Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) I beg to move, That this House
has considered e-petition 592642, relating to BTEC qualifications.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Mark.
The petition, entitled “Protect student choice: do not withdraw
funding for BTEC qualifications”, aims to reverse the plan to
withdraw funding for most applied general qualifications, such as
BTECs, and guarantee that they will continue to play a major role
in the...Request free trial
(Battersea) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 592642, relating to
BTEC qualifications.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir
Mark. The petition, entitled “Protect student choice: do not
withdraw funding for BTEC qualifications”, aims to reverse the
plan to withdraw funding for most applied general qualifications,
such as BTECs, and guarantee that they will continue to play a
major role in the qualifications landscape.
The petition is about choice, and not forcing students to choose
between studying only A-levels or T-Levels from the age of 16. I
begin by acknowledging and congratulating the
#ProtectStudentChoice coalition, an unprecedented gathering of 30
organisations from various sectors, including the Association of
School and College Leaders, national teachers’ unions and the
National Union of Students, for its brilliant campaigning against
the defunding of BTECs.
The strong level of support—including the petition, which
gathered over 108,329 signatures, leading to today’s debate—is
credit to the brilliant work done by the coalition and, in
particular, by the petition’s creators, Noni and James at the
Sixth Form Colleges Association. The fact that the Government
have had to make changes to their plans—although those changes
still do not go far enough—shows the power of the work of the
coalition and the value of the petition. I also want to say a
special thanks to St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College and South
Thames College in my Battersea constituency—two brilliant
institutions providing BTECs for young people in Battersea and
neighbouring constituencies.
Many of us are here because we are passionate about ensuring that
the education system provides young people with the skills
employers need. As we come out of the pandemic, we need students
to finish education well equipped to progress to further training
or to get skilled jobs, allowing businesses to recover and young
people to flourish. That is why I am extremely concerned about
the Government’s proposal to remove funding for the vast majority
of BTECs. That will remove choice for many young people and may
lead to some missing the opportunity to go to university.
Several hon. Members rose—
I have too much choice. That is what we want our students to
have, right? I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for St
Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer).
(St Helens South and Whiston)
(Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a dear
friend of mine, on securing the debate. BTECs have been a
lifeline for so many of my constituents across St Helens and
Knowsley. They have a positive impact on social mobility and have
helped so many young people get on in life. Does my hon. Friend
agree that BTECs offer the right balance of academic and
vocational learning, and that funding for them must be
maintained?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making that point; she has
clearly read my speech, because I am going to come on to that.
She is absolutely spot on. That is why I was proud to join over
100 parliamentarians calling on the Government to reconsider
their plan.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right: one thing that we want to promote, of
course, is choice. I agree that scrapping BTECs will hinder
social mobility, and hinder progress into skilled labour markets
and higher education. As Paul Britton, the principal of Wyke
Sixth Form College, pointed out—I am a bit biased as I went there
myself as a student—scrapping BTECs will also have an impact on
the local economy. Not only is it bad for social mobility, but it
is bad for choice and for the local economy. I support BTECs so
much that even my daughter is going to do one next year.
Fantastic—I could not say it better myself. My hon. Friend makes
a fantastic contribution and she is absolutely right: it is not
just about social mobility; it is about the local economy
too.
The introduction of T-levels does have value in terms of
technical education; however, there is no rationale for why BTEC
qualifications must make way for them. It makes sense to have
A-levels, T-levels and BTECs in all future qualification
landscapes. It is clear that the Government are forcing through
these changes so they can drive up T-level take-up. The Sixth
Form Colleges Association has described T-levels as a
“minority, untested product that the Government is pushing as a
mass product.”
It is still too early to analyse the effectiveness of T-levels.
The Government should not be pulling away from BTECs without
evidence about the success of T-levels. That is grossly unfair to
young people, removing their choice and opportunity.
The notion that we can divide people into “academic” or
“technical” is wrong. BTECs provide a different type of
educational experience—one that combines the development of
skills with academic learning. I believe that the Minister
studied a BTEC and said that it had a transformative impact on
her life. Perhaps she agrees with me that, after last week, we
need a new BTEC course on public anger management.
Leaders from various education institutions have said that, for
some students, BTECs will continue to be a more effective route
to higher education or skilled employment than studying A-levels
or T-levels.
(Winchester) (Con)
I am fortunate to have Peter Symonds College in my constituency.
It is one of the biggest in England and it educates about 4,500
young people. Many of its students progress to higher education
or to skilled employment after studying an applied general
qualification such as a BTEC. Does the hon. