ABS breaks
Richard Guy reviews the prime minister’s announcement of The Advanced British Standard from the point of view of technical education and employers.
Promising to “finally deliver on the promise of parity of esteem between academic and technical education”, Rishi Sunak used his party conference address to announce that A levels and T levels would be brought together into a new, single qualification – The Advanced British Standard (ABS).
ABS has received a cautious welcome from the AoC and the Sixth Form Colleges Association, but it was greeted with frustration by many within FE and skills as yet another example of post-16 policy instability, the potential sacrificing of technical excellence because of an academic imperative. This is happening just as T levels – which are seen as providing the technical excellence to achieve parity – start to gain traction. Parity of esteem derives from excellence in both academic and technical education, each on its own terms.
DfE’s policy proposals – described in A world-class education system: The Advanced British Standard- state that ABS will create a new qualification akin to a Baccalaureate, as follows:
ABS will replace all non-apprenticeship qualifications for 16-19 year olds, ‘building on the rigour of both A levels and T levels’, according to DfE.
A 15 percent increase in taught hours is being planned for academic 16-19 students. T Levels already require significantly more hours than three A Levels (according to the DfE document) and will see only a 3% increase in taught hours.
The study of English and maths will be required for all students to age 18.
There will be an increase in the number of subjects that students take via a combination of bigger (‘major’) and smaller (‘minor’) subjects. A ‘major’ appears to be slightly smaller than a current A Level and a ‘minor’ half of a major. Each student will study at least the equivalent of four ‘majors’ and usually five subjects, which, in theory, can be a mix of technical and academic courses.
T level occupational specialisms will be delivered as a ‘double major’ and the T level core occupational group as one major. This makes a whole T level smaller than it is now because of the additional time taken by the maths and English minors, although many T levels contain a lot of maths anyway so maybe some of that could “count” in some way or even come out of the T level.
Below are a few early conclusions about what this might mean for learners and providers, based on the information published so far:
The loss of the T level brand will weaken the marketing of technical education. The brand was beginning to be felt and provided a powerful communication of equivalence with A Levels. An increasing number of higher achieving young people have been signing up for T levels (despite the various operational problems). Where are we now that the message from the Prime Minister and the media is “we are replacing T levels” (even though actually we are not).
The ABS is an ‘umbrella’ qualification under which a student can still choose what is now a T level. The proposed ‘double major’ within the ABS appears to operate as the occupational specialism within T levels does now, together with a single major, core occupational group.
Applied Generals could find a way back. AGs are being removed by DfE where they overlap with T levels to ensure that the latter grows. For technical excellence and hence parity of esteem this was the right thing to do but the process was contested by some FE institutions. But they now appear to be likely to be available under ABS as one major (similar to the Alternative Academic Qualifications – AAQs – that were due to be introduced). However, the option to use AGs as a ‘double major’ (or two separate but linked majors) would mean that school sixth forms and sixth form colleges would likely retain what amounts to AG provision. The test will be whether the AGs continue to be pulled from the system as planned.
Parity of esteem may be difficult to achieve if ABS is a ‘see through wrapper’. It appears that employers and HEIs will know the majors and minors taken by each learner under the ABS umbrella qualification, which could lead to a hierarchy of ABS results. It is also noteworthy that, just at the point that parity of esteem could have been illustrated by the examples chosen, DfE’s own document illustrates the route to becoming a doctor as being via chemistry, biology, physics (and maths and English) – which is broadly as happens how! The opportunity to illustrate parity by using an example of a medicine related occupational group core and specialism or even chemistry and physics with a “health” major was completely lost on the authors of the document. A similar point could be made about the example focused on computer science.
The mixing of technical and academic education beneath the ABS presents huge operational challenges. This is a clear departure from DfE’s prior plan of having ‘two routes’ – academic and technical. For providers, there is a question about what happens when a school sixth form or sixth form college cannot deliver the technical majors or double majors (many deliver no, or very limited amounts of technical education); or when an FE college does not deliver academic majors or double majors (many already do not deliver A levels). Will students be able to attend two institutions if they want a mix of academic and technical qualifications as part of their ABS? In the current institutional structure only an FE technical college which also does A levels would be able to offer the range of options which students are supposed to be able to pick and mix under the new policy.
Apprenticeships for young people are outside the system, not part of it. Entry to most occupations at Level 3 (or higher) requires substantial workplace training whatever the mix of majors and minors taken earlier. Apprenticeships, either full length or shortened as necessary, are therefore a necessary part of this system not an alternative to it. Young people entering demanding careers need both education and training not one or the other, yet the DfE continues to characterise apprenticeships as an alternative route rather than a part of the same system.
T levels and A levels in their current form will be with us for a long while yet. Sunak acknowledges that this is long term reform and the DfE document states that it may take a decade to come to full fruition. And of course this policy is to some extent subject to the outcome of a general election expected in late 2024. Labour have been supportive of T levels while indicating they would slow or pause the withdrawal of AGs; the initial reaction to the PM’s announcement by shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson was to describe the ABS as ‘careless’ and ‘undeliverable’, adding that the decision to ‘junk’ T levels as ‘absolutely extraordinary and staggering.’
Employers and the labour market needs seem to have been forgotten. T levels have another purpose, which is to supply highly skilled young people to the labour market for occupations at levels 3, 4 and 5. This is where the supply of skills into our economy fails most, squeezed by the emphasis via A levels and universities (levels 6/7) and the high volume of entries to level 2 occupations from education at all levels.
We have experienced a serious process of development of apprenticeships and technical education over the past decade or so based on employer occupational standards. Ministers were working to implement a clear vision through a single department of state, thus avoiding the old two departmental “see saw” of policy we had before this period, between educational supply side thinking and employer/labour market needs. This appears to be yet another sudden lurch in policy driven by the temptation to “tinker” with the system for headlines.
To paraphrase George Orwell, the technical education revolution had the slogan “two routes good, no routes bad”. We are now in the revisionist world of “two routes good, no routes better” and, as ever, “some qualifications are more equal than others”.
For more about our thinking on technical education and apprenticeships visit our blog, or to find out about our work with further and higher education please contact james.farr@think.uk.com.