tomorrow, each competitor will be tested and judged in one of 64 skills, ranging from bricklaying to hairdressing, cyber security to restaurant service.

Medals on Sunday

Their performance over the next four days will be watched closely by judges, with the highest-scoring competitors in each skill earning gold, silver or bronze medals. The results will be revealed at the competition’s closing ceremony on Sunday, 27 September.

Competitors who score enough points to demonstrate an international standard of excellence will be awarded a medal of excellence.

At the last WorldSkills competition, in Lyon, France, in 2024, Team UK won three silver medals, one bronze and 12 medals of excellence.

Minister on her feet

All 68 teams completed the parade of nations, with Jacqui Smith, the skills minister, and Susan Acland-Hood, permanent secretary at the Department for Education (DfE), spotted on their feet when Team UK passed.

Guests at the ceremony included Anwar Ibrahim, prime minister of Malaysia, and Francis Hourant, president of WorldSkills International.

The parade was followed by dance and acrobatic performances representing the emergence of key skills in Chinese history, including woodwork, textiles, the age of steel and the age of information.

The competition’s slogan is “Master Skills, Change Your Future”.

Performances culminated in what organisers said was the world’s first dance performance between humans and humanoid robots.

A competitor and an expert then gave the WorldSkills oaths, promising to compete and officiate fairly and respect the codes of ethics and conduct.

Dance performance between humans and robots

‘The age of AI’

In a congratulatory message read at the ceremony by Shen Yiqin, a state councillor, president Xi Jinping said:

“Today, the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is advancing at a faster pace and bringing profound influence to global skills development.

“The WorldSkills competition closely aligns with industrial development and serves as a good platform for skills excellence and mutual learning.

“China will take this session as an opportunity to encourage and guide more workers, especially young people, to pursue a path to success through skills.

“China will deepen exchanges and cooperation with other countries to promote the WorldSkills movement and better serve global economic growth and livelihood improvement.

“I wish this session a full success.”

Hourant acknowledged the competitors’ families, teachers and industry partners who “stand with them”.

He added: “Together we are building more than a movement. We are shaping systems that build better futures. Education that turns a young person’s talent into direction and a nation’s ambition into reality.

“We stand at the edge of a new industrial revolution. The age of AI. The smarter machines become, the more human we must be. Creative. Resilient. Brave. The world’s most pressing challenges will be solved by skilled hands.”

Procurement could be government’s secret weapon on NEETs

Much has been said about young people’s need for earlier access to technical education, skills and training. As attention turns to 14–16 education reform and the growing NEET crisis, the government’s new social value approach offers transformative potential, using public procurement to achieve the line of sight the Prime Minister envisions for all young people to develop skills into good jobs.

The opportunity is significant. The new model will directly influence a central government contracts market worth around £90 billion each year, with potential to extend reach to the wider £385 billion annual public procurement spend. Suppliers will be assessed on skills development and job creation including supporting young people into apprenticeships and work placements. Social value will account for at least 10 per cent of the score for contracts worth £1 million to £5 million, rising to 20 per cent for those worth more than £5 million.

Businesses have called for this change. Educators, too, are seeking stronger connections with employers, particularly to provide the high-quality work experience which remains one of the most commonly cited barriers to employment for young people. We know that employers providing high-quality work experience are 77 per cent more likely to report business benefits, including stronger talent pipelines.

What needs to happen to maximise the impact of this change?

The Cabinet Office’s forthcoming guidance, alongside the government’s wider implementation of this policy, presents an opportunity to act on three fronts.

First, develop clear, codified models for social value clauses focused on early skills and careers education. The impact of these changes will depend on the quality of the engagement they generate, particularly for young people facing barriers to employment, and on whether clear yet not prescriptive detail creates an incentive for suppliers.

Reform of work experience, as set out in updated statutory guidance, offers a tangible and measurable mechanism to be embedded in upcoming guidance. Every meaningful interaction with employers can broaden horizons, build confidence and help a young person see their future in industries and occupations they may never have considered. Done well, it could support business needs, social mobility and regional economic growth simultaneously.

Second, support public bodies to adopt these models consistently. Atkins Realis recently hosted a roundtable in which Cabinet Minister Mark Ferguson MP and other government representatives came together with those active in industry and the supply chain to explore how these changes can be embedded routinely in procurement practice and deliver meaningful outcomes for organisations of all sizes.

