Opinion: Policy

How to reform qualifications without breaking the bank

A Labour government short of cash would do well to reconsider ministers' and officials' default settings on reform

A Labour government short of cash would do well to reconsider ministers' and officials' default settings on reform

13 Jul 2024, 5:00

While plans for the Advanced British Standard (ABS) are now well and truly sunk, what lessons can the new government learn from the experience?

It was halfway through a session with the DfE on the ABS when it clicked for us round the table. We totted up all the different elements of the qualification and someone said: “Hold on, isn’t this just three A levels plus English and maths?”

After a slightly awkward pause, everyone agreed it was.

The problem, it appeared to us, was that the department was trying to recreate something that structurally wasn’t actually flawed. Or at least, the structure wasn’t the main thing that needed resolving.

The main issue the department was really trying to sort out was so-called ‘parity of esteem’, as well as a sense that not enough young people were learning the sort of English and maths they need for working life.

If we break this down, the first thing is less about the structure of qualifications, and much more about their brand and perception. The reason we don’t like talking about ‘parity of esteem’ at AQA is it isn’t really something you can fix in a qualification itself; it’s in the eye of the beholder.

And this isn’t an isolated issue. On T levels, there was something in there about needing to raise the quality of vocational qualifications, but at its heart (and I was in the DfE when it was conceived) T levels were always about brand. The idea was to create ‘parity of esteem‘ by creating a vocational qualification whose brand was as strong as that of A levels, hence the name.

The problem with this is: it misunderstands the problem and therefore misapplies the solution. The problem isn’t really the qualification itself; the problem is the perception of that qualification.

This comes from what policy officials see as their default set of tools to solve policy problems; too often, structural change is the first thing officials and ministers consider. The softer side – how to influence and create genuine behaviour change – is more rarely looked to as a solution.

That’s why you end up with a brand new, totally redesigned qualification that still hasn’t changed the parity of anything.

Too often, structural change is the first thing officials and ministers consider

What if this wasn’t the default approach? What if we treated qualification reform like other challenges in public policy that require a behavioural solution, such as teenage pregnancy or smoking?

Under this model, the structure of qualifications would be tweaked and improved, but far more effort would go into influencing people’s perception of the qualification and what young people know and can do if they have it.

Research would be undertaken to understand why, for example, middle-class parents like apprenticeships, but only for other people’s kids. Deeply ingrained social norms would be understood, and language would be tested to see what could start to challenge those norms, including the sorts of techniques made famous by the ‘nudge unit’ (Behavioural Insights Team).

This would see the department think differently; instead of spending time and money constantly restructuring things, it would first ask itself whether it could play more of a ‘system stewardship’ role. It would set out to shape behaviour more softly, with some tweaks in accountability to guide choice if necessary.

This would have the added benefit of costing less money, as well as creating less change fatigue in the sector – something teachers and lecturers tell us constantly is a major concern.

And what about the second challenge I mentioned at the start, around maths and English for life? Well, at AQA we have tried to take our own advice. Instead of waiting for a major restructure of post-16 qualifications, we have begun creating an on-demand, when-ready assessment, akin to a driving test.

This will help students certify that they have the numeracy skills they need to go on to further study or work. And we will be doing the same thing for literacy and digital fluency.

For a Labour government lacking in cash and keen to make an impact quickly, we need new and fresh approaches if we want to deliver improved outcomes for our young people.

Hopefully, some of these ideas are the start of a conversation to do just that.

Latest education roles from

IT Technician

IT Technician

Harris Academy Morden

Teacher of Geography

Teacher of Geography

Harris Academy Orpington

Lecturer/Assessor in Electrical

Lecturer/Assessor in Electrical

South Gloucestershire and Stroud College

Director of Management Information Systems (MIS)

Director of Management Information Systems (MIS)

South Gloucestershire and Stroud College

Exams Assistant

Exams Assistant

Richmond and Hillcroft Adult & Community College

Lecturer Electrical Installation

Lecturer Electrical Installation

Solihull College and University Centre

Sponsored posts

Sponsored post

It’s Education’s Time to Shine: Celebrate your Education Community in 2025!

