‘Too much content’ concerns raised in early Ofsted T Level study

Ofsted reports a good start to T Levels but areas for improvement among placements and curriculum

Ofsted reports a good start to T Levels but areas for improvement among placements and curriculum

24 Oct 2022, 16:51

More from this author

A delayed Ofsted study into the implementation and quality of T Levels has found concerns that there is too much content and a need for improved planning.

But report authors say the rollout has been “a good start” and that no issues were insurmountable.

The education watchdog on Monday published an interim report into the launch of the government’s flagship new technical equivalents to A-levels in 2020 and 2021, and the T Level transition programmes.

The study, which was delayed by a year during Covid-19 and will be followed with another in 2023, sampled 24 providers (including 10 running the transition programme) to evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum, how well industry placements were being implemented, and how well they were meeting the needs of learners.

Paul Joyce, deputy director for further education and skills at Ofsted told FE Week: “The providers we have visited and the DfE have been very committed to making the T level rollout a success, and we have undoubtedly seen that through our visits.

“[There are] Inevitably some problems with new courses, and I don’t think anyone would have planned to roll out new provision in a pandemic. There are lots of positives to take from it but some learning and areas for improvement to make things even better.”

Ofsted’s recommendations have called on providers to reduce delays to industry placements, offer summer schools and projects to provide guidance to learners before they start their T Level, ensure coherent curriculum planning, and collaborate with employers.

It says employers must ensure their placements give relevant experience to the students’ T Level course, while the Department for Education has been tasked with evaluating the transition programme’s effectiveness and ensuring universities accept T Levels for all relevant courses.

Here are some of the key findings from the report.

Too much content

Teachers and course leaders have reported concerns that there was “too much content to cover in class”, and in some cases meant providers struggled to offer wider personal development or curriculum sessions on areas like money management or mental health.

Some also reported that there was “insufficient time” for re-sits for GCSE maths or English, which are not a requirement of the T Level but offered by some providers to help fill gaps in knowledge, while others voiced uncertainty about breadth and depth of content that should be taught.

Similarly for students, Ofsted found that not all learners were prepared for the amount of work they had to do.

The DfE said the programmes were rightly rigorous.

Delays to industry placements

T Levels include a mandatory 45-day industry placement, which Ofsted described as “broad, high-quality and appropriate experiences”, but many had faced delays as a result of Covid-19.

Providers “struggled to attract enough high-quality employers”, while staff shortages and home working meant employers were often unable to host a student.

Concerningly, in health and science placements learners had to be 18 or over in some health settings and double-vaccinated against Covid-19. They also required Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, preventing placement starts. Both limited opportunities for younger students on health-related courses, the report said.

Ofsted said it found some employers did not routinely give learners the opportunity to put theory into practice. In a small number of cases, learners were given only basic tasks, Ofsted reported, while some placements, it said, lacked structure.

Joyce said: “We are very aware of the amount of time and of course as numbers grow, finding those placements for providers and learners may become problematic, we will have to see there. But by and large, for the relatively small number that were on courses during our initial work, they were Covid-related issues and sectors like digital, construction, health, that is probably not surprising.

Collaborative curriculum planning

Ofsted said providers linking topics and utilising practical case studies were among examples of good practice in curriculum planning.

But unrealistic learning environments, and an “underdeveloped” curriculum were reported in a small number of providers. Some providers just used the list of topics as a curriculum, it said.

The report added: “Many leaders talked about adapting and improving their curriculum planning after the first year,” noting that the best curriculum planning happened in collaboration with employers.

Teacher recruitment concerns

Some teachers were well prepared to begin teaching T Levels, the report said – particularly where there were strong links between providers and employers.

But some said they did not have enough training, and many who took part in the Education and Training Foundation’s T Level professional development programme “did not feel it prepared them”, the document said.

Some providers reported difficulties in recruiting industry specialist teachers, most notably in construction.

Questions over the transition programme

The report found that teaching on the T Level transition programme – a year-long course carried out between finishing school in Year 11 and going onto a T Level aimed at those who did not have all the skills required for the T Level – was generally of a high standard.

But Ofsted chiefs found it was “clear that many learners would not necessarily progress to a T Level course”.

A lack of careers advice and guidance was cited as one reason, while others didn’t achieve the grades needed to progress onto the T Level.

In addition, some providers offered transition programmes in subjects not yet offered as a T Level course, such as sport, and work experience placements were “not always of a high quality”.

Ofsted has confirmed it will revisit the same providers next year now that there is a benchmark.

