Walking on broken glass
Picking up the pieces of 16-19 qualification policy
You were the sweetest thing that I ever knew
But I don't care for sugar honey if I can't have you
Since you've abandoned me
My whole life has crashed
Won't you pick the pieces up
'Cause it feels just like I'm walking on broken glass
In October 2023, Rishi Sunak shocked the qualification nation by announcing that A Levels and T Levels would be replaced with a new ‘Advanced British Standard’ (ABS). With an election just around the corner, it felt an unusual, arguably irresponsible, moment to announce that you’re scrapping one widely respected qualification and another which you’ve not even finished introducing yet. Connoisseurs of the genre could sense the SpAd drafting.
The announcement, and subsequent DfE consultation, on the ABS, begs lots of questions which we’ve been talking to clients about over the last few weeks. We thought colleagues might be interested in some of the points we’ve been discussing. We’d love to get your take...
What problem is the ABS trying to solve…?
This is an important place to start. Whilst we might doubt what will happen next, given the political horizon, it is worth trying to understand what colleagues at the heart of Government are trying to do here – because it might be something which a future Government also takes up, even if it reaches a different conclusion.
Principal amongst them seem to be a desire to establish parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes. A superficially laudable intent, almost all action in pursuit of which completely misses the point. Rather than agreeing that apples and oranges are equally valuable, most action has sought to turn oranges into apples. We find it a bit patronising, tbh.
In that sense, we like T Levels’ positioning: different, but equally valuable. You might argue that positioning was undermined by some design choices, not least with respect to assessment methods (see below)… But the overall concept has merit.
The most obvious way in which the ABS seeks to create parity of esteem is by bringing all disciplines together under one banner. We’re not at all convinced that a single qualification can accommodate, and carry equal value, across such a broad and diverse range of pathways. We have, of course, tried this once before with Tomlinson Diplomas… and that went well, didn’t it.
Another big issue which ABS speaks to is maths and English to 18. It’s hard to argue that we don’t need to consider new options here; many colleagues, us amongst them, would argue that whilst young people definitely need to keep working on their maths and English whilst they’re in compulsory education, the GCSE resit policy has been pretty horrid for students. Any change on this would require a great deal of thought, and development work.
What would bringing together the best of A Levels and T Levels mean…?
The ABS announcement, and subsequent consultation document, talk about ‘bringing together the best of A Level and T Levels’ in the ABS. So what are the best bits of each?
A Levels are widely respected, at home and abroad, by employers and by higher education institutions. They are tried, tested, and trusted currency for employment and progression. One might argue that some of this value accrues precisely because A Levels have been around for so long – so moving away from them is a huge risk in and of itself. Colleagues trust the rigour of A Level assessment; though see below, there is debate, and risk, in assuming that exams must therefore be the answer to all questions of assessment design. It is also worth noting that not least for the reasons just mentioned - A Levels are a hugely valuable education export for the UK; they support our global positioning in education and more widely.
To the extent that they yet have an identity, or are at all proven, T Levels trade heavily on the fact that they are developed in conjunction with employers to equip young people with the skills they need to succeed in industry. And they include a substantial work placement. Whilst the focus on career success, and work experience, are commendable – see below for our reservations about the role we have allowed employers to play in the system.
There is then a question about whether you can, or should try, to design a national qualification framework in the same way you pick your fantasy football team. Or whether expert practitioners would advocate for a more sophisticated, considered, and coherent approach to design. You can guess what we, and most of the colleagues we’ve chatted to, think on this point.
What combination of assessment methods should dominate the 16-19 landscape…?
Since 2010, when Nick Gibb’s remarkable and only briefly interrupted stint began, DfE has been ‘passionate advocates’ of high-stakes, external, terminal, assessment: exams. Over time, we’ve seen that point of view manifest in vocational qualifications and apprenticeships, with exams in T Levels, BTEC and similar qualifications, and end point assessment of apprenticeships. In all cases, there have been real challenges – for institutions, learners, employers and AOs.
There is merit in some of what sits behind this point of view, including particularly the focus on maintaining high educational standards. That focus on standards, though, has come also to mean a focus on uniform exams – and exam preparation, and acute pressure on students. Assessment experts will, we think rightly, argue that there is proven merit in assessment methods which aren’t exams; there is science in choosing which to deploy when.
This is an area in which the electoral horizon will likely impact what actually happens. Everything we’ve seen on the ABS is consistent with the view which has dominated DfE for the last decade. We do not yet know whether a future Labour Government would be so zealously committed to exams as this one… but it is hard to imagine any Government being quite so zealously committed to them as this one.
We’re keen to see a new level, and type, of consultation and collaboration to shape the way forward. Let’s engage learners, teachers, leaders, assessment experts and employers. Let’s do it extensively so we reach a large number of consultees; let's use data to help us. And let’s stop putting employers in charge. They typically know little to nothing about qualification, curriculum and assessment design – and are often hazy about the current, let alone future, skills needs of their sectors; if we want parity of esteem, let’s start by respecting our sector’s expertise.
