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. 

Size matters when it comes to apprenticeships

The introduction of shorter-duration apprenticeships has been greeted with a mix of applause and alarm. For some, reducing the minimum duration from twelve to eight months – and now, introducing game-changing apprenticeship units: short, modular courses funded through the levy – represents pragmatic modernisation. For others, it is a betrayal of what the word “apprenticeship” means.

 Yet behind the noise lies a more interesting truth. In loosening the rules, the government may have stumbled onto a rare thing – a genuine scale-economy strategy in public skills policy.

For years, apprenticeships have suffered from diseconomies of scale: high delivery costs, long lead times, inconsistent quality, assessor shortages and bureaucratic fatigue. Now, perhaps inadvertently, the state is proposing a model that treats training as an adaptive system – modular, responsive, and efficient. In policy terms, that is revolutionary.

At first glance, shrinking learning seems to defy the logic of rigour. Apprenticeships have long traded on the virtue of depth – the slow mastery of a craft, not the quick acquisition of competence. But today’s fast-paced labour market rewards capability proven, not time served. Modern economies thrive on fast, flexible, verifiable readiness delivered in timely sprints. For employers, the concern is not how long learning takes, but how well it translates into confident performance.

Having worked in the awarding sector for more than twenty years, I’ve recently stepped into the apprenticeships space. And I’ve been struck by the system’s sheer complexity. It’s not quality requirements that deter engagement but the density of process between intention and outcome. If simplification and faster throughputs of talent deliver better real-world impact, the apprenticeship market will re-energise.

The white paper aims to do exactly that. By introducing apprenticeship units and allowing levy funds to flow more flexibly, government is lowering the transaction cost of participation. More learners can move through the system without inflating cost or bureaucracy, creating headroom in an overspent levy budget for alternative routes to flourish. It’s the policy equivalent of improving factory output by trimming idle time rather than building a new plant.

However, streamlining delivery will complicate assessment. Shorter learning journeys punctuated by formative assessment events make evaluation both more central and more demanding. With less time for reflection and consolidation, the quality of evidence becomes critical. Assessment organisations will need to rebalance from single, summative endpoints toward more agile, cumulative judgements – distributed across a compressed timeline. The introduction of apprenticeship units intensifies that challenge.

Each unit must still cohere into a meaningful whole, ensuring learners can connect, apply and adapt what they know. But smaller provision can invite carelessness; the risk is that shortness becomes shorthand for shallowness. If duration becomes the next metric to game, the apprenticeship brand will corrode in a race to the bottom.

Skills development, unlike manufacturing, relies on reflection as much as repetition. The danger is not that learners will do less, but that they’ll have less time to make sense of what they do. Assessment design will therefore need to hold the line. Done well, it embeds reflection and synthesis throughout the learner journey, turning each stage or unit into a rehearsal for mastery. Done poorly, it fragments learning into a relay of hurdles.

Assessment organisations must now innovate fast – blending a range of assessment methods across a broader and more inclusive offer to sustain validity without over-burdening providers or employers. The sector will need a new fluency in balancing flexibility with fairness. The principles set out in the white paper are sound and future-forward. In an economy where human capital must renew as fast as technology evolves, agility and simplicity are not the enemies of rigour. If collectively we can make the small beautiful and the short powerful, apprenticeships could finally deliver what their architects intended: mass participation, high completion and real productivity.

Apprenticeship units may have been designed to improve flexibility rather than deliver scale-economy. But in skills policy, as in industry, the best efficiencies are often found by accident.

Finally, a real stepping stone for GCSE English and maths learners

As someone who has lived and breathed English and maths delivery in further education for over a decade, I know how much effort young people put into retaking their GCSEs and how hard colleges work to support them. This is why I welcome the government’s announcement in the post-16 white paper of a new level 1 GCSE stepping-stone qualification to support young people retaking these subjects.

When we were planning our response to the curriculum and assessment review back in September last year, a team of us at Get Further sat down to review learning from years of work within the FE sector, and to answer one question: what would really shift the dial for young people struggling to secure the English and maths GCSE qualifications vital to accessing so many opportunities?

