Reviewing the qualifications landscape: insights from employers

Following government announcements to pause and review post-16 qualifications, scrap the Advanced British Standard and establish Skills England, Alison Morris, Head of Policy at the Skills Federation (also known as Federation for Industry Sector Skills & Standards) asks Justine Fosh, CEO of Cogent Skills and Phil Beach, CEO of Energy & Utility Skills how the new government could reform the qualifications landscape to benefit both learners and employers. 

Defunding Applied General Qualifications

Alison Morris:

The Skills Federation’s member organisations represent many hundreds of employers that stretch across a wide variety of sectors. We have welcomed the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s announcement to pause the defunding of applied general qualifications and carry out a review. We know that employers are concerned that defunding qualifications before we have viable alternatives could disrupt students’ progress into work. What do you think are the key issues that need to be addressed?

Justine Fosh:

Our industries are delighted with the new government’s decision to pause the defunding of BTECs. Removing the popular applied science BTEC before sufficient enrolments in T Levels have taken place would be disastrous. Many BTEC learners progress to university, jobs and apprenticeships.

High numbers of students using applied science BTEC advance to university, while others pursue apprenticeships and other pathways. The challenge with T Levels as a replacement is that there are fewer subject options.

We need to integrate T Levels into the skills system before phasing out alternative programmes, including BTECs. Clear progression links between T Levels and apprenticeships are essential to ensure employer assurance and consistency. Regular evaluation of the effectiveness of T Levels and their impact on student’s skills development and employment prospects should inform funding decisions and curriculum design.

Phil Beach:

It is crucial to look at T Levels and other qualifications in the wider context and establish what we need from the skills system and how this is delivered.  For example, we need to consider the practical challenges facing employers. How do we establish college provision for 16-18 year olds who can’t access on-site apprenticeships and work placements for safety reasons? A review of qualifications needs to look at both the needs of employers and the constraints that they face.  

Industry bodies can help create a system where 16-18 year olds study for qualifications that employers need, including pre-apprenticeships.  In turn, this would allow us to shorten apprenticeship durations, increasing both system capacity and productivity.  This presents Skills England with an opportunity to work with industry skills bodies to make an immediate positive impact. 

Justine:

And another key question is: how we help students get a foot on the ladder at level 2?

Phil:

There are lessons we can draw from Robert Halfon’s ‘ladder of opportunity’. We need to make sure that the bottom rung is accessible, or we risk creating barriers to participation. 

Justine: 

I agree – many of the jobs that we will desperately need for the future, particularly in meeting net zero targets, are level 2 jobs .

This is a pivotal time to re-evaluate and create a forward-looking system that looks forward, that is endorsed by employers and facilitated by trusted partners. 

Current qualifications system: employers’ view

Alison:

How fit for purpose is the current post-16 qualifications system from the perspective of employers in your sector?

Justine:

Qualifications play an important role in providing the pipeline of talent for science-based industries. With recognised shortages of STEM learners, and anticipated jobs growth across life sciences, nuclear and ‘green’ chemical production such as hydrogen, we need to open up and diversify this pipeline to increase the number of well-trained and inspired young people.

Phil:

Employers have noted something of a preoccupation in the previous government with academic and technical qualifications to the detriment of vocational pathways. If you speak to employers, for example in construction, they would reflect that a substantial proportion of their learners enter at Level 2 and below. While the focus has been to improve the quality of level 3 and above provision, this has seen the ‘academisation’ of our vocational landscape and a corresponding lack of focus on level 2 vocational courses that serve the needs of so many learners and employers. 

Justine:

In high-hazard industries, competence of new entrants is key. Employees need the knowledge, skills and behaviours to perform their roles safely. Qualifications provide for science industries verification and recognition of competence, which is particularly important when talent crosses borders internationally. 

Phil:

In the energy industry, companies have slightly different requirements for similar roles due to the specific equipment or processes they use. Is it possible to set out a baseline industry requirement that you can then top up to be competent in your workplace? 

To do this, we would need to establish agreed industry standards against which awarding organisations can develop qualifications.  This would secure greater consistency in qualification outcomes and allow employers to provide any remaining company-specific requirements through induction and training.  This approach would have the added benefit of securing greater comparability of outcomes across the UK, recognising that skills is a devolved matter.   

Justine:

The system that Phil outlines reminds me of when competency qualifications were designed by employers, facilitated by sector skills councils, and built into apprenticeship frameworks.  Awarding organisations had free access to these qualifications, ensuring uniformity. What worked well was that there was a core of ‘mandatory’ outcomes recognising the industry ‘must have’s’ whilst providing for a company’s unique competency requirements through additional units or through framework additionality. 

Competency qualifications were based on national occupational standards developed by employers providing a unifying articulation across the four nations. Despite challenges, aspects of this system could inform a future skills system, especially for rapid development and consistency.

Responding to changing technology

Alison:

That’s interesting you mention rapid development. How can we ensure that the process of developing qualifications is adaptable to rapid changes in technology?