Nationally, the careers system is uniquely placed to turn this opportunity into action. A network of 44 careers hubs, working with schools, colleges and employers, can help buyers and suppliers to design, deliver and measure meaningful careers outreach aligned with local priorities.

Third, equip suppliers to deliver against them. The changes herald an opportunity to bring more employers into careers outreach, including the many suppliers and subcontractors operating throughout supply chains. For many SMEs, the barrier is capacity rather than commitment.

AtkinsRéalis research with 220 SME suppliers found that 65 per cent would benefit from support from larger organisations to achieve better social value outcomes. 82 per cent believe that clear, agreed principles for supply chain engagement would strengthen relationships.

Prime contractors, public bodies and large employers therefore have a key role to play in creating practical routes for participation, enabling suppliers to contribute through shared programmes, and coordinated careers activities.

Skills pathways and local growth

Through our work with The Careers & Enterprise Company, 11 Careers Hubs and regional partners, AtkinsRéalis has seen how modern work experience can widen access to job pathways, particularly for underserved young people. The West Midlands Combined Authority’s equalex pilot demonstrates how place-based coordination and clear quality frameworks make meaningful participation accessible for organisations of all sizes.

The challenge is to make social value more than a procurement requirement. It can be a powerful lever for expanding technical and vocational pathways for 14-16-year-olds, strengthening employer talent pipelines, and helping deliver the government’s commitment to guarantee work experience for every young person. And it can be usefully deployed as a key answer to the NEET challenge, succinctly articulated by Alan Milburn in his review.

The opportunity now is to make sure the new model delivers on that promise.

Low-attendance college students aren’t ‘hidden NEETs’

The recent Children’s Commissioner report on ‘hidden NEETs’ highlighted the very real need for a national definition and record of post-16 attendance. However, it also made the claim that attendance recording in colleges is poor and needs to improve, that more than half of college students are ‘persistently absent’ and characterised young people with low college attendance as ‘hidden NEETs’.

This perspective has not gone down well with the FE sector. While the report’s recommendations are welcome, notably the call for free bus travel for all 16 to 18-year-olds, what was off-target was the implication that colleges are not consistently capturing or using attendance data.

In over 20 years of senior leadership in three different colleges, I must have interviewed and enrolled thousands of students and delivered hundreds of induction talks and assemblies of various kinds. In every single one of those talks, briefings and conversations I emphasised the importance of attendance and punctuality as part of our expectation of all students, set out clearly in the learning agreement that students sign. None of this was unusual. I was simply emphasising what all my colleagues were also saying across the college and across the sector.

In a blog I wrote in 2015, while I was a college principal in East London, I summarised our 10 key expectations of all students, backed up by a justification for each one. Entitled ‘sharing the secrets of success’ it was based on my welcome talk to all students.

It told them their attendance target should be 100 per cent, and that “being punctual is about respect; respect for your teacher, who has planned a full lesson, respect for fellow students, who are inconvenienced when you arrive late and of course, respect for yourself as a committed student”.

When students progress at the age of 16, it’s important to acknowledge that they have made a choice of where to study and could have enrolled elsewhere.

Once that decision is made, they need to sign up to the basic rules of the educational community they’re joining, not out of a fear of ‘punishment’ but because these are the rules that will make that community work for them and for everyone else. Conversely, if a student feels that the classes they’re attending are not working for them, or not worth attending, we need to listen and take their concerns seriously.

In every college I have worked in and in every college I know, high expectations of attendance are built into students’ learning agreements. And while we may not use the disciplinary methods of schools, such as detentions, we have a range of support systems to help students get back on track if their attendance slips, and there is the ultimate sanction of withdrawal, used as little as possible.

Colleges collect, record and use attendance data as part of their day-to-day work. They know that good attendance patterns need to be established early and they are ‘on the case’ quickly with students experiencing difficulties.

Some students will need more support and encouragement to establish good routines often with family and ‘wraparound’ support, and colleges often employ dedicated tutors or mentors to do this.

Clearly, 100 per cent sustained attendance is not achievable for everyone. Life gets in the way, people get sick, dependants need to be cared for, transport services break down. So realistically, aggregate attendance rates in the high 80s and low 90s can be consistent with students’ individual commitment to 100 per cent.

We also need to acknowledge the additional challenges faced by a sector which disproportionately serves communities facing barriers to participation and which is expected to spearhead the re-engagement of the disengaged. This will sometimes mean accepting low but improving levels of engagement rather than exclusion.

