Purpose, outcome and progression pathways upon completion: Differentiating A levels, T levels and BTECs

AELP Submission: #65

AELP has submitted its views to the DfE in response to the consultation on level 3 qualifications and below.

Our main points are:

• AELP would like to see data on progression used more effectively, and by this, we mean not progression to further learning nor university, but ultimately, to a learner’s job or occupation.
• There must be a strong level 1 and 2 offer which for many learners, is a stepping stone and provides a ladder of opportunity to progress further.
• There is a danger of qualifications with low enrolments being removed with little consideration to specialist niche provision.
• T levels will not be suitable for all young people, nor will they cover every occupational area where other qualifications such as BTECs already sit. It is important that a variety of level 3 options are available to learners so they can select a qualification that best suits their learning needs and aspirations.
• Greater consideration should be given to students who experience multiple forms of disadvantage.

Are standalone qualifications in personal, social and employability skills necessary?

It is important to note that at this sort of level the value of the qualification may not lie externally – it is the value of achieving something to the individual that is important, rather than the importance that the qualification has to an outside observer.

In other words, having a qualification in personal skills may not mean much to a potential employer, but to a SEND learner it may be the first thing they’ve ever achieved at or the first exam they’ve ever passed, so it’s important to them, and may well encourage them to stay engaged and learn further.

Removal of accredited qualification status could lose these benefits.

What additional evidence or data could be used to determine whether current qualifications or types of qualifications, including Applied General qualifications, are delivering successful outcomes?

AELP would like to see data on progression used more effectively, and by this, we mean not progression to further learning nor university, but ultimately, to a learner’s job or occupation.

If, for example, a learner achieves their level 3 at college which allows them to go to university, but the job they end up with is not a graduate job, there is little sense in this approach.

We would urge a rethink and look at if a young person could have got that job at 16 or 18 and actually been better prepared for work through an apprenticeship or a level 3 qualification that has been achieved is actually suitable for stepping into work and ultimately a suitable career.

If it is the latter, then it should be made clear the purpose of the qualification is indeed to help prepare the learner for work – it is not for higher education which burdens young people with over £50,000 worth of debt over the period of the studies- a point made in the recent Post 18 Review by Dr Phillip Augar.

Also, if it is for work, then the curriculum and assessment should reflect that accordingly – every qualification needs a primary purpose (even if there are multiple uses) which is a core principle of good assessment. In addition, some learners may not want/be suitable for further learning progression, therefore each level of qualification must have some currency as a terminal level of qualification in its own right.

How could data about student outcomes be better used to monitor and assess the success of future qualifications?

AELP believes that government should also use progression data focused on the end outcome of a suitable job as a key measure in assessing the future of qualifications.

At level 3, what purposes should qualifications other than T Levels or A Levels serve?

a) for 16 to 19 year olds?

b) for adults?

From the onset, learners need to have it made clear for them what the purpose of varying qualifications are for.

There is a need to differentiate A-levels from a T level and a BTEC that specifies purpose, outcome and progression pathways upon completion, so learners have the ability to decide what qualification type is in their best interests confidently.

Qualifications should provide, stretch and challenge at a level corresponding with the learner. For example, a degree would stretch and challenge a GCSE student, but this does not mean it is the right thing for them to do at that stage of their learning.

T levels which are equivalent to three A-levels are ‘all or nothing at all’ if you don’t pass it. This is clearly not suitable for all learners who will have strengths and weaknesses in various areas of the T level as a fail in one component of the programme leads to overall failure.

We have heard concerns from our members that if BTECs are scrapped, they will face difficulties as they deliver, for example, the level 3 BTEC in Sporting Excellence and there is no T-Level in Sport to replace it.

Whilst we understand there is some need to rationalise the wide breadth of qualifications currently on offer, we are cautious of any attempt by the Department to remove qualifications at level 3 to artificially drive learners onto T-Levels as this would be the only remaining route for them to take – this would be particularly concerning for a number of sectors where there is no T level equivalent and would create a void for young people wanting to enter that vocational sector, causing a future skills gap and shortage and should be avoided at all costs.

How should “overlap” be determined?

a) In relation to overlaps with T Levels

b) In relation to overlaps with A Levels?

AELP urges caution over determining the overlap between current qualifications and T levels as the latter may not be suitable for all occupations.

