We’re ready for what’s next
As experts in vocational and technical qualifications, we bring decades of expertise in developing qualifications that work for students, educators, and employers. We are ready and committed to working with the government to ensure any new qualifications meet the needs of learners and the economy.
Our commitment to you
Our top priority right now is to keep you informed and support you through this period of change. We’ll keep you updated on funding implications by updating our funding guides, and we’ll be in touch when the Curriculum and Assessment Review is published shortly. In the meantime, if you have questions or concerns, please contact us through the Pearson support portal.
Thank you for your continued partnership. Together, we'll ensure your learners continue to receive the excellent vocational education they deserve.
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.