It is exciting to see the curriculum and assessment review (CAR) recommendations for the introduction of V Levels become government policy.
This marks a genuine opportunity to simplify and clarify the post-16 qualification landscape. At present, young people, parents and employers must navigate a complex mix of qualifications, differing in size, grading approach and recognition.
For too long, questions have persisted about the coherence, quality and status of vocational qualifications. While A Levels are well established as a respected academic route, the large and varied range of vocational and technical qualifications has lacked consistency and clarity. CAR’s findings confirmed long-standing concerns about applied general qualifications (AGQs) and the resulting confusion among learners, parents, employers and stakeholders.
Previous reform attempts, from the 14–19 diplomas to proposals to withdraw AGQs, have faltered through issues such as flawed design or political change. Too often, these efforts have failed to recognise that many 16-year-olds are still exploring their direction and should not be forced into rigid pathways too early.
We heard clearly that the previous two-pillar model of A Levels and T Levels was not sustainable and would not meet the needs of all young people or UK PLC.
T Levels are proving valuable as rigorous, occupation-specific qualifications. For example, the T Level in education & early Years is working well. But CAR identified areas for improvement, particularly in the size, duration and complexity of assessment, which are intensified by some pathways having a May completion deadline.
Even with improvements, A Levels and T Levels cannot meet the needs of every learner. Some students want to explore a sector rather than a specific job. Others prefer applied learning or mixed study programmes.
The vision for V Levels
CAR concluded that applied and vocational qualifications require greater coherence and purpose. We therefore support simplifying the current range of qualification types and sizes, while maintaining the flexibility needed to serve diverse learners and employers. Although excessive diversity has caused confusion, it often evolved for good reasons, including the need to engage young people at risk of becoming NEET. Any reform must protect that inclusive intent.
We support the government’s view that most V Levels should be small qualifications, giving students flexibility to combine them in a suite of vocational awards or with A Levels. This approach also supports continued study of maths or English, where needed. However for some disciplines, such as art and sport, larger qualifications will remain essential. Subject experts in these areas need to have the ability to sequence learning around skill development and creative progression.
Some routes to higher education or employment benefit from larger qualifications that offer a holistic approach. For example in social care, broad qualifications reduce unnecessary repetition of common topics such as health and safety. For vulnerable learners, the stability of a substantial qualification can also aid engagement and retention.
Larger qualifications enable teachers to plan and integrate learning effectively, promoting deeper understanding and better progression. By contrast, managing multiple smaller qualifications can increase bureaucracy without improving outcomes.
While it may be tempting to make all large qualifications T Levels, doing so risks undermining the distinct identity and purpose of T Levels as occupation-specific routes. V Levels and T Levels must be differentiated by purpose, not just size.
Moving forward
Drawing on lessons from past reforms, we hope the government’s consultation on V Levels will:
1. Maintain the three-pillar vision (A Levels, T Levels and V Levels) outlined in the post-16 white paper.
2. Ensure that practical effectiveness, not administrative neatness, drives design and implementation.
3. Keep learners’ experiences and progression at the centre, alongside the needs of providers, employers and Skills England.
4. Undertake robust impact modelling to ensure reforms enhance, rather than restrict, the life chances of the largely working-class cohort currently studying AGQs.
The white paper shows strong alignment between CAR’s recommendations and the Department for Education (DfE)’s strategy. It now falls to the sector to pick up the baton, to work collaboratively and proactively with the great team at DfE to deliver on this shared vision.
If we do this, we can avoid the missteps of the past and create an ambitious, clear and impactful post-16 tapestry fit for the future.
It’s interesting that ‘could’ is in the title of this article from members of the CAR team. Implies that success very dependent on implementation. The impact modelling will be incredibly important if the offer is to improve on what we have now, rather than to be regressive.