The government’s mission to simplify post-16 qualifications through T Levels and the new V Levels is well intentioned. Clarity, parity, and coherence across technical and academic routes are ambitions most of us support.
But simplification can come at a cost, and the cost, if we’re not careful, could be paid by our most vulnerable learners.
Because here’s the reality: T Levels and V Levels will not fit everyone. Thousands of young people – bright, capable, ambitious – will fall through the cracks unless the Department for Education builds flexibility into the system.
Across the country, independent training providers (ITPs) are already showing what works. Our study programmes deliver strong outcomes from entry level to level 3.
They don’t just tick qualification boxes; they build confidence, skills and aspiration. They take young people who’ve struggled in traditional education and give them a pathway often into apprenticeships, work, or further study.
Ofsted sees it. The data shows it; ITPs consistently achieve high destination rates, especially for learners who face social, emotional or financial barriers. These are programmes built around the learner, not the other way around.
So why dismantle what’s working?
Under the current reform plans, the qualifications that power these programmes are at risk. The new framework feels designed for large institutions, not agile, employer-connected providers. The danger is a two-tier system, one that leaves ITPs fighting to keep their learners engaged, while colleges are expected to stretch to fit everyone else.
If the government genuinely wants to reduce NEET (not in education, employment or training) numbers, then one-size-fits-all cannot be the answer. It never has been.
Talk of “transition” or “foundation” pathways is encouraging, but so far details are sketchy. How will they be funded? Who can deliver them? And will they hold the same value in the eyes of employers and universities?
Without clear answers, providers are left uncertain, and young people are left exposed.
Let’s be honest: quality should be judged by impact, not institution type. The DfE’s data shows that independent training providers play a vital role in supporting strong progression into employment and further learning. So rather than dismantling what works, let’s build on it across the system.
We’re innovators, not outliers
And another thing, ITPs are not just the safety net for the so-called “hardest to reach”. They’re a launchpad for driven, capable young people who crave hands-on, industry-led learning. Many thrive in high-energy, commercial settings where they can showcase talent and connect directly with employers. These are learners who don’t want to sit in classrooms; they want to be in the shop window of the labour market.
That’s why the DfE should see ITPs as innovators, not outliers. Let’s bring awarding organisations such as Gateway Qualifications to the table and co-create V Levels that are project-based, employer-shaped and relevant to the world of work our young people are entering.
We all want a system that’s simpler and stronger. But simplicity can’t come at the expense of inclusion. If we strip out the pathways that work for thousands, we’ll drive up NEET figures, undoing years of progress made by ITPs in attempting to tackle educational disadvantage.
The future of technical education must be built on inclusion, not elimination. Let’s shape reform that celebrates diversity of provision and protects every young person’s right to succeed.
Your thoughts