The future of post-16 qualifications

In 2021, 62% of young people in England had gained a level 3 qualification by age 19, the highest proportion on record. However, with almost 40% of young people not qualified to this level, the nation’s ability to tackle skills shortages and address productivity challenges is impeded.

The Department must set an ambitious target for at least three-quarters of young people to be qualified to level 3 by 2030. Within this target there should be a concentrated effort to ensure that skills for the future economy and the skillsets required to meet the net zero and nature gain challenges are prioritised. (Paragraph 24) T Levels

We strongly welcome the aspiration for T Levels to be a rigorous and ambitious new qualification which will level up our technical education system. T Levels have been developed alongside 250 employers and offer a prestigious, high-quality route for students to gain the skills needed by employers and the economy.

The Department’s narrative around T Levels has shifted from early emphasis on skilled employment as the qualification’s primary outcome. We have heard that this has added complexity for stakeholders. However, we fully support the Department’s decision to award T Levels UCAS points, which will enable students to keep their progression options open.

There remains some uncertainty around progression options for T Level students. For example, we heard that T Level students are unlikely to have acquired the occupational competency and experience needed to begin a level 4 apprenticeship. While Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs) will offer an important progression route for T Level students, their development has lagged behind T Levels, and will not be fully rolled out until 2025. It is encouraging that 134 higher education providers have indicated T Levels will be suitable for entry onto a minimum of one course. However, T Level students may find they are eligible for a very limited range of higher education courses due to the specialised nature of their qualification. This may not be obvious to the student until it is too late.

We have heard that some universities are requiring an A level alongside a T Level for entry onto degree programmes. Department guidance on whether an A level can feasibly be studied alongside a T Level appears inconsistent, and the Department must clearly set out its position on this. The Department must work with universities to ensure they fully appreciate the value of, and commitment required by T Levels and do not therefore specify unreasonable entry requirements such as specific A levels on top of a T level course.

The Department must work with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to clearly map and publish progression opportunities for T Level students. 48 The future of post-16 qualifications This will help reduce uncertainty among students, parents and employers, and will demonstrate how T Levels can provide a springboard to further study, training and work.

The Department must work with the sector to align T Levels with level 4 apprenticeships, for example, developing a bridging course that enables T Level learners to move onto a level 4 apprenticeship.

The Department must set out how it will incentivise progression from T Levels onto Higher Technical Qualifications, particularly given the key strategic role qualifications at level 4 and 5 play in meeting the nation’s skills needs.

The Department must publish data on the education, apprenticeship, and employment destinations for the first cohort of T Level students at the earliest opportunity. While Department destination measures are usually published two years following the completion of 16–18 study, we recommend the Department fast-track this data, providing an interim picture ahead of the expected official publication in 2024.

T Levels are a rigorous qualification, and this is key to ensuring they equip students with the gold-standard technical skills required by employers and the economy. Nonetheless, we do not think that there is yet the right balance of rigour and accessibility. Early evidence indicates that schools and colleges are setting high entry requirements for T Levels, and we heard that as a result, T Levels could be restricted to a small pool of academically gifted students, who have a specific employment goal in mind by age 16. This is a concern, particularly for a programme that has, rightly, attracted over £1 billion of public funding.

T Levels offer no pathway to a lower level of qualification for students who might otherwise drop out completely. This makes it a high-risk option for students, particularly in comparison to existing post-16 options such as A levels or Applied General Qualifications, where a learner can drop a subject, or move to a smaller programme, and still gain an accredited, internationally recognised qualification.

The Department must consider the case for micro-accreditation for T Level learners who for whatever reason do not complete their full programme of study. Allowing some form of credentialling for partially completed T Levels would encourage more learners to take them up and allow those who do drop out to gain recognised value from their experience.

