UPDATE: 2nd August 2024
Chancellor Rachel Reeves included something in her statement to the Commons on the ‘public spending inheritance’ this week that was drowned out by much of the rest of the bad news on spending. It turns out the ‘Advanced British Standard’ plan of the last government was unfunded and would be cut too. But this decision leaves the door open for T-levels to continue as they are. It is too much to expect sixteen-year-old students to decide to go down the academic or technical route with little chance to reverse that decision before they are age eighteen. It needs a rethink.
Reeves announced that the planned post-sixteen qualification, the ‘Advanced British Standard’, was unfunded and too expensive with,
“That is a commitment costing nearly £200m next year, rising to billions in future years. Mr Speaker, this was supposed to be the Prime Minister’s legacy. But it turns out, he didn’t put aside a single penny to pay for it. So we will not go ahead with that policy. Because if we cannot afford it, we cannot do it.”
What is the ‘Advanced British Standard’?
This was a post-sixteen qualification intended to replace all A-levels and T-levels. TEFS described this as ‘T-level confusion’ in October last year as T-levels were earmarked to be scrapped before they were fully rolled out.
The announcement to scrap A-levels and T-levels in favour of a combined ‘Advanced British Standard’ was made at the Conservative Party Conference last year. But it backfired immediately, simply because it represented an admission of failure of government policies over the previous thirteen years. The policy paper, ‘A world class system: the advanced British Standard’ is very thin on detail at 47 pages. Its evidence basis is very shaky too.
The idea’s origins go back a long way but its incarnation emanates from the Times Education Commission, who published their findings in June 2022 after a year of deliberations by over 600 experts. The Times reported the main recommendation was the introduction of a,
“British Baccalaureate, an equally rigorous but broader qualification than A-levels including both academic and vocational routes or a combination of the two”.
By October of 2022 Rishi Sunak had pledged the introduction of a ‘British Baccalaureate’ among other policy reforms that includes new technical institutions focusing on apprenticeships and T-levels.
The idea of a broader educational offering between 16 and 19 was followed by endorsement of its introduction by a report of an inquiry by the education committee in April of this year in, ‘The future of post-16 qualifications’. It was observed that,
“Whereas many other countries insist on students covering a broad and balanced curriculum up to age 18, England is an international outlier in the narrowness of its upper secondary education. The average number of A levels taken by a student is just 2.67, and T Levels, the new technical qualification, offer an even more narrow and specialised route.”
They considered serious proposals in answer to the question of “A baccalaureate model at post-16?”. But they also warned of “reform fatigue” sweeping across hard pressed colleges and their staff wary of so much fast change.
A review of the ‘mutant’ T-levels is needed.
There is no doubt that a review of post-sixteen education and qualifications is badly needed and has been announced to report by the end of this year. But it must not be a rush job that favours the current ‘mutant’ version of T-levels initiated by the last government. They represent a parallel pathway for students where the pivotal decision is taken at sixteen. The original proposal of T-levels in the ‘Post-16 skills plan’ (pdf) of 2016 sought flexibility and a facility for students to ‘bridge’ between the two pathways. Now there is no bridge between the two because a ‘mutated’ T-level is a single exclusive qualification with no way back. It cannot be mixed with A-levels. In contrast, the reprieved BTEC qualification can be mixed with A-levels and keeps university aspirations open for longer for the most able. The decisions made by the government now could have far reaching consequences for the careers of large numbers of students. The decisions must not be taken lightly.
Original post
With the government announcing a pause in the demise of BTECs at this point, it is important to note that the rollout of the replacement T-levels will continue. There will be a review of post-16 education to be completed quickly by the end of this year; presumably to be in place by the summer of 2025. Both David Sainsbury and Gordon Brown have stepped in with a plea to continue with T-levels. This is based on the findings of Sainsbury in his panel report and the ‘Post-16 skills plan’ of 2016. However, it is worth revisiting this report to compare its findings to the current rollout of T-levels. Circumstances have changed a lot, and this alone adds a huge complication to any new review. In the end, there must be greater flexibility for students baked in.
The ‘Bridge of Sighs’ linking two buildings in Hertford College, Oxford University is a suitable analogy for the need for students to transfer during their studies.
Built in 1914, it was meant to make it easier for students to move between buildings. The myth that it was closed because some students were too heavy and needed more exercise is not true and it has always been open. The analogy will not escape the attention of the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson or Jacqui Smith (aka Baroness Smith of Malvern) now listed simply as the Minister for Skills. Both attended Hertford College as undergraduates and would have used the bridge.
A bridge too far.
The current offering of a single T-level to replace combinations of A-levels and BTECs is a single track with no bridge between the two. The flexibility that students seek after sixteen will disappear if they continue as they are. It’s too much to expect a sixteen-year-old to choose between an academic or technical career at that age. It’s also nonsense to think that STEM subjects cannot be both academic and technical. The proof of the pudding is always in the eating (i.e. the curriculum). But then, that was not the original intention. The false premise from the start was that there is exclusively an academic or technical route. But back in 2016 crossover was accepted.
TEFS has criticised the current rollout of T-levels as a form of ‘social engineering’ and questioned what the planned ‘endpoint’ might be. T-levels are already unpopular and beset with problems. TEFS has described them as the ‘Troubled-levels’.