We wanted to propose an idea that would help give every young person a real chance to achieve these essential qualifications. Right now, that chance isn’t equal. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are much less likely to achieve a grade 4 in English and maths than their peers, and those who struggle most – including those with SEND and those who achieve grade 1 or 2 at 16 – are much less likely to achieve their GCSE by the age of 19.

Like almost everyone we speak to in the sector, we have always held the unwavering belief that every young person who falls behind at school deserves the chance to catch up on English and maths as part of their post-16 education. We also shared concerns that too many young people are still missing out on essential GCSE grades. We saw potential within the condition of funding policy for powerful changes to be made to unlock achievement.

For us, it was clear that the answer was a true stepping-stone to GCSE – a qualification offering young people facing the steepest barriers the chance to plug gaps in knowledge, embed new learning, gain a sense of achievement, develop their confidence, and rebuild their motivation – all while working towards, and ultimately achieving, the qualification that is most highly valued by employers and the wider education system.

As part of our thinking for the curriculum and assessment review, I spoke to some of the young people who have undertaken resit tuition with us to get their views on a stepping-stone qualification to a full GCSE and on how they would have felt about having two planned years of study before their first full retake. What they told me confirms that this week’s announcement is the right one.

They talked about a stepping stone being “a substantially good idea” as it would “help students cover specific topics that they struggle with” and “help improve the students’ confidence, willpower and determination”. They said it would “remove the pressure of taking the exam within the first nine months” of being in college. And they felt spending more time on something is “good just for yourself, to prove that you’re worth it and you can do it”. Securing an initial grade in a less high-stakes exam is “like a sign that you don’t need to stop, you just have to keep going”.

I’m really pleased for future young people that the benefits of longer study and an intermediate qualification are now going to be realised.

Through our discussions at Get Further, we were also clear that a qualification change alone would not be enough to drive the changes in English and maths attainment that everyone within the sector wants to see. So it’s great to see the suite of plans laid out to accompany this change, including enhanced support for English and maths teacher development, strengthened delivery guidance, the ongoing building of the evidence-base via the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), and the revision of accountability measures.

Qualification development isn’t quick. As a sector we now have a significant task ahead of us as this work gets underway and we prepare to support young people to undertake these new courses. But as one of the young people I spoke to said: “I think taking your time is better, though, because if you really focus and work hard, then you can get it […] Patience is key. Trust in the process”.

New law to bar ‘unsuitable’ FE leaders among skills white paper reforms

The government will legislate to ban “unsuitable people” from FE leadership, introduce a new 16 to 19 funding formula and raise higher education tuition fees in line with inflation, a long-awaited post-16 white paper has revealed.

Ministers also have plans for boosting the number of students who successfully resit GCSE English and maths, tracking attendance in colleges, and are mulling over the introduction of “skills passports” for adults. 

The white paper, 70 pages and 35,660 words long, was published this evening. Officials also tonight launched a consultation on plans for new V Level qualifications, an expansion of T Level subjects and the scrapping of the troubled T Level foundation year (read the full story on this here).

FE Week has pulled out the key new policies that have not been previously announced.

‘Unsuitable’ people barred from FE leadership

Ministers plan to legislate to “bar unsuitable people” from management positions in further education providers.

There have been multiple high-profile cases of college and training provider mismanagement over the past decade, but it is not clear whether any single case has triggered this move.

The education secretary can already “prohibit or restrict an individual” from taking part in the management or governance of a school by “issuing a direction under section 128 of the Education and Skills Act 2008”, according to government guidance.

FE Week revealed in 2023 that the principal of the first college to be put in administration agreed to never work in the education sector again – but this ban, which will trigger a £250,000 fine if breached, was agreed with liquidator BDO, not the government.

Ministers seemingly now want the power to enforce their own bans on FE leaders through the law.

The white paper said extending the power it has to ban individuals from schools to further education providers will “protect staff, individuals, and public money”.

“We want to ensure that leaders of further education providers are the right people to be leading their institutions, ensuring that the highest standards underpin leadership and governance,” the white paper added.

“We will legislate when parliamentary time allows.”