Joyce added: “I don’t think there is anything there that we have identified that is insurmountable for any provider. I think this is about tweaks in guidance, in support, in IAG [information, advice and guidance], and in delivery practise.”

Delays in resources

Ofsted reported that “across all T Levels, providers were dissatisfied that some resources from awarding bodies were initially not available”.

That included textbooks, practise exam papers and teaching materials, and frustrations were voiced by teachers in trying to get timely answers and clarity from awarding bodies to their questions.

A DfE spokesperson said it welcomed the findings. “We commissioned this review to gather evidence about the quality of T Levels to ensure the ambitious standards we have set are being met,” the spokesperson said.

“The findings offer valuable insights that will help us to shape policy and tailor our support programmes in the future to make sure all T Level students have the support they need to be successful.”

Latest education roles from

A Level Biology Teacher

A Level Biology Teacher

Barnsley College

Electrical Installation Trainer

Electrical Installation Trainer

Barnsley College

Sessional Science Lab Technician

Sessional Science Lab Technician

Merton College

Sessional Lecturer – Plumbing

Sessional Lecturer – Plumbing

South Thames College

Lecturer – Business (x 1 Banking Specialism & x 1 Accounting/Business Finance Specialism)

Lecturer – Business (x 1 Banking Specialism & x 1 Accounting/Business Finance Specialism)

Kingston College

Apprentice Development Leader

Apprentice Development Leader

GP Strategies

Sponsored posts

Sponsored post

Why we’re backing our UK skills ‘Olympians’ (and why you should too)

This August, teams from over 200 nations will gather to compete in the sticky heat of the Paris summer...

Advertorial
Sponsored post

Is your organisation prepared for a major incident?

We live in an unpredictable world where an unforeseen incident or environmental event could disrupt a Further Education (FE)...

Advertorial
Sponsored post

A new chapter in education protection!

Gallagher is a specialist in the Further Education sector, working with over 75% of Further Education colleges in the...

Advertorial
Sponsored post

Pearson is planting the seed for sustainability talent with new HTQ

Sustainability is rapidly becoming a key organisational goal for many businesses looking to make a difference in society, the...

Advertorial

More from this theme

Colleges, Ofsted

Second ‘outstanding’ for Cheshire college

Inspectors said teachers and leaders were “passionate” about providing life-changing opportunities for young people and adults

Josh Mellor
Ofsted, SEND

Specialist arts college strikes the right chord with Ofsted ‘outstanding’

Inspectors said the college empowers young adults with special needs to progress into the world of work

Josh Mellor
Ofsted

Big Listen: Ofsted must enforce ‘humane accountability’, say leaders

The way Ofsted delivers its judgements remains a key concern for the sector

Josh Mellor
Apprenticeships, Ofsted

‘Outstanding’ for Dyson’s axed degree apprenticeships

Dyson says it would prefer to pay £250,000 per student to avoid the "burden" of degree apprenticeship paperwork

Josh Mellor

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 Comments

  1. Dan Jones

    So, there’s absolutely nothing in the Ofsted findings that the sector hasn’t been telling the DfE from the outset.

    Endless questions asked of providers, monitoring points and pulse surveys all for what – reactions from civil servants and upwards to the revolving door of ministers. Because when providers offer suggested improvements it’s seen as opposition and entrenched support the status quo.

    Wait until Ofsted start to inspect T levels properly and I guarantee you the same issues outlined here, like placements not being challenging or of sufficient quality, will find their way into the majority of inspection reports.

    • It is very sad. The same mistakes that were made with the ‘specialist/new diplomas’ are being repeated. Not listening to the experienced staff in the sector areas who warned of these problems. How this qualification type is supposed to expand to the level of enrolments envisaged by its proponents is anyone’s guess. Where are all these placements supposed to come from?

    • Phil Hatton

      Quality placements in sufficient numbers were always going to be the number one problem for every provider. Yes, once Ofsted gauge the problem during inspections it should be a weakness with a major impact on the Quality of Education. An even bigger problem is the small number of hours that constitutes a full-time course these days. Almost impossible, even with superb staff to deliver the content required, let alone all the extras demanded by Ofsted to satisfy the EIF – much of which should have been delivered in the secondary education delivered by schools. With the financial situation that the country faces right now the money tree is empty that could help sort the problems. I just hope that assessments are not watered down to inflate achievement and that Ofsted are not politically swayed to be soft where learners are not being given what was promised. If I were a parent with a 16-year-old wanting to learn a vocational area I would be steering them towards an apprenticeship until delivery times increase and placements are appropriate for every learner. If you are a governor you need to start challenging on the quality of T levels, before Ofsted tell you. It should be an agenda item for every meeting.