Too many learners on the T Level Transition Programme do not progress on to a T Level. The reasons for this are unclear. Only 14% of the first Transition Programme cohort actually progressed to a T Level, and just under half (49%) were able to progress to a level 3 qualification. This is an entirely inadequate rate for a programme whose purpose is to provide a high-quality preparatory route into T Levels. This raises questions as to whether the Transition Programme is fit for purpose, and whether suitable students, who could realistically meet the demands of the full T Level, are being placed on it. (Paragraph 63) The future of post-16 qualifications 49

The Department must work with providers to review the Transition Programme to determine why so few learners progress onto the full T Level. We would expect an effectively functioning Transition Programme to support at least half of learners to progress to the full T Level, with virtually all Transition Programme learners able to move onto a level 3 qualification by the end of the year.

The Department must publish annual statistics on the conversion rate from the Transition Programme onto the full T Level, providing a breakdown of what level of study learners move onto, and whether any drop out of education altogether.

The Department must publish data on the Transition Programme and T Level drop- out rate, broken down by key student characteristics. This should track whether students who took the Transition Programme have increased likelihood of dropping out of the T Level.

Although the Department has invested in communications and marketing to promote T Levels, we heard that its efforts fall short of what is needed to effectively raise local and national awareness of T Levels among employers, students and parents. Indeed, the Chief Executive of NCFE told us that “the odd lapel badge aside, there has been very little done in terms of sector-specific, employer-backed campaigns that will raise its profile.”

Recognition of T Levels remains low. If unaddressed, this will impede the success of T Levels. A 2021 Department survey showed that just under a quarter (24%) of employers were aware of T Levels. Other research indicates that 63% of young people had not heard of T Levels. Within this, there was significant and concerning regional variation—49% of young people in London had heard of T Levels, compared to 29% of young people in Yorkshire and the Humber. This is a potential risk to the levelling up agenda.

The Department must improve recognition of T Levels among students, parents and employers through a T Level awareness campaign that raises the profile of the new qualification at both a national and local level.

The Department must monitor the success of its T Level marketing and communications strategy through the publication of annual statistics—at both national and regional level—on T Level awareness among young people and employers.

The Department must work with small and medium-sized businesses as well as with the network of careers hubs supported by the Careers and Enterprise Company to promote T Levels to a wider audience.

Regional variation in economic activity remains a significant obstacle to the success of T Levels. Evidence to our inquiry described T Levels as “a city-centric initiative”, and “the ‘urban qualification’ “. There is a risk that young people living in or near more affluent urban areas with access to a range of different sectors and industries will be the main beneficiaries of T Levels, while those from rural, coastal and disadvantaged areas will be left behind. If unaddressed, the lack of equitable access to placements will undermine the Government’s levelling up ambitions, and hinder its ability to tackle regional and national skills shortages. (Paragraph 85) 50 The future of post-16 qualifications

The Department has not published its own forecast of the number of industry placements that might be required once T Levels are fully rolled out. A clear acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge is needed, particularly as we have heard that the numbers of T Level placements required could reach 250,000, with up to 43,500 placements needed in the engineering and manufacturing sector alone by 2025. The sheer scale of this undertaking poses a threat to the success of T Levels, which rests on the availability of sufficient high-quality placements.

The Department must publish forecasts on potential industry placement demands and shortfalls as soon as possible, at both national and regional level.

Scaling up T Level placements could have inadvertent negative consequences for other parts of the skills agenda by reducing employers’ willingness to continue with existing programmes such as apprenticeships, and supported internships which also require placements. The Department must convene an employer-led industry placement taskforce, with particular emphasis on incorporating the views of small and medium- sized enterprises and careers hubs, to draw up a strategic plan for tackling this issue.

We welcome the Department’s introduction of a hybrid model for T Level placements in certain subjects. This could help reduce the travel burden for students, and widen access to placements. It also reflects the preferences of some employers who called for greater placement flexibility to match the increased uptake of hybrid working patterns. However, the Department must take great care to ensure that this reform does not dilute the workplace component of T Levels, or detract from the overall student experience.