Phil:

Employers want more agility and flexibility in the system. In the energy sector 80% of the workforce needed in 2030 are already in the workplace but may lack the right skills. We know that it can take up to six years from identifying a need, to the first graduation of an apprentice from that standard in England. We also know that an apprenticeship must be of at least one year duration. With such timeframes it is very difficult  to ensure curricula can stay ahead of emerging technologies. 

Instead employers are looking for more innovative ways for training, agreeing a standard with industry and their sector regulators, and then delivering those qualifications and industry schemes through quality-assured training providers across the country. There is an opportunity to reconcile these alongside the current system to ensure we can respond more easily to technological advancements.

Justine:

Long-standing qualifications are often outdated. Employers need trust in qualifications, especially in new and emerging markets. As founder members of the Hydrogen Skills Alliance we are working with employers to develop a hydrogen ‘delta’ articulating the new hydrogen-specific skills across a range of occupations that will be needed in the next 10 years. Once industry quality-assured, this will be made available to awarding organisations and providers.   

Qualifications and the labour market

Alison:

Some employers feel current qualifications don’t align with the labour market. What evidence are you seeing to support this?

Phil:

I think this comes down to what employers consider essential for competence in a job.  Functional skills requirements for maths and English is a good current example. To pass an apprenticeship, learners must pass functional skills at the level below their apprenticeship. If the system were truly employer-led, one might argue that employers, not government, should set these requirements.

Justine:

The skills landscape has been seen as a marketplace and providing the sector has scale there are generally qualifications available as it’s cost effective for awarding organisations and providers. However, niche industries, smaller manufacturing sectors and emerging industries, where there is less scale, can lack up-to-date qualifications and specialist and high quality training. Innovation and a more organised approach could bridge that gap.

Phil:

Centralised development with decentralised execution is crucial. In England we have 38 LSIPs as well as a number of combined authorities.  We can’t afford to have 38 conversations about what constitutes a plumbing qualification. This is equally important when we consider that skills is a devolved matter in the UK.  A coordinated system of industry standards against which qualifications, apprenticeships and industry schemes are developed would secure greater consistency, especially for employers operating across the UK.

T Level review

Alison:

Four years on from the introduction of T Levels, how are they viewed by employers?

Phil:

T Levels were introduced in part because of concern about the quality and quantity of vocational and technical qualifications. So it was the right question, and T Levels are part of the answer, but not the whole answer. T Levels have succeeded in bringing more academic rigour to technical qualifications. But this means that T Levels place higher academic demands on learners and we must acknowledge that this means they are not accessible to many 16-18 year olds. 

The proposed introduction of the Advanced British Standard (ABS) continued this focus on academic and academically challenging technical qualifications to the detriment of vocational pathways. We really need to focus on the wider vocational landscape and align qualifications to the competence requirements of employers. In that context, the scrapping of the ABS is welcome news as it provides the bandwidth to address this. 

Justine:

I’d agree with Phil’s point about T Levels not being the whole answer. As well as addressing a perception around quality, part of their raison d’être was to address the chromic shortage of level 3 technicians. However employers, particularly those in science and manufacturing, find it frustrating that there is no recognised path from the T Level to a level 3 apprenticeship, as much of the content overlaps. 

A three month placement in our industries is insufficient to bridge this gap. So instead employers have been told that a T Level student should progress to a higher level apprenticeship. How exactly does that help the employer fill the Level 3 technician gap? Furthermore the amount of support and the potential risk attached to placements for under 18’s in high hazard sites such as nuclear and chemicals makes them extremely impractical. 

Priorities for Government

Alison:

So what should the new Government prioritise?

Justine:

Breaking down barriers to opportunity was one of Labour’s five missions set out in its election manifesto. We need a skills system that provides seamless progression from education to work; with opportunities to study vocationally useful courses at school and then progress into an accelerated apprenticeship that enables young people to develop their skills in the workplace, if appropriate. This shouldn’t be rocket science but it has been made far too complicated, academic and bureaucratic. 

Science-based companies are missing out on great talent and young people are missing out on well-paid jobs because of unworkable placements and a lack of relevant progression.

Phil:

In my view, Skills England represents a great opportunity to take a more holistic view of the skills system, establishing a demand-led approach drawing on existing evidence held by industry skills bodies. My view would be to continue to rollout T Levels but to prioritise reviewing the level 2/ 3 landscape. Fundamentally we want to make sure post 16 and 18 outcomes are fit for purpose and meet the needs of employers.

Justine:

And it’s crucial to recognise that different industries have different skills needs. For too long industrial strategies have treated skills as an afterthought with education policy working against sectoral needs. 

Phil:

This is where the role of sector skills bodies is really helpful. We can provide that broader, deeper view of what industry needs and provide that evidence to Skills England.

Justine:

The reason we are here is to make the skills system work better for employers. We know our industry well and bring together employers from across the sector, so we are the obvious partner. 

Together we can work collaboratively to create a more effective and joined-up system that works for learners and for employers. And that is my lasting wish for the new Government.

By Alison Morris, Head of Policy at the Skills Federation (also known as Federation for Industry Sector Skills & Standards), Justine Fosh, CEO of Cogent Skills and Phil Beach, CEO of Energy & Utility Skills