T levels have quickly become the hottest topic in education. Until last month’s ministerial direction, which underlined the challenges associated with these hugely important reforms, they had received little attention from the media and public. In fact, polling we conducted with CensusWide earlier this year showed that almost three in five parents were not aware of the government’s plans to introduce T levels and didn’t understand their purpose.  

Since the chief Department for Education civil servant’s warning to education secretary Damian Hinds was rebuffed, with instructions to press ahead with the first T levels in 2020, things have changed. It has become clear that T levels are a key priority for the government and one that the secretary of state has staked his reputation on.

This national attention is extremely welcome. Technical education has a key role to play in this country’s future success and it is high time this was recognised, instead of seen as a lesser alternative. But we must also recognise that such fundamental change takes time.

‘Enthusiasm and intent’

Damian Hinds has argued that the three 2020 routes need to be prioritised, hence the short timescales for delivery, as they are vital to our economic future. We applaud the enthusiasm and intent, but surely this means we need to get these important routes right first time?

These routes are essentially the guinea pigs. Colleges delivering them, learners studying them, and the awarding organisation licensed to develop the qualifications, will be on a steep learning curve, ironing out the kinks and problems as they go.

For childcare - an industry already lacking staff and with a severe shortage of nursery places - mistakes could have a devastating impact. We’ve seen sudden and ill-thought-through changes negatively impact the sector before. On completion of the T level, learners must be able to be employed in the role at the level of the qualification that they have taken, to enable nurseries to recruit staff and hit ratios.

There is still time to make 2020 work, but if these routes are going to succeed, it is time to get serious and we all need to work together to make them a success. The government must learn from previous attempts to introduce new vocational qualifications, recognise the scale of this endeavour and be more open to advice to help them succeed.

‘Not the best way’

There have been numerous consultations on the process so far. However, consultation of this kind is designed largely to identify weaknesses and flaws with proposals. What the government really needs is experts to bounce ideas off, to ensure that the proposals are practical and workable. This would ensure that it gets it right first time and would speed up the process.

Whilst the T-level and route panels - made up largely of employers - are playing a valuable role in ensuring that T levels are aligned to the realities of the workplace in a specific sector, the representatives that sit on them are not experts in qualification design and development. It is awarding organisations (AO) who specialise in this.

Yes, AOs will compete to secure the license for a particular qualification and will be asked to design that qualification in due course - indeed, that process will start in mid-June with “market engagement events”, which are extremely welcome given the tight timescales we are now working to. However, if the outline qualification content and proposed grading system have already been agreed, AOs’ input and options will be limited.

This is not the best way to develop qualifications. At CACHE, for example, we start by talking to employers, learners and providers and all other key stakeholders about what they need and what works for them. We then think about and design the content, assessment and what a qualification might look like, and finally, with all of this agreed, we look at the most appropriate grading system to measure a student’s progress and reflect their attainment accurately.

‘Lack of transparency’

The siloed approach being used to develop T-level qualifications, with so many different bodies working on different aspects, along with the lack of transparency and industry-wide collaboration, risks undermining the quality of the final qualifications.

We are open to sharing our ideas and expertise with the government and are committed to making these important reforms a success. We also believe that this can be done in an open and transparent manner - one that truly adds value and doesn’t compromise the process.

Organisations like the Joint Council for Qualifications, Federation of Awarding Bodies and individual AOs should be given a stronger voice now. Bringing us in at the procurement stage, with everything else already agreed, may well be too late.

Julie Hyde is director of awarding body CACHE