Sarah* is settling in well to her course at East Coast College. So much so, in fact, that the 16-year-old has already handed in her application for the next qualification she wants to take once her current studies come to an end.
Sarah, however, was never meant to be on this course. After sitting her GCSEs at school, she joined the college in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, last September to take a level 2 qualification (equivalent to a grade C/4 or better at GCSE) to pursue her dream career in catering.
But after only a few weeks, the student starting “showing symptoms,” says Nikki Lane, assistant principal at East Coast College. Sarah started to suffer from anxiety, and was referred to the wellbeing team at the college. “What they picked up was that she was struggling with the expectation and structure of level 2,” Lane explains. “We tried to work on her self-esteem. She trialled [a course at] level 1, but she couldn’t work in a group that size.”
Instead, Sarah was placed on an entry-level programme focused on nurturing individuals’ development. “She has absolutely flourished,” says Lane. “She has already put in her application for the next step and, for me, that signifies that she has hope.
“Catering is still her goal. If we just kept pushing her in level 2, I don’t think she would have come back after Christmas. She couldn’t see a way forward. She knew she wasn’t coping but couldn’t articulate why.”
Taking a step back to a lower-level course was clearly exactly what Sarah needed - but this isn’t what the post-school system is geared up to provide. Despite it obviously being in some students’ interests to go back in order to move on, the government is in fact considering moves to actively block institutions from allowing students to do just that.
In December, the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) unveiled plans to bar students from taking a level 1 qualification if they had already obtained a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and maths - apart from in “exceptional circumstances”.
Last month, it emerged that the move had been postponed, following feedback from “a small but significant number of providers” (see box, page 53). But for Lane, it is symptomatic of the linear approach dominating our education system, in which moving up is seen as the only way to move on - and the only route that offers progression.
“Students are moulded into thinking that they have to move a step up to move on, and that puts pressures on,” she says. “That is particularly the case for the younger age group. The parents are moulded into that [way of thinking] as well.”
Looking at data published in May 2018, it is easy to see why the government would push for the most direct route to the highest possible qualification. Students who achieved five “good” GCSEs and an academic level 3 (A level) tended to go on to achieve level 6 (equivalent to an honours degree) or higher by age 25, while “those who did not achieve five GCSEs typically reached level 3 at best”.
“Just 8 per cent of those without five GCSEs achieved level 4 or higher by age 25,” the report continues, “while 75 per cent for those with 5 GCSEs and an academic level 3 achieved a level 6 or higher.”
Progression also pays off in financial terms. Those who have achieved level 4 (equivalent to an HNC) or level 5 (HND) by age 23 have higher median earnings than those at level 3. Not surprisingly, their job prospects are better too: employment rates are higher for those students who reach level 4 or 5, according to government statistics.
But for some students, like Sarah, that direct route simply does not work. “Sometimes they go in on the level that they were offered on their prior attainment, and after a few weeks we start to see the symptoms,” Lane explains. These can include disengagement, gaps in attendance or disruptive behaviour.
At that point, staff at East Coast College carry out a holistic assessment to work out what sort of provision would really suit a student, looking beyond the simple issue of prior attainment. “Many students don’t have hope when they are in that situation,” Lane explains. “They are not seeing that aspiration for themselves. Moving down is not what is socially acceptable; you [are expected to] move on and you move up.
“Hope is a really key issue. You speak to primary school children and they all know what they are going to be. And by the time they are 16, they have related to whatever else has happened in their life. From a college point of view, it is about making sure we have as many points of symptom spotting as possible. That is important.”
A student’s readiness for a certain level of qualification and the barriers they face in their private life are not the only reasons why sometimes, one may need to move backwards in order to pursue one’s dream career. The ESFA’s now-delayed funding rule was intended to clamp down on moving backwards to level 1, even if a learner has “no previous experience in the vocational area”.
Experts say, however, that there are fields in which this is simply not possible, and an obligation to enrol people on higher-level courses could threaten the very future of skills training in that sector.
Equine racing is one such sector. The British Racing School attracts both learners who have not obtained the benchmark five A* to C (or 9 to 4) grades at GCSE level, and those with qualifications at level 3, who choose to attend the school over a university course.
Training programmes at the provider in Newmarket, Suffolk, usually commence with a residential course based around a level 1 diploma in racehorse care, offering an introduction to the basics of the profession.
Under the proposed ESFA rule, of course, this would no longer be possible, which operations director Duncan Gregory says would be “very bad news” for the industry.
While the Department for Education is building its reforms around T levels - due to be introduced from 2020, as a high-prestige technical equivalent to A levels - these will not necessarily suit every industry.
Horse racing is a case in point. “We offer training to those from land-based colleges who have achieved level 2 or even level 3 horse care,” Gregory says. “They need to attend our training because the work and riding and care for a race horse is entirely different.
“So we offer an apprenticeship at level 2. You have to walk before you can run and that is what we provide. These are the fundamentals that you need to master, and they are delivered through the level 1 and level 2 programmes. You can be a very accomplished eventer who can ride a horse, but you would find it massively different riding a thoroughbred.”
Establishing T levels as a level 3 qualification is actually at the very crux of why a direct progressional route will prove challenging for more and more students - and will increasingly be less useful as a concept.
The reason for them being set at level 3 is obvious: this is intended to give the impression of parity and equal worth with A levels, to attract parents and students away from the established academic route.
But the unintended consequence in some industries could be that learners end up having to take apprenticeships at an equivalent level before they can progress to the higher levels.
Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, says: “The thing I worry about with T levels the most is progression. If any student expects to move on to a level 4 apprenticeship, in most cases there is no chance.”
Dawe cites the example of the electrical industry: a four-year apprenticeship at level 3 involves work experience far beyond the three-month placement in T levels. The qualifications may be equivalent on paper, but Dawe doubts that business owners would agree: “There is no chance employers would accept that as the same. The problem is levelling.”
In a recent Association of Employment and Learning Providers paper, director of research and development, Paul Warner, argues that while T levels may be being marketed as a “gold standard” qualification by the government, they deliver a “different, lower level of competency than an apprenticeship” - the two types of programme, rather, should sit “sequentially in a ladder of progression rather than in parallel”.
If not, the risk is that having a T level or BTEC could end up detrimentally affecting a student’s prospects of getting a place on an apprenticeship. The consequences for individual programmes could also be serious.
Take the four-year, level 3 apprenticeship in electrical engineering, consisting of four days a week working on site, and one day of classroom-based studies. Jon Graham is chief executive at training provider JTL, which delivers around 2,500 apprentices on this programme each year. Despite the skills shortage in the sector and the long duration of the apprenticeship, Graham insists employers tell him the four-year course is more effective than other qualifications.
This is largely because those who complete it have got four years’ work experience under their belts - making them significantly more employable than a T-level student who has completed a 45-day placement.
“There are some apprenticeships in this country that work really well,” he says, “and the last thing we should be doing is potentially undermining some really good work-based education that actually works in a sector that really needs it.”
Certainly, the introduction of T levels will necessitate a more coordinated and acceptable means of allowing learners to move sideways - or even backwards - in order to pursue their chosen career.
And the words we use to describe this are, for Lane, the most crucial aspect: “Language is so powerful and we get indoctrinated into thinking ‘level up’ is the only way. From an education point of view, we look at it in a very practical way, but for the individual person, it can be crushing.”
*Students’ names have been changed
Julia Belgutay is deputy FE editor for Tes. She tweets @JBelgutay
This article originally appeared in the 22 February 2019 issue under the headline “Stooping to conquer”
Already a subscriber? Log in