The deadline is approaching to nominate a colleague, team, whole school or college for the 2025 Pearson National Teaching...

SWAdvertorial
Sponsored post

Navigating NPQ Funding Cuts: An Apprenticeship Success Story

Last year’s NPQ funding cuts meant that half of England’s teachers faced costs of up to £4,000 to complete...

SWAdvertorial
Sponsored post

Embedding Formative Assessment: not just a box-ticking exercise but something long-term and meaningful for all

Our EFA programme has been proven to help schools achieve better GCSE results, as evidenced by the EEF. Find...

SWAdvertorial
Sponsored post

Building capacity in family support to tackle low school attendance 

Persistent and severe school absence impacts children, families, and communities—especially in disadvantaged areas. School-Home Support’s Attendance Support and Development Programme...

SWAdvertorial

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Comments

  1. Sparky Dave

    Parity of esteem is a foolish quest, dreamt up by public school politicians, HE researchers, and civil servants who have no knowledge or understanding of qualifications or the populace of which they serve outside of an A Level. The notion that an academic qualification can have an equivalence to a vocational one is pure fantasy. The difference is cultural, and this article is as close as I’ve seen to that being recognised, but it’s still not enough. I would urge organisations this time round to stop talking to the JCBs, the Dyson, the Rolls Royce and speak with the SMEs who make up the substantial amount of employers in the UK. Then bring them together with the practitioners from colleges and providers and work out between them what works and what doesn’t. I have nothing personal against the people who get charged to design and implement reform, but their clear lack of understanding of qualifications can not be compensated for by speaking to multi billion pound businesses and commissioning researchers from HE to find out on their behalf.

  2. David Russell

    Good article. The answer to the question “why don’t DfE do behaviour change rather than structural change?” is simple but challenging: they don’t know how to. This isn’t really a criticism, it’s just an observation of what the role of the Department is (or has been). They do what they know how to do, what they can do. They really have no idea how to change parents’ perceptions. (A few million here and there on advertising campaigns is not the answer). And why should they? Civil servants are not recruited for or trained in those skills, and arguably it is not the role of the state to change people’s perceptions of things; it is the role of the state to facilitate high quality public services.

    The commentariat in the UK don’t respect non-academic qualifications because they don’t respect non-academic work; not the other way round. This is the fundamental cultural change that would need to happen, and as the author says, redesigning 16-18 qualifications can never do it. If we want to understand why our society is such an outlier on our attitudes to different occupations, we should look to see what else we are outliers in that might hold clues to our “attitude problem” [aka our lack of ‘parity of esteem’].

  3. David Brough

    I can’t speak for all T-levels but I can speak about the T-level in on site Construction and I can honestly say it is the worst qualification I have ever come across. It is supposed to be a vocational qualification designed to prepare a student for employment with either Bricklaying, Plastering, Painting and Decorating and finally Carpentry & Joinery. They fall significantly short of achieving this goal. 40% of the course is academic in design and has very little to do with developing the skills required to work within the chosen Trade. Worse still, Carpentry and Joinery have been separate trades within the industry for more than 35 years likely back when apprenticeships were 6 years long. Very few buisnesses offer both as they are so specialised and those that do employ separate Carpenters and Joiners. The T-level has brought them back together as a single trade, meaning double the skills required in less than half the time. I can only assume there had been a bit of nostalgia when it was written.

    Employers absolutely do not support this T-level and are reluctant to offer work placements, a significant requirement of the course. Of those students who do manage to get a workplacement, most leave the T-level and become apprentices. Of those that remain on the T-level and get to the end of the course, non are adequately prepared for employment because they lack the skills. They could tell you a lot about general construction and construction science though and would likely know more about the professional careers in construction, than their chosen trade. Their only option is to then get an apprenticeship, the expectation is it should be an advanced apprenticeship. Unfortunately they are not ready for an advanced apprenticeship.

    I agree there is an issues with perception but the issue is more the perception that a trades person is somehow less that of someone who went to university.

    AQA state they are developing new courses with on demand assessment, we already have this with functional skills.