16-19 funding: A formula review and real-terms rise

As per this summer’s spending review, the government will provide £1.2 billion of “additional investment per year in skills by 2028-2029”.

The white paper said this “significant investment” will ensure there is increased funding to colleges and other 16 to 19 providers to “maintain real terms per-student funding in the next academic year to respond to the demographic increase in 16 to 19-year-olds”.

Ministers believe this funding boost will help colleges with the “recruitment and retention of expert teachers in high value subject areas”.

Officials will also undertake a “16 to 19 funding formula review” to “maximise the impact of this funding”.

A revised formula is expected to be in place for the 2027-28 academic year.

Details are light but here’s what the white paper teased the review will explore: “We will look at how we are supporting high-value courses to ensure sufficient funding is reaching the most critical subject areas, for example those linked to priority sectors. 

“We will aim to simplify the formula, whilst ensuring we support courses that drive economic growth and support providers to offer more provision that will help young people to thrive in areas with growth potential.”

Better prepare students for GCSE resits, colleges told

The government appeared to criticise colleges for entering unprepared students for GCSE English and maths resits.

The white paper said too few learners with low prior attainment – a grade 2 or below in English and maths – are “achieving a grade 4 by the time they leave education at age 18 or 19 yet are resitting, sometimes repeatedly, when they are not ready”.

Each student that failed to achieve a grade 4 pass in English or maths at school must study towards the subjects as a condition of their post-16 place being funded. Government guidance makes clear this is a study requirement, not a requirement for students to resit an exam.

“Too many students are entered into resit exams in the November after their GCSE entry the previous summer, without sufficient additional teaching to enable them to succeed,” the white paper said.

To aid the sector, the government said it will introduce a new 16 to 19 English and maths “preparation for GCSE level 1 qualifications designed to consolidate the foundational skills and knowledge needed to prepare lower prior attaining students (grade 2 or below) before they then take a GCSE resit”.

These new qualifications will “build on” Becky Francis’ curriculum and assessment review’s “analysis of the evidence and developing recommendations”.

Officials will “work closely with the sector as we develop the new qualifications and plan to consult in 2026”. 

College and ITP ‘improvement’

The government plans to introduce regional improvement teams in further education, taking a “similar approach” to the regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) programme in schools.

Overseen by the FE Commissioner, these teams will create a “clear governance structure” for the Department for Education to “ensure that each region has the provider capacity and capability to support students at risk of being left behind, and respond to local skills needs identified in local skills improvement plans or by strategic authorities”. 

The white paper said officials “know that many colleges are already performing brilliantly in these areas”, and they will continue to work with them through this new “universal offer of support to all colleges”.

Details on how exactly what this new support offer will entail are sparse.

But the white paper did reveal that regional improvement teams will also look at capacity in the independent training provider market to “identify gaps in provision and to identify effective practice and collaboration across colleges, independent training providers, local authorities and Strategic Authorities, which other areas could benefit from”.

Skills ‘passports’ and apprenticeship ‘units’

Too many adults lack the basic English, maths and digital skills, yet participation in essential skills courses has plummeted over the last decade. 

To get more adults to improve their skills, the white paper suggests a review of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), maths and digital skills training. The review will check whether the existing offer of courses is meeting the needs of people classed as most disadvantaged in the labour market and whether they deliver the learning needed to access technical training and jobs in priority sectors.

Meanwhile, Skills England has been tasked with “exploring” the development of “skills passports”. The new government agency will “review best practice and learn from previous experience”, but the idea is the passports would show employers what skills, competencies and work experience an individual has in a standardised way. 

There was no timetable set out for skills passports, but the white paper said it would be tested with unemployed people in jobs and careers service pathfinder areas. 

Sector based work academies will be “significantly” expanded, the white paper suggested but did not quantify. The “highly effective” programmes form part of a package of initiatives aimed at people facing barriers to employment. This also includes a new pathways to work guarantee for disabled people and benefit claimants with health conditions and continuing with plans to devolve skills bootcamps to strategic authorities. 

Short courses funded through the growth and skills levy will be introduced in April 2026 as planned, but with their own special name: apprenticeship units. As previously announced, an initial wave of fundable short courses will be offered for employers in “critical skills areas” such as engineering, digital and artificial intelligence. 

