Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the trends and limitations in the restructuring of
vocational education at upper secondary level in England, focusing on the vocational
qualification ‘T levels’, which were introduced in 2020.
In England, the reform of post-16 vocational education at the upper-secondary stage (level 3)
has been proceeded since the 2010s, with the main aims of streamlining the complex vocational
education system, providing high-quality vocational routes which lead to stable employment
and higher education, and responding to a rapidly changing economy. The introduction of the
new vocational qualification, T levels, is positioned as a significant milestone in the series of
reforms. T levels are two-year vocational education programmes for 16–19-year-old students,
which consist of 12 occupational areas. They began to be phased in from 2020, and all T levels
are expected to be implemented by 2025. Simultaneously, the introduction of T levels is part of
the comprehensive restructuring scheme for level 3 qualifications. The government intends to
reduce existing vocational qualifications and applied general qualifications(AGQs)that
overlap in purpose and content with T levels and A levels and make T levels the ‘gold
standard’ for technical education.
However, the feasibility of this reform vision depends on how teachers and learners perceive
T levels. Particular attention should be paid to the relationship to academic education, as
vocational qualifications have historically been viewed as the second-rate option to academic
qualifications. Therefore, this study firstly provides an overview of the context of the
introduction on T levels and their specific features. Next, it is examined how T levels are
perceived and implemented by teachers based on exploratory interviews at further education
colleges.
T levels are mainly composed of classroom-based learning and industry placement for a
minimum of 315 hours. The total learning time is expected to be approximately 1,800 hours
over 2 years, which is equivalent to three A levels. The main difference between T levels and
existing vocational qualifications lies in their assessment structures. Existing vocational
qualifications are essentially formative assessments with a continuous marking of unit-based
tasks, whereas T levels are assessed by written examinations and project assignments, which are externally set by the awarding organisations, at the end of each year. Although the
government claims that T levels were developed in collaboration with employers, this
assessment structure has a common form with A levels. Thus, teachers tend to perceive T
levels to be ‘theory-based’ and ‘exam-driven’ and attempt to adopt academic practices.
Moreover, these features of T levels cause scepticism among teachers about the relevance of
the content of programme to occupational purposes.
These results suggest the paradoxical consequence that the intention to set up high-quality
vocational routes with equivalence to academic routes can lead to academic drift within
vocational education, making the primary purpose unclear. The findings of this study illustrate
the limitation that the restructuring initiative of qualification systems involves by proceeding
within the framework of the academic/vocational dichotomy.