Where did T-levels come from?
T-levels first surfaced as an idea in a report in 2016 for the then Conservative government. The ‘Post-16 skills plan’ (pdf) was the outcome of a four-person panel that was led by David Sainsbury (aka Baron Sainsbury of Turville) (see footnote). They managed to plan an overhaul of the system from November 2015 to July 2016. Despite their experience, this was a small group working over a short nine-month period to make a major pivotal change in education lying at the core of the UK’s economic success. It should have come with an economic ‘health warning’ and impact assessment.
The current review is planned to take place from now to December in less than five months. This might want an even bigger ‘health and safety warning’. We cannot afford to make mistakes.
The idea of a ‘bridge’.
This was built into the Sainsbury Plan as a sensible mechanism for flexibility and choice. This is amply explained in Figure 1 taken from the report. It was acknowledged that a mechanism to transfer between the academic route and a technical route was essential.
They were acutely aware of the dangers with,
“We recommend the Government incentivises the development of short, flexible bridging provision to enable individuals to move, in either direction, between the academic and technical education options and to support adults returning to study”.
This must be built onto any new plan involving T-levels (or whatever they might be called). There must be more flexibility and not a single pathway. A combination of subjects in a defined pathway would be better placed to offer flexibility. Otherwise, we are better with a combination of BTECs that are instead reviewed and improved.
Intelligent plumbers.
The background of the architect of the T-level system was likely to be a key factor in its development. David Sainsbury had a highly advantaged upbringing that led to education at Eton and a Cambridge History and Philosophy degree. He is one of the educated elites. His panel were experienced but it was small with only the chair and four members (see footnote). Unfortunately, they might have fallen into the ‘intelligent plumbers’ trap in which the ‘educated elite’ are often caught, as noted by TEFS in ‘Higher Education and the ‘intelligent plumbers’ theory’ in 2020. This attitude promotes a stark societal divide that Sainsbury and his panel were aware of but were trying to avoid back in 2016.
Instead, the current offering does not do that. However, the current BTECs do offer the intended flexibility and pausing their demise for now is a wise move.
Mutant T-levels.
The last government seized on the opportunity to develop an exclusive binary system from age sixteen. The choice would be either A-levels or T-levels. Both were intended as equivalent qualifications and both have been assigned UCAS tariff points. There the similarity ends. They are very different. The pre-existing A-levels and technical BTECs can be taken in different combinations. But offering instead a single T-level is a trap for many students who realise too late they have made the wrong decision. Most of these will be from less advantaged backgrounds. With no bridging options, they can only watch the other side of the divide with envy.
The verdict.
In July 2023, OFSTED concluded that T-levels were failing to deliver. A third of students had dropped out and more problems were expected. Some universities are accepting some T-level courses for entry. However, the nature of the T-level curriculum makes this very patchy. The result is many students are already disappointed and are dropping out. The simple fact is T-levels were not intended as a route to university and this shows through in practice and their popularity. Any student seeking flexibility will opt for BTECs.
“Students who complete T-level courses generally move on to employment, apprenticeships or higher-level study, including degree courses. In some cases, students who wanted to go to university are surprised and disappointed that T-level qualifications are not always accepted as a valid entry qualification”.
Where now?
The government is giving itself, and a hastily convened review panel, a very short time to deliver a new plan. Back in 2016, the plan relied on a review of the job market and its needs see ‘Technical_Education_Reform – case for change’ and the 2016 report.
The job market context has changed in 2024 to a huge extent. There is a clear danger that a new plan will lean too heavily on the employment context of 2016. This must be avoided at all costs.
Added after first posting.
Earlier today Bridget Phillipson released a further statement on ‘Technical Qualifications Reform update’. It adds more on her intended direction in response to mounting criticism.
The review is to be chaired by academic educationalist Professor Professor Becky Francis who is currently the Chief Executive of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). However, it is clear that T-levels will be expected to dominate the landscape in 2025.
“We will undertake a focused review of the post-16 qualification reforms at level 3 and below to assess how best to improve the quality of the overall qualifications landscape, support the growth of T Levels, and ensure that all young people and adults have high-quality options that meet their needs”.
The hope is that the the panel conducting the review have enough STEM and technical expertise to explore the implications and build a bridge between the academic and technical shibboleths that have dominated thinking for too long.
The author, Mike Larkin, retired from Queen’s University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics. He remains optimistic and loves mixed metaphors.
FOOTNOTE:
The Independent Panel on Technical Education was established by the Minister for Skills, on behalf of the Secretaries of State for Education and for Business, Innovation and Skills, in November 2015. It was tasked with advising ministers on actions to improve the quality of technical education in England and, in particular, to simplify the currently over-complex system and ensure the new system provides the skills most needed for the 21st century.
The Panel was chaired by David Sainsbury and its members were:
• Simon Blagden (Non-executive Chairman, Fujitsu UK)
• Bev Robinson (Principal & Chief Executive, Blackpool and The Fylde College)
• Steven West (Vice-Chancellor & President, University of the West of England, Bristol)
• Alison Wolf (Sir Roy Griffiths Professor of Public Sector Management, King’s College London)