The white paper had little to say about future waves of fundable apprenticeship units, only that decisions will be informed by Skills England’s analysis of employers’ needs.  

Level 4 and 5 awarding powers for FE providers

The prime minister’s new higher education target specifically included expanding training at levels 4 and 5. As announced following his Labour party conference speech, and confirmed in the white paper, the Office for Students (OfS) will become the “single primary regulator” for all providers teaching level 4 and above courses. 

DfE will “encourage” further and higher education organisations to work together on progression pathways through level 4+ training, even floating “novel alternative business models, including federated models and partnerships” between the two sectors. 

There will be a “stronger expectation” on higher education providers to set out how they will deliver technical skills needs identified in local skills improvement plans. 

While there was no timeline, DfE has revealed that it will work with the OfS on a process to grant colleges and training providers their own awarding powers for “occupationally focused” level 4 and 5 higher technical qualifications. 

Awarding organisations will continue to be able to develop and market higher technical qualifications, if they’ve been licensed by the OfS to do so.

All of this will be scrutinised by a new “market monitoring function” within DfE, with Skills England charged with identifying cold spots in supply of higher-level education and training.

HE fees to rise with inflation

Ministers have also decided to raise higher education tuition fees in line with forecast inflation for the next two academic years. 

Legislation will then be brought forward, “when parliamentary time allows”, to enable “automatic increases to fee caps in future years in line with inflation” but only for institutions that meet “tough new quality thresholds set by the Office for Students”. 

Auto enrolment from schools 

Young people leaving school at 16 without an education or training place will now be auto-enroled into provision.

The move comes as part of a range of measures outlined in the white paper to cut the rising numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

Pilots will test the idea of designating a “default provider” in an area, which could be a college or other provider, that would contact and place a school leaver who hadn’t selected a post-16 option. A process would also be put in place for young people that drop-out in-year. 

“Our ambition is that the default for any young person who isn’t sure of their next steps post-16 is to be in a college or further education provider, rather than out of education and training,” the white paper said.

Funding for education and “wraparound support” is yet to be determined.

Other anti-NEET measures in the white paper include improving data sharing and tracking of young people between schools, local authorities and further education providers. 

New “risk of NEET” indicators will be introduced using “artificial intelligence to enhance this approach”. 

Schools will be asked to do more to help young people at risk of becoming NEET “successfully transition into post-16 education and training” which will be monitored by Ofsted.

Attendance tracker for 16 to 19s

The white paper repeats the government’s announcements from last month’s Labour Party conference around tackling soaring numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) – namely its new “youth guarantee”.

But it also reveals plans for the government to track student attendance in all 16 to 19 providers. 

This will enable providers and the government “intervene early when attendance starts to decline” to try and prevent the young person from becoming NEET.

Officials will take the “best practice” from school attendance tracking and “bring it into further education, to identify those at risk of becoming NEET through data sharing and embedded strategies to address persistent absence”. 

“This will factor in the contextual differences between further education and schools,” the white paper added.

“For example, many further education providers do not expect every learner to be present by a certain time every day so identifying absence will reflect this. We will also draw out existing best practice in further education to strengthen guidance and accountability.”

Teacher professional development

“Expert bodies” like the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Education Endowment Foundation and WorldSkills UK will develop a new career-long professional development framework for FE teachers in a bid to raise standards and improve recruitment and retention. 

The white paper makes numerous commitments to programmes that support professionals from industry into FE teaching, with technical excellence colleges mentioned numerous times as organisations expected to be at the forefront of new ways to recruit, train and retain teachers. 

It said: “As leaders for their specialism, technical excellence colleges will focus on developing excellent specialist curricula and teaching practice. Through a hub and spoke model, technical excellence colleges will share these with other local providers.”

For example, technical education colleges will lead on providing “cutting edge” professional development to FE staff, alongside teacher industry exchange schemes giving teachers access to industry placements in return for masterclasses and guest-teaching opportunities on modules in FE for industry professionals. 

A call for evidence was launched on Friday to inform new statutory guidance on initial teacher education (ITE). It comes as part of a DfE crackdown on “contested and outdated theories” being taught to trainee FE teachers.