The evidence we have so far from the roll out of T Levels reveals major concerns that must be addressed as the programme moves forward. Around one-fifth of the first T Level cohort are estimated to have dropped out. Concerns have been raised that T Levels are less accessible and less manageable for some groups, including lower attaining students, ethnic minority students and students with SEND. On top of this, despite T Levels being developed with the input of 250 leading employers, the DfE’s own research shows that almost two-thirds of employers are not yet interested in providing a T Level replacement, and that where interest exists it appears to have declined. There are also many areas of the country where there are not yet enough employers near to colleges in regional, rural and left behind areas to accommodate learners on T Level placements. The Department must address these concerns as a matter of urgency to ensure the success of the programme.

The Department must closely monitor how learner satisfaction, attainment and progression for those undertaking hybrid T Level placements compares with those undertaking fully in-person placements. Evaluations on this should be published annually.

Up until July 2022, employers could claim £1,000 for every T Level industry placement. The Department must reinstate this incentive for small and medium enterprises, and microbusinesses, in order to facilitate their participation with T Levels. (Paragraph 104) The future of post-16 qualifications 51 Applied General Qualifications

We welcome the Department’s ambition to simplify and declutter the post-16 landscape by tackling the 5,000 plus qualifications at level 3 and below with low or no enrolments. This will create a system that is clearer and easier to navigate, giving learners and employers confidence that qualifications are rigorous and high-quality. Nonetheless, the speed and scope of the Department’s reforms risks inadvertently narrowing opportunities for young people to progress and succeed.

We are disappointed that the Department’s equalities impact assessment identifies that students with special educational needs and disabilities, Asian ethnic groups, students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and males are disproportionately likely to be affected by the Department’s qualification reforms. The Department’s ‘expectation’ that its reforms will be “generally positive” for these groups is an insubstantial premise on which to defund a significant number of tried and tested Applied General Qualifications. It does not offer the evidence-based assurance that we would expect for a reform of this magnitude.

The Department’s equalities impact assessment identifies that some students with protected characteristics may be disadvantaged by the reforms as they may no longer be able to progress to a level 3 qualification. We heard that this could result in a rise in 16–18 year olds who are NEET (not in education, employment, or training). While the Department outlines it expects this number to be “relatively small”, it remains unclear how many students might be affected.

T Levels are a rigorous technical qualification which will offer the ideal pathway for many students, but they will not be the right choice for all learners. Applied General Qualifications serve a distinct and different purpose to T Levels, and play an important role in promoting social mobility by widening access to, and participation in, higher education and skilled employment.

We have been told that demand for T level placements could reach up to 250,000 placements. The Department’s own research has concerningly identified that fewer employers were interested in providing T Level placements in 2021 than in 2019 (30% vs. 36%). And almost two-thirds (63%) of employers were currently not interested in offering T Level placements. This puts students at risk of having neither a T Level option, nor an Applied General option, which is a threat to the pipeline of skills needed by employers and the economy.

The ability of businesses to offer sufficient, high-quality industry placements, and a clear track record of T Level success as well as evidenced improvement in equalities outcomes, should be prerequisites to scrapping further Applied General Qualifications on the basis of ‘overlap’.

The Department must place a moratorium on defunding Applied General Qualifications. Tried and tested Applied General Qualifications should only be withdrawn as and when there is a robust evidence base proving that T Levels are demonstrably more effective in preparing students for progression, meeting industry needs and promoting social mobility. (Paragraph 141) 52 The future of post-16 qualifications Post-16 apprenticeships

The 19% increase in apprenticeship starts among under-19s between 2020/21 and 2021/22 is a positive step forward. However, all too often older, more highly qualified workers are being prioritised for apprenticeships at the expense of young people trying to get their foot on the first rung of the careers ladder. For apprenticeships to play their full part in the ladder of opportunity, they need to reach both groups.

