A new report by the Education Policy Institute examines student
access and outcomes for T levels and the T level transition
programme (TLTP, soon to be renamed the T level foundation year),
revealing critical challenges in the the programmes. The report
analyses enrolment trends and retention rates, as well as
progression from the TLTP to T levels.
The report recommends that the government should pause the
defunding of existing alternatives to T level qualifications. The
Curriculum and Assessment Review should also consider the
introduction of smaller alternatives to T levels, allowing a
broader spectrum of access to high-quality level 3 provision.
Key Findings:
- Student characteristics vary significantly across the
different T level pathways. The analysis finds that engineering
and manufacturing courses are largely male-dominated, while 95
per cent of Education and Early Years students are female.
Disadvantaged students are well-represented in T Levels overall,
but students with special educational needs and disabilities
(SEND) are under-represented. T levels students are also less
ethnically diverse than the wider cohort of post-16 students.
- We also find that T level students have a lower likelihood of
completing a full level 3 qualification by the age of 18 compared
to those taking other qualifications. However, they exhibit a
higher likelihood of progressing to advanced apprenticeships or
higher technical qualifications, which is important in meeting
the country's overall skills ambitions.
- The report found that the Digital pathway T Level appears to
be performing well with students taking this qualification
just as likely to complete a level 3 qualification by 18 as
other level 3 learners and significantly less likely to become
NET (Not in Education or Training). On the other hand, there are
worrying results in terms of level 3 attainment and withdrawal
for the Health and Science and Education and Early Years T
levels.
- The analysis shows that disadvantaged and female students are
more likely to withdraw from T Levels. Among those who withdraw,
over a third leave education and training altogether, becoming
NET. Only around one-third of students who drop out from T Levels
transition to another full Level 3 programme in the following
year, leaving a significant number of students who do not
transfer to an equivalent qualification.
- The analysis also highlights a concerning decline in the
progression rate from the TLTP to T Levels. In the 2020/21
cohort, only 15 per cent of TLTP students moved on to T Levels,
and this number dropped to just 8 per cent for the 2021/22
cohort. Moreover, more than 25 per cent of those who do progress
drop out within their first year. These figures question the
effectiveness of the TLTP in achieving its goal of facilitating
student transitions to T Levels.
- Furthermore, TLTP students often lack access to formal work
experience and foundational academic skills support, despite
these being key components of the TLTP.
Recommendations:
- The government should consider extending the pause on
defunding overlapping qualifications. The analysis finds that T
levels are currently unsuitable for many Level 3 learners, and
adjustments are needed before they can realistically become the
primary Level 3 technical qualification.
- The curriculum and assessment review should consider
introducing a smaller version of the T level (approximately one A
level in size). This would enable access for a wider range of
students and allow for greater breadth and flexibility in post-16
programme design.
- The ongoing independent review of T level content should put
a particular emphasis on the T level pathways that appear to be
performing less well, such as the Health and Science, and
Education and Early Years pathways.
- The government should consider either overhauling or
discontinuing the T level transition programme (TLTP), as it is
currently not meeting its goal of helping students move on to T
levels. Additionally, more support and clear progression options
should be provided for students who decide to leave T levels,
especially in their first year, to ensure they don't fall behind
in their education.
David Robinson, Director for Vulnerable Learners and
Post-16 at the Education Policy Institute (EPI)
said:
“T levels were designed to be challenging level 3 qualifications,
on a par with A levels. In this they appear to have succeeded,
and some T level students also look to make positive progression
to higher levels of technical study.
However, it is also clear that T levels are not suitable for many
students who might succeed with a smaller level 3 programme of
study. As part of the curriculum review the government must
carefully consider vocational and technical provision for 16-18
year olds, ensuring enough flexibility for students whilst also
continuing to streamline the overwhelming number of
qualifications to choose from. “
Background
T Levels are new Level 3 technical qualifications in England,
introduced in 2020 for 16-18-year-olds. Equivalent in size to
three A levels, T levels blend classroom learning with practical
work experience, offering a comprehensive pathway for vocational
students. The goals of T levels are to simplify the post-16
qualification landscape, expand vocational progression
opportunities, and elevate the quality and reputation of
vocational education. However, the initial rollout has faced
challenges, with issues noted by Ofsted, the Education Committee,
and other bodies.
This report examines early trends and impacts of T levels and the
T level transition programme (soon to be known as the T level
foundation year). It provides insights into the demographics of
enrolled students, dropout patterns, transitions from the TLTP to
T Levels, and the effects on post-16 outcomes.