The government also plans to extend its teaching vacancy service to include further education roles and pledged to continue its teacher recruitment marketing campaigns and teacher incentive payments for this academic year. 

FE data will be “safely and appropriately” used with EdTech companies to develop artificial intelligence tools to ease workload burdens on teachers and leaders. The white paper was light on detail, but DfE said AI could “transform and improve” teaching and will “support the technology market to develop the products that leaders and teachers need”.

What we know about V Levels, new T Levels and the end of the T Level foundation year

The government has launched a consultation on its plans for new V Level courses as well as the expansion of T Levels and sweeping reforms to level 2 courses, including the end of the T Level foundation year.

Here’s what you need to know, including an update to the defunding timeline of applied general qualifications (AGQs) like BTECs.

V Levels incoming from 2027

Ministers have taken aim at the “significant variability” in assessment, grading and content of current vocational qualifications available to young people. 

The government’s answer – V Levels – will sit alongside A Levels and T Levels and “offer a vocational alternative to these academic and technical routes” for students who want to “explore different sectors before deciding where to specialise”.

V Levels will be regulated by Ofqual in a similar way to A Levels. Awarding organisations will have strict rules to follow about the design of V Levels, including how they’re structured, how students should be assessed and how they should be graded.

The DfE is proposing that awarding organisation branding will not be allowed in the V Level qualification titles, to make them “easier to understand”.

A grading scale for V Levels wasn’t proposed, but it should be consistent across all of the qualifications, like A Levels and T Levels. There are currently six different grading scales for level 3 applied general qualifications.

V Levels will also be a similar size to A Levels, 360 guided learning hours, with the intention being that students can mix and match between the two.

But they will “have an increased proportion of non-exam assessment” compared to their academic cousins, some of which can be marked by providers.

The size difference between V Levels and T Levels means the former will be broader, subject based qualifications rather than occupationally specialised. But both V and T Levels will be designed against occupational standards. 

A proposed list of 19 proposed subjects for V Levels was published in the consultation. It includes arts, craft and design; criminology; education and early years; hair, beauty and aesthetics; protective services; retail and travel and tourism.

The plan is for the first V Level classes to start in September 2027, but the full roll out will take four years. 

Similar to the T Level rollout in 2020, V Levels will be introduced by route-by-route. A full timetable will be confirmed when the government responds to the consultation feedback next year.

Defunding BTECs timetable

Some qualifications will no longer be defunded as planned while V Levels are introduced. 

Small qualifications that were due to be defunded in 2026 or 2027 with 420 guided learning hours or less will now be funded until the relevant V Level has been introduced. It means providers can continue to offer small “unreformed qualifications” or the replacement alternative academic qualifications (AAQs) or technical occupational qualification (TOQs).

Students aiming for a large qualification should do a T Level, the consultation stressed. Courses of 720 or more guided learning hours in T Level subject areas will continue to have their funding removed in 2026 and 2027, as previously announced.

Qualifications of between 421 and 719 guided learning hours will have their funding retained until the corresponding V Level has been introduced.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association that leads the Protect Student Choice campaign, said the government’s confirmation that medium and large AGQs will be defunded will leave a “large qualifications gap”.

He told FE Week: “In July, the Protect Student Choice campaign published a report that showed tens of thousands of students would be left without a pathway to higher education or skilled employment if the government did not reverse its ban on diploma and extended diploma size AGQs in subjects where there is a T Level. The consultation document published today is clear that the government will not reverse this ban. 

“As a result, colleges and schools will not be able to enrol students on well-respected AGQs in subjects such as health and social care, applied science and IT next year. That will leave a significant qualification gap, particularly as the government’s new V levels will not be available until 2027 at the earliest.”

Kewin said it was “unclear” how scrapping AGQs before alternatives are in place will help the government break down barriers to opportunity, adding: “This decision will also come as unwelcome news for BTEC teachers in colleges and schools, and the huge number of employers that value these qualifications so highly.”

More ‘strong performing’ T Levels

The DfE’s consultation said the “strong performance” of T Levels warrants expansion into more subjects. 