The Department must set out how it will address the long-term decline in apprenticeship starts among young people, and ensure apprenticeships are the gold-standard ‘earn and learn’ option for school and college leavers. The Department must commission an independent review to examine possible mechanisms to achieve this, for example, considering ways in which levy reform could effectively incentivise an increase in apprenticeship starts among younger and lower-skilled learners.

Subject to positive evaluation, the Department must expand the flexi-job apprenticeship scheme with an ambition to support 5,000 apprentices on the scheme by 2025. The Department must maintain a particular focus on supporting small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs) to share apprentices. This will help ease pressure on SMEs by removing the requirement for a full 12-month training commitment. The Department must continue to work closely with trade unions, employers and other stakeholders to ensure fair pay and just terms and conditions for apprenticeships. (Paragraph 157) A baccalaureate model at post-16?

The IB Careers Programme (IBCP) is a broad and flexible post-16 qualification, enabling students to acquire a valuable blend of academic, vocational and employability skills. The IBCP prepares students effectively for a range of progression opportunities. A destinations survey for the 2019 IBCP cohort showed that 56% of students had progressed to higher education, 19% to employment and 11% to an apprenticeship. The IBCP has been particularly successful in Kent, where it has been adopted by 24 schools to support local aspirations of economic regeneration and employability. Despite these successes, the Department does not plan to continue funding the IBCP.

The Department must revisit its decision to withdraw funding for the IB Careers Programme. It should continue to fund this rigorous and accessible qualification, or provide evidence that any replacement will generate improved outcomes.

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.

A baccalaureate model offers a broad and ambitious curriculum, enabling students to develop skills and knowledge across a wide range of disciplines. It also places important emphasis on holistic, extracurricular learning. Whilst there is little appetite for a major system change in this space, there needs to be proper research into the benefits The future of post-16 qualifications 53 of a broader approach. The Department must establish an independent expert panel, reflecting a wide range of educational perspectives, to conduct a full and considered review into the possibility of adopting a baccalaureate model in England. To prevent a further narrowing of 16–19 education, the Committee urges the Government to undertake a wholesale review of 16–19 funding, including offering more targeted support for disadvantaged students.

There is a strong case for improving young people’s mathematical and problem- solving skills. The Government’s proposal to introduce compulsory maths up to 18 is a welcome and ambitious pledge. England is an international outlier in not requiring the study of maths up to 18. There is rising demand from employers for mathematical and quantitative skills at all levels of the labour market, but consistent undersupply of these skills. Society and jobs are likely to become ever more data- driven, meaning that those with poor mathematical skills are at risk of being left behind.

Young people should be leaving compulsory education equipped with a portfolio of key mathematical skills such as numeracy, data analysis, financial literacy and statistical reasoning that they will need for the modern world.

An A level maths qualification will evidently not be appropriate for all students. A level 3 core maths qualification provides applied, real-world maths skills, including financial skills, and we believe that more students should have the opportunity to study this qualification. The Government should consider a qualification or accreditation in numeracy for those who currently miss out on level 4 grades as an alternative to repeated retakes of GCSE Mathematics.

As part of the introduction of compulsory maths up to 18, the Department must convene an independent expert advisory panel to undertake an evidence-based assessment of any changes required to ensure curricula for post-16 maths delivers the practical and applied mathematical skills needed by students, employers and the economy. This needs to take into account a realistic assessment of the proportion of students who might struggle to achieve a grade 4 in GCSE mathematics, and a route for them to continue appropriate studies.

There are a number of challenges to be addressed prior to the delivery of this important reform. These include tackling recruitment and retention of specialist maths teachers, and building a stronger foundation of numeracy and mathematical skills and knowledge at GCSE and below. Addressing these issues is a pre-requisite to ensuring the success of compulsory maths up to 18, and the Department must work with the sector to clearly set out how it plans to do so.

Consideration should be given to how focused qualifications in practical numeracy and financial skills could be used to broaden the reach of this initiative and ensure that a wide variety of students can benefit from further study of mathematical skills in context. (Paragraph 191) 54 The future of post-16 qualifications