To describe young people with low college attendance as ‘hidden NEETs’ is misleading. Many of these students will be on a path to re-engagement in education after a period of disengagement. They are often ‘on their way in’ to education rather than ‘on their way out’.

If colleges have lower attendance levels than school sixth forms, this may be because they recruit the very students schools don’t retain after Year 11.

The fact that colleges offer an environment where these students feel welcome and supported is surely to be celebrated. Would we want colleges to stop the work they do to re-engage these young people and write them off in order to hit an arbitrary attendance target?

Colleges have no problem with being held to account for student attendance. They can see the need for a consistent national definition to make this possible and they are keen to help co-produce a system that properly recognises the work they do to engage and support the full range of young people they serve.

These important objectives can be achieved without misrepresenting colleges’ work.

Growth sectors need skills. Employer investment’s heading the wrong way

The UK’s modern industrial strategy identifies eight sectors with the potential to drive future growth – all of which depend on people with higher-level skills. At the same time, across these sectors and beyond, workers need to adapt to the changing skills requirements, as the AI and green transitions reshape the jobs people do.

While everyone wants to benefit from economic growth, not everyone is willing or able to invest in creating the skilled workforce needed to deliver it.

The latest evidence on employer investment in skills points in the wrong direction. The proportion of employers providing training fell by 6 percentage points between 2011 and 2024, while the average investment in training per employee fell from £2,400 to £1,700 according to the government’s 2024 employer skills survey.

Firms face genuine barriers to investing in training. They may struggle to meet the costs, be unable to release workers for training, or worry that workers will leave for another employer after being trained. These barriers vary across sectors and places. This raises the question of whether existing policy interventions are sufficient to help employers overcome the key barriers they face in different contexts.

In our new policy report exploring international approaches to increasing employer investment in training, the lesson is not that the UK should copy and paste another country’s policies. Rather, we need to adapt the principles underlying successful models to the UK’s own institutional context, where a lot of the relevant pieces are already in place.

Policies to incentivising investment in training cut across government departments and devolved regional governments, while the relationships between employers and education or skill providers are often local. This results in a coordination problem, where policy responses may be fragmented. We need stronger mechanisms to coordinate employers, education providers and government around shared priorities.

Two institutions in England could play a particularly important role.

First, local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) could be better aligned with the industrial strategy and local growth plans by adopting a whole-system approach and embedding higher education more systematically. There are lessons here from Wales’s regional skills partnerships, which demonstrate the value of bringing partners together around shared regional priorities. The latest guidance on LSIPs also provides opportunities to develop this approach.

Second, Skills England should have the capacity to convene partners and build new evidence. International experience, such as Canada’s Future Skills Centre, points to the value of institutions that not only oversees programmes, but also invest in innovation and experimentation.

Giving Skills England a stronger mandate for applied research, knowledge mobilisation and innovation would allow it to bring together government, employers, training providers and places, while building the evidence needed to direct support towards interventions that can have the greatest impact.

But better coordination is also needed across national and local government. We recommend that a dedicated cross-government policy workstream be created to produce actionable recommendations. The newly established Number 10 North, focusing on local economic growth and devolution, can also help improve the coordination between different levels of government.

We suggest that the organising principle for skills policy should be sectoral, particularly around the industrial strategy’s eight key sectors. Drawing on lessons from sectoral training programmes in the US, the government could enable places to pilot partnerships between employers, colleges and universities in sectors where there is sustained demand for skills and potential for higher wages and progression.

Sectoral employment programmes can also be linked to social impact investment opportunities where they can generate measurable improvements in employment and earnings for disadvantaged groups.

Financial incentives and public procurement conditions can provide additional levers to address barriers to employer investment. But these should be targeted towards firms, sectors or types of training where they are most likely to generate additional investment, rather than subsidising training that would have happened anyway.

The UK needs more than an individual new policy to implement. It needs national institutions that can build and share evidence, local institutions that can coordinate action, and policy tools that make it easier for employers to invest where the economy needs skills most.

Skills are essential for growth, but businesses and governments can only benefit from growth opportunities and successfully navigate AI and green transitions if we create a system that allows them to innovate, experiment and ultimately, invest in people.

