What is happening in terms of qualification reform, and in particular much of our sector’s response to it, brings to mind an activity I have built in to a programme on organisational culture and leadership I have delivered on and off over the years.
Over lunch, when everyone is out of the way, I set about adjusting one of the pictures in the room so that it is crooked. Then I just leave it and say nothing. By the end of the afternoon, without exception, someone always feels the need to put it back in place. And here we are.
We have entered a very interesting phase of the reform debate, with Labour having made a commitment when in opposition to “pause and review” of the current direction of travel with regards to T Levels and BTECs.
Notably, this was not a manifesto commitment. Then today, Gordon Brown and Lord Sainsbury used their powerful voices to counter that this would be a mistake.
The last Labour government’s answer to technical education was to introduce the 14-19 Diplomas. This set of unwieldy qualifications were a watered-down response to the 2004 Tomlinson Report, which had recommended reform of academic as well as technical education.
Initially, these 14-19 Diplomas were intended to support a simplified and streamlined post-16 offer which would ultimately consist of the Diplomas, A-levels, apprenticeships and a foundation learning tier for young people operating below level 1.
However, this aspiration was also watered down as competing qualifications – such as BTECs – were not discontinued. The sector’s resistance to change won the day.
It was unsurprising that the new Diplomas were promptly ditched by the coalition government when it came into power in 2010. With them went millions of pounds, countless hours of pointless meetings deciding how these damn things were to be delivered between schools and colleges, and several rainforests’ worth of resources and paperwork.
Nearly a decade later, the last government’s panacea to the thorny issue of technical education was of course the T Level. Sitting alongside A-levels and apprenticeships, they would finally allow us to attain the nirvana of a simplified and streamlined post-16 offer, supported by a review of qualifications below level 3.
At the time, I couldn’t help feeling we’d uncannily ended up in very similar territory to where New Labour finished, with at least two notable exceptions. This time there was a determination to switch off the alternatives, as well as an aspiration to ultimately merge A-levels and T Levels into the Advanced British Standard (ironically taking us full circle to realise the key ambition of the Tomlinson Report).
Now, of course, all of this is up in the air again. What does seem clear is that unlike the 14-19 Diplomas, T Levels will remain. This is a good thing. T Levels have real potential whereas those 14-19 Diplomas were just awful.
It is also still widely expected that there will be the eagerly awaited ‘pause and review’ announcement, even in spite of those influential voices speaking out against it. If so, I hope we avoid going completely backwards to witness T Levels suffer their own demise – only to be replaced by some other new solution in a decade’s time.
What I can’t subscribe to is the argument that the current system worked fine before the latest reforms. It didn’t.
The qualification landscape is far too bewildering. Many vocational (i.e. applied general) qualifications at level 3 provide reasonable preparation for higher education courses (predominantly those in post-92 universities), but do they all adequately provide the actual skills employers are looking for?
There are major skills shortages across many sectors, but no shortage of young people taking existing qualifications in these areas. In some cases we are even struggling to meet student demand, so something isn’t right – and yes, I know I’m at risk of oversimplifying a very complex issue.
We should not in any case cease the current direction of travel, but we do need to make sure it’s on the right tracks. So if a ‘pause and review’ is to be useful, here is what it should address:
Meeting needs
The first job will be to conduct a sector-by-sector review of the current reform agenda to ensure the approach to new and discontinued qualifications will meet industry and learner needs. The removal of level 3 electrical is a good example of where the current approach hasn’t been well thought out.
Progression coherence
The review should specifically look at the content and assessment of the new T Levels. In their current form they remain niche given entry requirements are as rigorous as A-levels.
A wider issue here is that GCSEs are geared towards A-levels and ultimately university education. They aren’t really fit for the purpose of supporting progression into technical education (something we are at the beginning of thinking about in Greater Manchester).
Progression breadth
Any reform below level 3 should also be a consideration so that it provides clear and effective progression routes into further study and also into employment.
Regarding the latter, we shouldn’t assume that the main purpose of any qualification is to lead immediately to another – a good job with training can be an equally valid progression outcome.
Protecting student choice
We also need clarity on the role and purpose of the new proposed Alternative Academic Qualifications (AAQs) and Technical Occupational Qualifications (TOCs) and their potential to protect student choice. This will help avoid the predicted armageddon that will swiftly follow any bonfire of BTECs.
Ultimately we have to ensure that whatever the result of any pause and review process, we end up with a system that more effectively aligns with the skills employers need, and with students at the heart of its design and delivery.
And what we absolutely must not do is to put the picture back in its place, only for the cycle of reform and resistance to resume.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, measuring progression ‘to’ something is only part of the available intelligence, it needs to be coupled with understanding progression ‘from’.
If you don’t have an understanding of how individuals have successfully (or unsuccessfully) arrived at their destination, how can you hope to plan an effective route.
Allow me to explain by way of a small joke:
Driver: Excuse me, do you know the way to Skillstown?
Local: Yes, but I wouldn’t start from here…
The author of this article is ignoring the fundamental problem that there is no student demand for T level courses. Just a thousand students completed one last year because only a tiny proportion of 16 year olds want to take up a very specialised course. Most 16 year olds do not know what career they want and so will not pick a T level. They want breadth and a mixture of A levels and BTEC National courses gives that. T levels are a niche market and I would be amazed if they still exist in ten years.