It proposes not only new subjects, but also new specialisms within existing T Levels, highlighting the low carbon heating specialism being introduced in to construction T Level next year.

Areas such as sports science and care services, which have level 3 occupational standards and current “viable” level 3 qualifications will now be considered for T Levels.

New T Level subjects could also be in areas where occupational standards are not currently set at level 3, such as music technology, production arts and visual effects, and in subjects where there are level 3 qualifications but no corresponding occupational standards, such as music performance and art and design.

Like V Levels, the government has set an ambition to begin introducing new T Levels on rolling basis from academic year 2027.

T Level foundation year to go

The T Level foundation year programme will be replaced as part of sweeping reforms to level 2 provision set out in today’s white paper and consultation on post-16 qualifications. 

While much of the attention has been on level 3 qualifications, the white paper acknowledges “limited progress” has been made on reforming level 2 qualifications for young people.

Like the level 3 space, DfE believes there are too many qualifications available, which is “confusing for students and difficult for providers and awarding organisations to deliver”.

DfE’s proposed solution is to offer two study programme led pathways for post-16 level 2 students. The first will be known as a “further study pathway”.

This will eventually replace the T Level foundation year, which has suffered from high drop out and poor progression rates.

This one-year pathway will be for students who wish to progress to level 3 apprenticeships, A Levels, V Levels or T Levels. Students on this pathway will work towards qualifications called foundation certificates. 

The second is a two-year “occupational pathway” for students “progressing to employment in level 2 roles, including an apprenticeship.” Leavers will achieve qualifications called occupational certificates. 

Both pathways will require learning towards GCSE English and maths where it’s required.

For the further study pathway, there will be qualifications for the foundation certificates of 240 guided learning hours that are linked to T Level and V Level subjects. 

The occupational pathway will include an occupational standard-linked technical qualification, and has been proposed to be a two-year programme in part to ensure students can’t leave education before they turn 18 and to give more time to achieve a GCSE English and maths pass.

Like V Levels, foundation certificates and occupational certificates will be rolled out gradually from 2027. This means the T Level foundation year will continue as normal in 2026. In 2027 it will be renamed ‘foundation year’ and then will be gradually replaced by the further study pathway.

The consultation closes on January 12, 2026.

V Levels are an opportunity to bring coherence, if we get it right

The announcement of V Levels is an opportunity to raise the status of vocational training. For too long, vocational routes have been treated as second best. If V Levels can genuinely simplify choices and help young people progress into rewarding work, then they could mark a real step forward. However, how they are designed, implemented and embedded will mean the difference between another failed attempt at qualifications reform, and providing a valued route for young people into work and for employers to recruit people with the skills they need.

At Skills Federation, our 19 employer-led sector skills body members tell us that they need qualifications they can trust – ones that reflect real workplace needs and prepare a pathway into the world of work. These qualifications must also be clearly understood. Individuals need to know what they’re signing up for, and employers need to know what they’re getting.

So, what must happen to make V Levels work in practice?

First, they must offer clarity and relevance. Employers need to easily understand what skills a V Level qualification represents. That means clear communication about the mix of technical, practical, and transferable skills that learners will bring into the workplace.

Second, V Levels should open doors, not close them. That means creating seamless links with Level 2 programmes, ensuring a coherent progression route for learners who may not be ready to start at Level 3. It also means creating flexible progression for learners to go into higher education or apprenticeships and we welcome the flexibility that will allow learners to mix and match A Levels and V Levels. Getting this right will help widen participation and ensure that no one is left behind.

Third, the sector needs policy stability. If V Levels are the change that will make a real difference, then they must be implemented well – and then left alone. Constant reform undermines confidence and makes it harder for providers, employers, and learners to plan for the future.

Fourth, applied general qualifications provide a valuable route for many young people into work and higher education, and are well understood by employers. If V levels are going to replace them, this must not leave gaps and cut off progression routes for those who need them the most. The timing needs to be considered carefully to avoid destabilising the system.

Fifth, government must also learn lessons from the rollout of T Levels. That means investing in staff development, raising the profile of V Levels with employers, and ensuring that schools provide high-quality careers guidance ensuring that students are informed about vocational as well as academic options.

