The lack of clarity over the purpose and role ofÌýT levelsÌýisÌýblurring the lines between them and other qualifications, according to a new report.
Entitled A Qualified Success: An investigation into T levels and the wider vocational system and published by thinktank Policy Exchange today, the report warns that the education sector and the government must learn from the mistakes of the past if T levels are to be successful.
Author andÌýsenior research fellowÌýTom RichmondÌýsays T levels, which will be taught from 2020 onward and are intended to be an alternative to the more academic A levels, could fall into the same traps as previous technical qualifications, including GNVQs in the 1990s and diplomas in the 2000s. Ìý
ReadÌý³¾´Ç°ù±ð:ÌýSir Gerry: Apprenticeship and T-level links ‘key’
±õ²Ô-»å±ð±è³Ù³ó:ÌýT levels and why we should rethink the idea of ‘progress’
More news:ÌýT levels not ‘a mess’, Hinds insists Ìý
According to the report, the timetable for introducingÌýT levelsÌýis “too briskâ€, leaving insufficient time for any delays or alterations to the existing plans.
There is also a lack of visibilityÌýwith employers and parents largely unaware of the new qualifications, it adds, as well as a risk of insufficient clarity on the purpose of the new qualifications and links to other educational pathways.
The report highlights the 2016ÌýSainsbury ReviewÌýand itsÌýcriticism ofÌýdiplomas for not viewingÌýthe two routes for technical education - classroom and workplace -Ìýas being “two sides of the same coinâ€;Ìýthe same problem seems to have emerged withÌýT levels. it argues.Ìý
Due toÌýthe lack of clarity, the lines between T levels and other qualifications are inevitably blurred, the reportÌýadds.
‘Cementing social division’
Mr Richmond said T levelsÌýhad the potential to make a valuable contribution to the education system, “but this will only be realised if they are conceived, designed and delivered in the wider context of building a high-quality and sustainable technical education routeâ€.Ìý
He added: “One of the biggest mistakes made by diplomas and GNVQs was that it was never clear how they were supposed to fit with, and operate alongside, other qualifications and programmes.
“Too many elements of the T-level reforms are likely to cutÌýT levelsÌýadrift from the rest of the 16-19 system. The end result of this will be thatÌýT levelsÌýare left vulnerable to any changes in educational or political winds.â€
In her foreword to the report, former Labour education secretary Ruth Kelly said the UK’s post-16 education structure “cements social divisionâ€.
“The choices that are forced on those who have just taken their GCSEs arguably have an even greater impact on their lives than the old divide between those who went to grammar schools and their peers who went on to secondary moderns,†she writes.
“Lives and prospects are changed in an instant, predetermined by a flawed and a prevailing intellectual snobbery that, sadly, has treated technical education as something for ‘other people’s children’.
“The challenge now, particularly as we leave the European Union and are less likely to be able to rely on skilled workers from abroad, is to make sure that the skills agenda is properly valued here in the UK. Apprenticeships are beginning to become established, but there are clearly teething problems, including with the apprenticeship levy. It is also not yet fully clear how T levels will work alongside apprenticeships.â€