 In addition, T levels are not suitable in all learner circumstances, and the notion that they are ‘gold standard’ compared to other long-established qualifications should not dismiss anything that is not a T level or equivalent to 3 A-Levels.

For qualifications that do remain, we strongly believe in the need to avoid the danger of inflating the size of all qualifications at level 3 needlessly to equate them to equivalently sized A-Levels and T levels.

A one size fits all approach to qualifications would have the most negative impact on the most disadvantaged learners where flexibility in learning is required to meet different needs and learning styles.

How could post-16 qualification reform and broader study best support more people to achieve at level 3?

This will be dependent on the availability of level 3 qualifications and what will be allowed to remain following the review.

If it’s a given that licenses to practice and specific trade qualifications are safe, other qualifications that do not mandate a license should not simply be removed in the hope that T levels are the only option.

T levels will not be suitable for all young people, nor will they cover every occupational area where other qualifications such as BTECs already sit therefore it is important that a variety of level 3 options are available to learners so they can select a qualification that best suits their learning needs and aspirations.

It is also important to reiterate that T-Levels are primarily focused at young people and what will the impact be on adult learners and community learning if qualifications at level 3 significantly reduced to encourage learners through the T-Level route.

If level 2 qualifications are intended to lead directly to employment, what quality principles should apply?

The consultation document states that the transition offer should focus on those not ready to start a T level at 16 but who could realistically achieve it by age 19.

Given this is a two-year programme, this means that only 16-year-olds can do it, for a maximum of one year.

Therefore, questions remain as to why are we limiting this to just them and how is a transition offer for a 16-year-old likely to differ from one for a 20-year-old if we assume that they are at roughly the same stage of learning at the start and would, therefore, benefit from it?

Many learners failed by the current education system lack both confidence and basic skills, so it would be wrong to assume that a level 2 qualification would be the panacea to them gaining employment as a direct result.

We believe there must be a strong level 1 and 2 offer which for many learners, is a stepping-stone and provides a ladder of opportunity to progress further once they are capable of doing so.

To assume a learner can simply participate in a level 3 programme without any issues is simply inconceivable and a disservice to learners who are not ready to do so.

The notion of level 2 versus level 3 has been an ongoing issue, and if BTEC qualifications are removed, it is imperative that the core of BTEC matches the standard.

Ofsted also needs to be aware of this – how do you prove new learning in a sector at a lower level if they have a BTEC which is not mapped to what employers need.

Our members have provided examples of learners having a level 3 BTEC but providers putting them on the level 2 standard because they are not job ready.

Feedback from our members include:

“I’d agree with the comments that in our sector, we have learners enrolling on L2 standards which have previously completed a L2 or L3 BTEC.

“This is because learners don’t have the skills required. One solution is to look at some coaching apprenticeship standards to be developed (at L2 and L3 as currently, the only standard we have is the L2 Community Activator Coach).

“The L3 Community Sport and Health Officer is very much sport development so it would be good for CIMSPA to support in pushing some of the new apprenticeship standards through to be approved by IFA although I accept CIMSPA are doing this”

What are the key roles that qualifications at level 1 and below need to play?

Given that 40% of young people currently leave school with a grade C/4 or above in English and maths, level 1 qualification are vital building blocks to help learners develop their basic skills to enable them to become more active in the community and become job-ready.

The importance of these qualifications must not be taken for granted in terms of what they mean for the learner.

Qualifications at this level provide a sense of encouragement and engagement for learners who may not have achieved a qualification previously.

The focus must be about the value of the achievement of the qualification to the learner, rather than the value of the holding of a qualification to an external party. Learners may be prone to moving around for a variety of reasons, therefore, it is helpful on their part to have something tangible.

Are there additional principles we should apply to level 1 and below? Please give reasons for your answer, indicating clearly where it refers to the qualifications themselves or broader study.

Soft outcome-based measures should be considered as part of the review of qualifications at level 1 and below. Whilst they may not be beneficial in terms of employment, the impact of achieving what is a first qualification for many at this level should not be disregarded.

The impact it has on a learner’s confidence and willingness to engage further in education should not be discounted as a success measure of these programmes.

Do you agree with the proposed criteria for identifying qualifications with no enrolments, are there specific reasons that these qualifications should remain approved for funding?

We agree with the proposed criteria for identifying qualifications with no enrolments.

Some specialist providers no longer have direct access to funding – e.g. as a result of the previous national AEB procurement where they were pro-rated out through no fault of their own.

