Qualification reform continues to reshape England’s technical education landscape, with a clear focus on improving progression and outcomes for young people. To explore these developments, we’ve launched a new live series in partnership with FE News – Rewriting the rules: the future of qualifications.
Our first episode, What V Levels can learn from T Levels, focused on how the next phase of reform can build on the experience of T Levels so far. The discussion explored what has worked well, where there have been challenges, and how those lessons can inform the design and delivery of V Levels to better support progression into work, further training, and higher education.
The session brought together a valuable mix of perspectives; I co-hosted the discussion with Gavin O’Meara, CEO of FE News, and we were joined by David Rowley, Product Manager for Technical Education at NCFE, and Ella Tsui‑Lau, Assistant Principal at The Manchester College.
In this blog, I’ve picked out three of the key lessons from that conversation, and what they might mean for the future development of V Levels.
1. Simplicity is the goal – but delivery needs time, flexibility and realism
A clear ambition behind qualification reform is to simplify the technical education landscape. The move towards a smaller number of clearly defined routes at Level 3 is intended to reduce confusion for all stakeholders – including learners, parents, employers, and providers – while making qualifications more consistent in design and assessment.
However, the experience of introducing T Levels shows that simplification on paper does not automatically translate into ease of delivery.
Tight implementation timelines, limited preparation time for teachers, and the removal of funding for overlapping qualifications all add pressure to the system. During the discussion, concerns were raised that sixth forms, colleges and providers could be teaching new qualifications before there is enough evidence that they work well in practice.
One lesson for V Levels is that pace matters; giving providers, teachers, and awarding organisations sufficient time to prepare is crucial if quality and confidence are to be maintained.
Flexibility across different sectors is also essential, as a one‑size‑fits‑all model does not reflect the diverse needs of industries, learners, or local labour markets. The Government’s commitment to reform T Levels is a step towards recognising that flexibility will be key to delivery in different subjects.
2. Employer engagement adds value – but assessment and workload must be manageable
Employer involvement has been one of the most positive aspects of T Levels. Strong links with industry have helped to ensure curricula remain current, relevant, and grounded in real occupational standards. Colleges delivering T Levels report higher learner engagement, with students gaining valuable insight into workplace behaviours and expectations.
At the same time, delivery has been demanding. Industry placements, while beneficial, have been challenging to scale at volume, particularly alongside other pressures on staffing, estates and timetabling. End‑point assessment models have also created pinch points, with assessments often clustered at the end of programmes, increasing stress for both learners and providers.
For V Levels, the message is clear: learning from T Levels does not mean replicating them. V Levels are broader by design, but they still need to avoid becoming overly complex or administratively burdensome.
Balanced and appropriate assessment across programmes, realistic delivery models, and careful consideration of workload will be key to ensuring V Levels are accessible, scalable, and sustainable.
3. Clear progression and shared understanding will define success
A recurring theme throughout the discussion was progression. T Levels were designed with a strong occupational focus, and over time, employer understanding has improved. Evidence is also emerging that learners are well prepared for higher education, even where that was not the original primary aim.
V Levels face a different challenge, as their broader scope means success will rely heavily on how well progression routes are communicated and understood. Higher education providers, employers, schools, students, and parents all need clarity on what V Levels are, what they lead to, and how they compare alongside A Levels and T Levels.
Panellists welcomed steps taken to align V Levels with familiar grading structures and tariff systems, which should support smoother transitions into higher education. There was also strong agreement that education and guidance will be critical, particularly for younger learners who are still exploring options.
Ultimately, success for V Levels should be measured not just by uptake, but by learner outcomes: positive destinations into work, apprenticeships, higher education, and higher technical qualifications (HTQs), alongside student feedback and learner confidence in the qualification’s value and currency.
Looking to the future
As our Rewriting the rules series continues, future episodes will build on these themes, including deeper exploration of assessment reform and what a truly joined‑up skills system could look like.
If V Levels are to succeed, the early lessons from T Levels suggest that design, delivery and communication must move forward together.
Join us to watch the third episode in our live series – Apprenticeships: The Skills Engine – on Wednesday 20 May from 10am on the FE News LinkedIn channel.
