V Levels Consultation: The Complications of Simplification

The consultation on Post-16 level 3 and below qualification reform closed this week. Working through it – and incorporating the many helpful comments received from LEI members - I couldn’t help being reminded of Tennyson’s poem about the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War in 1854. To misquote:

“Half a V, half a V, half a V onwards, into the valley of death ride the 900.”

The 900 is the constantly repeated refrain that there are “c900 level 3 qualifications available for 16-19-year old learners”, which is the justification for this exercise in simplification. It’s a fundamentally misleading statistic, because although there are 900 approved qualifications, in practice these are mainly varieties of the same thing. A qualification in Basket Weaving offered by 4 different awarding bodies, with part-time and full-time options and a choice of two different levels could be counted as 16 qualifications, but where’s the sense in doing that? In reality there are around 30 A level subjects, around the same number of Applied Generals, 20 T levels and a smattering of sector specialist courses, such as the AAT in Accountancy or the IMI in Motor Vehicle. It’s hard to find any tangible evidence that students or parents find this confusing, as the DfE keep claiming.

V is V levels, which the DfE are proposing should be exactly the same size as A levels, so that students can mix and match them with A levels. Thankfully, the consultation asks the crucial question whether this one size fits all approach is feasible or desirable, because it certainly isn’t. Vocational courses are typically bigger than 360 guided learning hours for two intrinsic reasons: firstly, they are an introduction to a sector containing a variety of occupational pathways; and secondly, they incorporate a significant element of practical skills training, including essential employability skills, which are typically assessed through a variety of practical tasks, written assignments, tests, group work, presentations, displays, and performances. A levels are predominantly taught in classrooms, with little or no practical content, and assessed almost exclusively through formal exams, but this is not a model suited to vocational qualifications.

The idea of mixing and matching A and V levels is all very well in theory, but opens another can of worms. How will we in future explain to students the relative merits of doing an A level in Music or a V level in Music and Music Performance? Between an A level in Business or a V level in Business, Administration and Management? Currently the key distinction between A levels and Applied Generals is the balance between the teaching of theory and the development of practical skills, but a V level designed to be interchangeable in size with an A level risks eroding the practical content.

Furthermore, there is a big practical problem. While a small minority (11%) of young people combine A levels with Applied Generals, most don’t, partly because they are taught and assessed in very different styles, and partly because most schools don’t have the facilities or expertise to deliver vocational learning, while many colleges don’t offer A levels. In most local authority areas it will be almost impossible to mix A levels and V levels, however well designed they are, because of the way our Post-16 system is currently set up.

This is the biggest obstacle to creating a system that pulls down the Iron Curtain between academic and vocational education. But it’s a problem neither the Post-16 White Paper or the Curriculum and Assessment Review addresses. Instead of pouring all our time and energy into constantly reorganising our level 3 qualification system, we should be working on ways to break down the barriers between FE and school sixth forms, which is the main reason why our technical and vocational education system offers poor choices to young people, especially those who are not academically inclined.

This would require a detailed review of the post-16 system in each local authority. In the majority, there will be little or no option for students to mix A levels with Applied Generals, and where it is possible, the choice of subjects will be very restricted. The best will be those lucky enough to have a sixth form college or an FE College which offers a full range of A levels - and T levels - alongside vocational qualifications. Each local authority area should be supported to move towards this structure, and school sixth forms should be required to have a minimum of, say, 400 students to ensure a proper choice of subjects.

Meanwhile, we can only hope the DfE listens to our concerns and opts for a light-touch approach to the introduction of V levels, keeping them as close as possible to the size, shape, style and content of Applied Generals to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming upheaval. With qualification brands such as  City & Guilds and BTEC highly recognised and valued by students, patents and employers, there is a danger that not retaining them will cause more confusion, not less, and that – as is the case with T levels – the public will be understandably reluctant to enrol in untried and untested new qualifications, no matter how well designed they are. What is wrong with labelling them as BTEC or City & Guilds V levels?

Let’s hope the Charge of the Simplification Brigade can be halted before it runs into the cannon fire  of unintended consequences.