There is a still a need for this provision, but hence why there have been no recent starts for the last two years. There will be similar outcomes in regards to the devolution of funding for AEB to consider also.

Do you agree with removing approval for funding from qualifications with low enrolments, are there specific reasons that these qualifications should remain approved for funding?

It remains unclear how ‘low’ is defined with a danger of removing qualifications simply because numbers are ‘low’.

Consideration must be given to the fact qualifications with small numbers might be linked to their specialist niche provision, therefore, any arbitrary approach to defining ‘low’ could have catastrophic unintended consequences.

There is little information about how retaining or potentially not retaining a specific qualification with low enrolments can be fed in.

This could potentially lead to the Department/IfATE to decide to delist something without knowing that there is a very good reason why they shouldn’t given there are no criteria currently in place to determine such an outcome. AELP suggests awarding organisations should bring providers together to gauge delivery and feed into DfE/IfATE to provide a rationale.

Despite having low numbers, the qualifications in question are of significant meaning to the learner. This could potentially be a learner’s first qualification that they achieve, which significantly raises their self-esteem and likelihood of engaging in further learning, therefore, it is important that such limited opportunities are not withdrawn.

Another reason for low numbers on some qualifications could link to the fact that it is specialist niche provision. These programmes are very important to the learner and their experience of gaining a qualification that a blunt and arbitrary approach has the potential to cause catastrophic consequences.

The potential impact and principles and other features outlined in this consultation may have on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with SEND or others with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

We believe greater consideration should be given to students who experience multiple forms of disadvantage. Looking at disadvantage in individual silos is one thing, but consider students who may experience multiple manifestations of disadvantage such as those identifying as BAME, from an area of deprivation and has a disability.

