I appreciate her rigorous analysis of Susanna Rustin not addressing post-16 academic/professional disparities (T-level is a disaster, and young people suffer because the pastors don't acknowledge it).
I agree that there is little evidence that T levels marks the end of the “second class status” of vocational education, but the question is part of the fact that T levels are too stiff, too narrow and too narrow (can you honestly look back on being 16 years old and know which career you want?)
Equally important is the malabsorption of further education as Cinderella in the education system (how many ministers support their children in professional qualifications).
As governor of a large FE college, I know that education staff and leaders work hard to ensure that all students enrolled at T-level thrive. But they are also accused of solving problems for people that are not education, employment, or training and reinforce adult education in their communities. This issue (inherent to England) remains an outdated binary disparity, with academic routes and qualifications taking prerogative positions and efforts to prevent efforts to provide student-centered, accessible routes.
Back in 1990, the Institute for Public Policy proposed the radical and comprehensive British Baccalaureate (not the half-rishi snack proposal of the same name). This was a modular, single qualification, and was an alternative to the entire range of competence in academic and professional pathways.
The intention was to crush a closed, inflexible system that prevents “academic” students from pursuing professional interests, and to prevent professional students from exploring academic disciplines of interest (beyond the thin gr of GCSE English and Mathematics review). We encouraged opportunities to mix academic and occupational modules with a common framework.
If T-level is the answer, we are worried that we are still asking the wrong question.
John Butcher
Professor Emeritus at Open University
T-level bashing is not useful for adoption. Some T levels may not work in some subject areas, but this is not true for all of them. For example, the T-level students in digital production, design and development that I teach are suitable for a wide range of careers in the digital sector. The problem we have is encouraging students to become interested in pursuing a digital career. Sending a message that T-levels are a waste of time is not benefiting the sector.
This particular T-level course is better than the outdated BTEC courses that we swapped. The content is more up-to-date and direct industry links are more visible.
Due to the approach to education in vocational education, the course is suitable for students who earn 4S and 5S in GCSE. All of my students got 4 and 5 seconds, some of which are also 3 seconds in GCSE English. They all navigate T-level courses with the support they need to achieve good grades. The university accepts this qualification as a route to a variety of computing-related courses.
In some subject areas, T-levels may not fit the bill, but in others it is thriving. Or at least, it would be if a cloud of negativity is not constantly being forced on them.
Karen Ahmed
Lecturer at Computing and IT, Southport College
