Have T Levels drifted from their original purpose as the primary route for students to get onto level 4 and 5 training, apprenticeships and employment?
I don’t think there has really been any mission drift as regards the purpose of T Levels. They were designed primarily as a route to employment, and whether or not you believe they are potentially any better at doing that than the existing alternatives, that remains their primary objective. The issue is that given the rather small numbers of learners currently taking them, the government appears to be looking to make them more attractive to a wider cohort. They were rather hoping that the universities could do them a favour by not only giving them UCAS points, but clearly making T Levels a valid option with which to qualify for the offer of a place on a range of courses. So far, the universities as a whole don’t appear to be completely playing ball with this objective.
Is it a concern that the government appears to be trying to buttress T Levels as a route to university?
By trying to unsubtly incorporate an academic destination as an objective for T Levels, it further dilutes the idea that T Levels are a radical overhaul of the technical and vocational skills landscape. More and more, they look like what they are – a tweaking of the existing model of two-year classroom-based, academic-year focused qualifications. Instead they could have been an innovative model if policy designers had actually taken on board the competencies of a wider set of providers than just colleges and schools.
The government appears to be looking to make them more attractive to a wider cohort
What problems does this present to students trying to follow a vocational route?
By making T Levels increasingly look like what is already there, potential learners just end up rather confused as to why they should do these new untried qualifications rather than other options that are more familiar to them. This sounds like I’m somehow anti T Levels and I’m absolutely not – I just think there’s been a big missed opportunity here to do something really different and beneficial. It’s increasingly just becoming same old, same old.
At the AELP’s autumn conference, IfATE implored ITP leaders to keep an “open mind” about T Levels – why is it T Levels are delivered by so few ITPs? What can government do to help
Through the design stage we and others had been urging that ITPs (particularly apprenticeship providers) could substantially help with employer links and industry placement, a call which was ignored. We said that ITPs might be able to experiment with a roll-on roll-off system rather than using fixed start dates, an offer which was also ignored. The application process to be named as a T Levels provider didn’t do ITPs any favours, and then when wave 1 providers were announced – which I think I’m right in saying included only 3 ITPs in the 50 or so named at the time – it was announced that ITPs would be ineligible for the capital funding being offered to “all” T Level providers. It’s hardly surprising ITPs are therefore a bit jaundiced about the whole concept and are not exactly falling over themselves to get involved now.
Does AELP believe getting more ITPs involved in T Levels would help boost student numbers, industry placements, and provide students with the vocational route the government originally envisaged?
It could have helped had the design of T Levels actually incorporated the particular strengths of the offer and core competencies of ITPs. As it is, in order to deliver T Levels, ITPs have to act like colleges. This isn’t an attractive proposition for many of them because it’s asking them to stop doing what they do best – and compete with providers who have far more experience in delivering the design as it stands. ITPs always have something to offer the skills landscape, but this could have been so much more effective if their strengths had been recognised and incorporated in the first place, rather than just seeing them as some sort of emergency button – “in case of low learner numbers, break glass and add ITPs”.