Can the sector cope with the change, and with more substantial qualifications…?
We talk often, and rightly, about the pace of change in further education. Announcing that you’re scrapping a qualification which had at that point been completed by fewer than 5,000 students is notable, even in a sector which enjoyed four secretaries of state in ten weeks through the summer of 2022.
There is lots of evidence to suggest that the school and college sectors are creaking under the weight of underfunding, the legacy impacts of Covid, the growing need to support student mental health, and a growing teaching workforce crisis. It is legitimate, if undoubtedly depressing, to ask whether our institutions have the capacity to deliver something new, different, bigger and more complex…?
Similar, but distinct, we should reflect on the level of energy and investment required to make the change from one qualification to another. We haven’t been able to lay hands on a figure for the total cost of T Level implementation: but we can say with confidence that it’s a lot – given e.g. IfATE admin costs, AO development costs borne by the public purse, the various provider readiness programmes and capital grants, and institutions’ own investments in change.
Whilst the above cannot mean that we don’t make changes that will benefit learners, employers, and communities in the long-term, it does mean that any major change should be supported with major investment – in core funding, and in facilitation of the change. In the current fiscal context, it seems unlikely that the new Government will be able to do that to the extent really required. And if funding were available, is there where it should be focussed - or would would it be better to push funding to the front line…?
When and how can we reflect the potential of digital in qualification policy…?
It would be reasonable to suggest that A Levels, T Levels, BTECs and other 16-19 qualifications are (implicitly) predicated on the current learning paradigm, i.e. teachers, learners, classrooms, groupwork, homework, the existence of computers and the internet, but no real means of leveraging, whilst simultaneously mitigating, the potential of AI.
Given the investment required, timelines involved, and disruption caused by the introduction of a new qualification framework (at any educational stage), any new solution must take a considered view of the digital future, and the investment required to get there.
We’re most excited about the potential of adaptive learning and assessment, i.e. enabling students to work their way through content, and assessment, at a pace, and through the modes, which best suit them. Embracing adaptive learning would, in our view, represent a colossal shift in education practice – requiring very different things of teachers, institutions, their tech partners, and awarding organisations.
Early ABS comms talks about implementation over ten years. We’re passionately of the view that whatever comes next must wholly embrace the digital and data-driven future, else risk looking dated from the outset. And therefore sparking further change soon thereafter.
What on earth do you do if you’re an awarding organisation…?
We may be biased because we do a lot of working with AOs, and some of our favourite people in the sector work in them – but they have had it rough recently.
The transition from apprenticeship frameworks to standards required massive investment, which have yet to deliver a consistent return given lower volumes, retention, and achievement issues in the programme. They took a real battering through Covid, first with ‘the algorithm’, then with Government opportunistically deciding to engage them as points of aggregation in the system, and the requirement to ‘adapt’ qualifications and assessments to reflect the Covid content.
…And then, the T Level party promised the monopolistic earth and delivered… something else, something painful… something which they’re all signing up to do again right now. It’s been what Sir Alex used to call ‘squeaky bum time’ in IfATE of late, waiting to see whether AOs would bid for ‘gen two’ contracts for the five-year period from 2025. High cost, low volume contracts to deliver a product which Government just killed; that’s a tough contract to take on.
Will contract holders re-bid to hold their market position…? …Or because they want to provide the continuity for learners which Government isn’t…? We can see why they would, given how deeply invested the leading AOs are in the sectors they support. The only thing worse than a challenging T Level contract might be your competitors holding the T Level contract in ‘your’ sectors.
The policy question here is whether to persist with the single AO per sector model, a la T Levels. We haven’t yet seen enough of that model to take a reasoned view. A market, a single AO for each sector, a single AO for each sector for all product types, a single AO full stop. There is good policymaking to be done on this point alone.
So what happens now…?
We are in unusual territory. The thing that seems least likely to happen… is the current Government’s recently stated policy. All the data suggests that the current Government will not be re-elected to see through its policy. Who knows what their manifesto might say. Or what they might do in the unlikely event that they were re-elected.
We haven’t yet heard a great deal from Labour about its intentions in this space, following the ABS announcement. It seems very unlikely that a Labour secretary of state would pick up the previous Government’s unfinalised, unimplemented, policy and say “…yep, sounds good, carry on…” More likely, Labour will take a fresh view of what it wants to do in this space.
It isn’t impossible they decide to offer us T Level 2.0: this time, they’re deliverable. Or something completely different. What we would say is that the time between now and the next picture going up on the wall in Sanctuary Buildings waiting room is not wasted. DfE has ploughed great capacity and capability into the ABS. Which means very smart, very well intentioned, civil servants actively thinking about 16-19 qualifications.
That’s good groundwork for all the possible futures.