Finally, collaboration with the right partners to deliver V Levels is crucial. Employer-led sector skills bodies represent employers across industries and work to align training with the needs of the economy. That’s why they must be brought into the conversation early. These organisations have the capacity and expertise to co-design qualifications that meet real-world needs. Involving them from the outset will ensure success roll-out of the new qualifications.

V Levels could be a gamechanger, but they will only succeed if they are built on a foundation of clarity, coherence, and collaboration. If we get this right, we can create a system that truly values vocational education – and delivers for learners, employers, and the economy alike.

We’ll end qualification confusion and build confidence in FE

As an education minister, when I’m asked about my work in everyday life it’s usually about the best-known, established routes: A Levels and university. Increasingly, I’m pleased to say, apprenticeships and T Levels get a mention. 

But there are hundreds of other level 3 qualifications out there at the moment, and this creates a confusing mess of a system where no one is truly sure the qualification they are doing is best for them.

Continuing with this system of confusion makes no sense. And it won’t help us deliver on the prime minister’s recently announced target for two thirds of young people to participate in higher level learning.  That’s why we plan to simplify the landscape with three clear routes for 16-18-year-olds.

Simplification through V Levels

A Levels and T Levels will be joined by new V Levels – a third option for young people who choose vocational study. Many young people know that they get on better by doing and applying their learning so don’t want to take an academic A Level route.  But they’re not completely clear about the occupation they want to focus on so a T Level might be too narrow. 

V Levels will be in a range of subjects, and provide the transferable skills and knowledge employers tell us they’re looking for. And crucially for 16-year-olds deciding their next step, V Levels will streamline the complex landscape of around 900 qualifications currently available at level 3. They’ll provide a clear, coherent study pathway in vocational subjects, while allowing the learner to keep their options open for their future careers. Alongside this, we will grow the T Level offer to cover more subject areas.

This government is determined to transform life chances. We want to open up opportunity to all, which means considering how post-16 education supports those for whom existing routes just aren’t working.

The proportions of disadvantaged and vulnerable students at level 2 study are high: a quarter are eligible for free school meals and 29 per cent have SEND. It is vital that we give these students the support they need to succeed, whether that’s going into further study or leaving education to go into work. 

And for those that do go into work, that work is of key importance to the country. Of the 2.5 million jobs that the Office of National Statistics (ONS) defines as being in critical demand, one million require qualifications which map broadly onto level 2 and require work-related training.

Different FE pathways

That’s why, in addition to our changes to qualifications at level 3, we’re also proposing to simplify level 2 qualifications, with two pathways providing clear progression according to learners’ aspirations: one to further study, and one into work.

The further study pathway will prepare students for level 3 study – whether that’s V Levels, T Levels or A Levels. The occupational pathway will ensure that those leaving education have the skills and knowledge employers seek, including for key occupations for our economy and society like bricklayers, adult care workers and early years practitioners.

Ending the resits treadmill

Meanwhile, around a third of year 11 pupils do not achieve grade 4 or above in their maths or English GCSEs, hampering their chances of accessing level 3 qualifications. This minimum standard for many sectors means students repeatedly retake these exams – and their sense of failure is often compounded each time they don’t pass. White working-class pupils are twice as likely to do these resits as their more affluent peers.

To open-up opportunity, we must find better ways to support their progression. We will end the resits treadmill by introducing new 16-19 level 1 qualifications in English and maths that will ensure students have secured the essential foundational knowledge and skills in these subjects and get recognition for that achievement. These will enable students to advance to GCSE the following year, once they’re ready to retake the exams.    

The prime minister recently put FE at the heart of our plans – pledging the prestige and support that the sector has too often lacked.  He announced an extra £800 million of post-16 funding for the next financial year, which will allow us to reshape the system to serve the students who need it most. Supporting all 16-year-olds to progress in education will boost our new target that two thirds of young people take a higher-level apprenticeship or technical qualification or go to university.

Further details of today’s announcements will be confirmed shortly in our post-16 education and skills strategy. This will provide a blueprint for an education system that truly matches young people’s aspirations and abilities, whilst leaving no one behind.