Our response
1. Qualification design: V Levels
Pearson recommends a mixed economy of qualification sizes, not a blanket 360 GLH model.
Key points:
- Use 360 GLH V Levels where flexibility and mixed programmes are appropriate.
- Permit large V Levels (c. 1,080 GLH) in sectors where pedagogy, coherence and depth of study require them (e.g., science, creative/performance subjects).
- Each V Level should declare a primary progression purpose—either higher education or employment—to ensure clarity and appropriate design.
- Existing large qualifications must not be defunded until full replacement programmes are proven viable.
2. T Levels and system capacity
- T Levels cannot replace all large vocational qualifications due to industry placement shortages, suitability constraints, and regional inequalities.
- Defunding large qualifications in Digital, Health & Social Care and Science prematurely risks major disruption and lost progression routes.
3. Subject eligibility for V Levels
Pearson supports most proposed subjects but recommends:
- Additional 360 GLH subjects to meet labour market needs (e.g., Applied Psychology, Sustainability, IT, Medical Science, Forensics).
- Clear distinction between subjects primarily geared towards HE progression versus employment.
4. IAG (Information, Advice & Guidance)
High‑quality, nationally coordinated IAG is essential.
Pearson recommends:
- Clear explanation of the purpose of each qualification type.
- HE recognition lists published for V Levels before first teaching.
- An interactive progression tool showing routes to HE, apprenticeships and employment.
- Provider‑led decisions on qualification combinations (no rigid rules of combination).
5. Level 2 qualifications
Foundation Certificates (240 GLH)
- 240 GLH may be too small for many learners; many currently take 360+ GLH.
- Subject choices must reflect real progression routes to Level 3.
6. Occupational Certificates
- Support variable GLH based on occupational standards but recommend a minimum size for comparability.
- Core content should be meaningful and transferable.
- Consider renaming to “Technical Certificate” to avoid confusion.
7. Rollout, branding & regulation
- Support route‑by‑route rollout but warn of risks around timelines, provider readiness and HE recognition.
- Strongly advise retaining awarding organisation branding alongside national V Level identity; removal would create regulatory and operational problems.
- Recommend avoiding T Level‑style procurement; retain a competitive awarding‑organisation market.
8. Equality & SEND considerations
- Potential negative impacts for adult learners, SEND students, and some ethnic minority groups that rely on vocational routes for HE.
- Mitigations:
- Longer phased implementation.
- Targeted SEND transition funding.
- Full equality impact assessment prior to rollout.
- Qualifications must be designed with inclusive assessment, flexibility, and scope for personalised pathways.