Are standalone qualifications in personal, social and employability skills necessary? Please give reasons for your answer and tell us if there are other changes we should explore to support these skills being delivered in other ways. Please make clear if your answer varies in relation to different student groups, such as adults or those with SEND. It is important to note that at this sort of level the value of the qualification may not lie externally – it is the value of achieving something to the individual that is important, rather than the importance that the qualification has to an outside observer. In other words, having a qualification in personal skills may not mean much to a potential employer, but to a SEND learner it may be the first thing they’ve ever achieved at or the first exam they’ve ever passed, so it’s important to them, and may well encourage them to stay engaged and learn further. Removal of accredited qualification status could lose these benefits. What additional evidence or data could we use to determine whether current qualifications or types of qualifications, including Applied General qualifications, are delivering successful outcomes? AELP would like to see data on progression used more effectively, and by this, we mean not progression to further learning nor university, but ultimately, to a learner’s job or occupation. If, for example, a learner achieves their level 3 at college which allows them to go to university, but the job they end up with is not a graduate job, there is little sense in this approach. We would urge a rethink and look at if a young person could have got that job at 16 or 18 and actually been better prepared for work through an apprenticeship or a level 3 qualification that has been achieved is actually suitable for stepping into work and ultimately a suitable career. If it is the latter, then it should be made clear the purpose of the qualification is indeed to help prepare the learner for work – it is not for higher education which burdens young people with over £50,000 worth of debt over the period of the studies- a point made in the recent Post 18 Review by Dr Phillip Augar. Also, if it is for work, then the curriculum and assessment should reflect that accordingly – every qualification needs a primary purpose (even if there are multiple uses) which is a core principle of good assessment. In addition, some learners may not want/be suitable for further learning progression, therefore each level of qualification must have some currency as a terminal level of qualification in its own right. How could we better use data about student outcomes to monitor and assess the success of future qualifications? AELP believes that government should also use progression data focused on the end outcome of a suitable job as a key measure in assessing the future of qualifications. At level 3, what purposes should qualifications other than T Levels or A Levels serve: a) for 16 to 19 year olds? Please give reasons for your answer. b) for adults? Please give reasons for your answer. From the onset, learners need to have it made clear for them what the purpose of varying qualifications are for. There is a need to differentiate A-levels from a T level and a BTEC that specifies purpose, outcome and progression pathways upon completion, so learners have the ability to decide what qualification type is in their best interests confidently. Qualifications should provide, stretch and challenge at a level corresponding with the learner. For example, a degree would stretch and challenge a GCSE student, but this does not mean it is the right thing for them to do at that stage of their learning. T levels which are equivalent to three A-levels are ‘all or nothing at all’ if you don’t pass it. This is clearly not suitable for all learners who will have strengths and weaknesses in various areas of the T level as a fail in one component of the programme leads to overall failure. AELP response to the Review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below in England We have heard concerns from our memb AELP response to the Review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below in England the core of BTEC matches the standard. Ofsted also needs to be aware of this- how do you prove new learning in a sector at a lower level if they have a BTEC which is not mapped to what employers need. Our members have provided examples of learners having a level 3 BTEC but providers putting them on the level 2 standard because they are not job ready. Feedback from our members include: “I’d agree with the comments that in our sector, we have learners enrolling on L2 standards which have previously completed a L2 or L3 BTEC. This is because learners don’t have the skills required. One solution is to look at some coaching apprenticeship standards to be developed (at L2 and L3 as currently, the only standard we have is the L2 Community Activator Coach). The L3 Community Sport and Health Officer is very much sport development so it would be good for CIMSPA to support in pushing some of the new apprenticeship standards through to be approved by IFA although I accept CIMSPA are doing this” What are the key roles that qualifications at level 1 and below need to play? Given that 40% of young people currently leave school with a grade C/4 or above in English and maths, level 1 qualification are vital building blocks to help learners develop their basic skills to enable them to become more active in the community and become job-ready. The importance of these qualifications must not be taken for granted in terms of what they mean for the learner. Qualifications at this level provide a sense of encouragement and engagement for learners who may not have achieved a qualification previously. The focus must be about the value of the achievement of the qualification to the learner, rather than the value of the holding of a qualification to an external party. Learners may be prone to moving around for a variety of reasons, therefore, it is helpful on their part to have something tangible. Are there additional principles we should apply to level 1 and below? Please give reasons for your answer, indicating clearly where it refers to the qualifications themselves or broader study. Soft outcome-based measures should be considered as part of the review of qualifications at level 1 and below. Whilst they may not be beneficial in terms of employment, the impact of achieving what is a first qualification for many at this level should not be disregarded. The impact it has on a learner’s confidence and willingness to engage further in education should not be discounted as a success measure of these programmes. Do you agree with the proposed criteria for identifying qualifications with no enrolments? Please give reasons for your answer. We agree with the proposed criteria for identifying qualifications with no enrolments. Are there specific reasons that a qualification with no enrolments should remain approved for funding? Please give reasons for your answer. Some specialist providers no longer have direct access to funding – e.g. as a result of the previous national AEB procurement where they were pro-rated out through no fault of their own. There is a still a need for this provision, but hence why there have been no recent starts for the last two years. There will be similar outcomes in regards to the devolution of funding for AEB to consider also. AELP response to the Review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below in England Do you agree we should consider removing approval for funding from qualifications with low enrolments? Please give reasons for your answer. It remains unclear how ‘low’ is defined with a danger of removing qualifications simply because numbers are ‘low’. Consideration must be given to the fact qualifications with small numbers might be linked to their specialist niche provision, therefore, any arbitrary approach to defining ‘low’ could have catastrophic unintended consequences. There is little information about how retaining or potentially not retaining a specific qualification with low enrolments can be fed in. This could potentially lead to the Department/IfATE to decide to delist something without knowing that there is a very good reason why they shouldn’t given there are no criteria currently in place to determine such an outcome. AELP suggests awarding organisations should bring providers together to gauge delivery and feed into DfE/IfATE to provide a rationale. Are there specific reasons that a qualification with low enrolments should remain approved for funding? Please give reasons for your answer. Despite having low numbers, the qualifications in question are of significant meaning to the learner. This could potentially be a learner’s first qualification that they achieve, which significantly raises their self-esteem and likelihood of engaging in further learning, therefore, it is important that such limited opportunities are not withdrawn. Another reason for low numbers on some qualifications could link to the fact that it is specialist niche provision. These programmes are very important to the learner and their experience of gaining a qualification that a blunt and arbitrary approach has the potential to cause catastrophic consequences. Do you have any comments regarding the potential impact and principles and other features outlined in this consultation may have on students from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with SEND or others with a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010? Please give reasons for your answers. We believe greater consideration should be given to students who experience multiple forms of disadvantage. Looking at disadvantage in individual silos is one thing, but consider students who may experience multiple manifestations of disadvantage such as those identifying as BAME, from an area of deprivation and has a disability.