AQA evidence submission - AQA response to Department for Education consultation on Post-16 Level 3 and Below Pathways

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Aria

AQA submits evidence and a response to the Department for Education’s consultation on Post-16 pathways, focusing on V Levels, T Levels, Level 2 pathways, Foundation Certificates, and Occupational Certificates. The submission argues for flexibility in V Level size beyond a fixed 360 GLH, explains risks for subject coverage and student progression, and proposes allowing subject development groups to propose double or paired V Levels. It also highlights the need to ensure progression confidence with clear guidance and employer/HEI involvement that genuinely supports outcomes.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Contents

V Levels

New T Levels

Level 2 pathways

Foundation Certificates

Occupational Certificates

Non-qualification activity

Transition and branding

Equalities impact

Guidance and progression considerations

AQA evidence submission AQA response to a Department for Education consultation, Post-16 Level 3 and Below Pathways. Monday 12 January 2026 Contents • V Levels • New T Levels • Level 2 pathways • Foundation Certificates • Occupational Certificates • Non-qualification activity • Transition and branding • Equalities impact V Levels We are proposing V Levels will be 360 guided learning hours (GLH) to enable students to combine them with other V Levels andA levels. Where larger subjects are needed, we propose that these are offered through T Levels. In taking this approach, are there any risks or issues we need to be aware of? Are there any particular issues for subjects or students that we need to be aware of as a result of not having medium sized V Levels? AQA welcomes the Skills White Paper and many of the proposals within it. We are firmly committed to working with Government, the regulator and the wider system to implement the proposals to support young people, help tackle the NEET challenge, strengthen the quality and credibility of vocational education, and improve skills and productivity. However, we believe that there are some changes needed, including to the timetable, to enable the system to implement the proposals in a way that meets the Government’s objectives, and enables the system to focus sufficiently on quality. The proposalsimply a significant reshaping of provision, in particular with the focus on smaller vocational qualifications, which providers will need time and support to plan for. We do not believe that the document makes a compelling case to restrict all V Levels to 360 guided learning hours. This restriction would mean some V Levels not covering in sufficient depth the range of content implied by their purpose. It would also make it harder for some students to make level 3 choices that fully engaged them and supported progression – for example if they were particularly interested in one sector, but did not want to commit to a full T Level, or if the relevant T Level was not available in that area. It would be particularly challenging for colleges that did not offer A-levels to create coherent programmes of study ifV Levels were restricted to the size of one A-level. We would therefore recommend allowing subject development groups to propose either a double V Level or a pair of V Levels covering different aspects of a subject which could be taken together or individually, to increase flexibility and choice, and to enable a wider range of students to study programmes they find coherent and engaging. In addition, we would recommend that the Government uses this welcome revamp of the qualifications offer to reconsider whether T Levels can perform the role proposed for them – to be the only large vocational option available – for every sector and occupation. We expect that in some cases demand from employers and students for large qualifications will significantly outstrip capacity to provide T Levels, especially industry placements. We would advise Government not to force itself to choose between lowering the standard of T Levels or removing good opportunities to study large qualificationsin sectors which need them. Which subjects do you think are most appropriate for delivery through V Levels? Please provide evidence of relevance to employment sectors or further study. We are broadly supportive of the list on page 19 of the consultation document. We would advise Government not to expand the list much further: keeping the number of V Level subjects manageable will help colleges to offer a broad range of subjects, allow other providers including sixth form colleges and schools to consider providing V Levels, and enable awarding organisations to focus on producing highquality qualifications which provide a broad range of progression options. We must also make sure that the V Level offer remains distinct from A-levels, with no blurring of the boundaries. How co

FAQs

Why does AQA argue against restricting all V Levels to 360 guided learning hours?

AQA says the restriction could prevent some V Levels from covering their intended depth and content range. It could also make level 3 choices harder for students and colleges when coherent programmes of study depend on subject availability.

What flexibility does AQA recommend for designing V Levels?

AQA recommends allowing subject development groups to propose either a double V Level or a pair of V Levels that cover different aspects of a subject, which can be taken together or individually to improve choice and coherence.

How should information, advice and guidance be improved for students selecting V Levels?

AQA says V Levels must be designed to support employer and higher education confidence and progression, avoiding quasi-academic content or assessment. It also stresses explicit design of wider skills and knowledge, and that timetable and development processes must allow this exploration.

Oct 20, 2026

Uploaded by Aria