WorldSkills 2026: Opening ceremony – follow live

‘Rushed rollout’ of V Levels risks damaging brand, survey warns

The first V Levels should be delayed until 2028 to avoid a “rushed rollout” that damages the new qualifications’ brand, a survey has suggested.

Research by the Edge Foundation found awarding organisations face a “tight turnaround” to develop subject materials ahead of the first three V Levels being taught from September 2027.

The charity’s report, published today, said the current timeline fails to provide “sufficient scope” for meaningful consultation with the FE sector on the design of the courses.

It also leaves a “very short timeframe” between the planned publication date for materials in spring next year and the start of teaching in September.

Researchers warned that widespread delivery problems caused by a “rushed roll out” could damage confidence in the new qualifications.

The report, ‘V Levels: Reflect and revise’, said: “Delaying roll-out by a year would allow providers a full academic year of dedicated preparation following publication of the first course materials.

“This would allow time for key preparatory activities such as curriculum redesign, employer engagement, staff recruitment, assessment planning, and development of marketing materials.”

The report also said the Department for Education needs more time to establish a “clear identity” for V Levels, while a large proportion of the college sector remains “unconvinced” about the case for scrapping applied general qualifications.

The Edge Foundation’s survey of 27 practitioners included responses from principals and vice principals, assistant principals, curriculum directors, and heads of department.

Representatives from eight colleges, Cambridge OCR and NCFE, the Federation of Awarding Bodies, the DfE, and the Treasury, attended the roundtable.

While the sample size is “small” and should not be read as representative of the sector as a whole, the consistency of several themes suggested a “clear indication of the issues that matter most”, the report authors said.

Survey responses showed there was “consistent concern” about the lack of detailed and timely information about the V Levels, such as who the typical learner would be, what gap they are designed to fill, and whether they are primarily a route to higher education, employment or apprenticeships.

One anonymised respondent said: “We need to know the structure, and which qualifications specifically will be run, so we can work out how we can possibly package them into a study programme.”

Four in five respondents said student recruitment and awareness was an anticipated delivery challenge, 74 per cent were worried about timetabling and curriculum design, and 67 per cent felt there is a lack of clarity on qualification structure.

Other concerns included staffing and workforce capacity, destination options and progression, and funding and resources.

Sector stakeholders also told the Edge Foundation that the DfE should publish sample subject combinations and progression pathways to help learners make “an informed choice”.

The “clearest” finding was low levels of preparedness, with only three respondents saying they felt prepared to teach V Levels.

Specific concerns included the lack of specifications, assessment information, teaching resources, or qualification combination rules.

Reflecting on their experiences of introducing T Levels, there was “broad consensus” that at least one academic year of dedicated preparation is needed before the first teaching of V Levels to ensure providers can implement them “confidently”.

Discussions from the roundtable also included questions about what problem V Levels are “trying to solve” amid uncertainty caused by the “rapidly evolving” level 3 qualification landscape.

The report said: “While flexibility was widely welcomed, several participants cautioned that introducing another qualification without clearly communicating its distinctive purpose risks increasing confusion for learners, parents and schools.”

College feedback included concern that offering programmes allowing V Level learners to combine with A Levels or other qualifications would require “substantial redesign” of their curriculum models.

This includes large multi-campus colleges and those that do not currently offer A Levels.

The feedback report comes days after the government’s update to its ‘post-16 pathways: implementation plan’, which delayed the planned defunding of three computing-related level 3 qualifications back by one year.

The remaining 154 level 2 and 3 qualifications – many of which overlap with the soon-to-be introduced V Levels and level 2 foundation and occupational certificates – will be defunded at the end of this year as planned.

The implementation plan has ruled out ‘partnering’ V Levels in the same subject area for at least the first two years, another key recommendation in The Edge’s report.

Officials confirmed, based on “initial scoping”, that none of the 13 V Levels due to be rolled out in 2027-28 and 2028-29 meet its criteria for partnering, which is only likely to be permitted in a “very limited number of circumstances”.

V Levels will have 360 guided learning hours (GLH) each, the same size as an A Level, while T Levels, which can be up to 1,360 GLH, will be the main level 3 qualification option allowing students to specialise in a single, occupation-focused subject.

Three V Levels in digital, education and early years, and finance and accounting are due to be launched in September 2027, followed by a further ten in 2028.

V Levels are the latest development in long running reforms to technical education at level 3 that include the introduction of T Levels in 2020 and their alignment with Skills England’s occupational standards.

The DfE declined to comment.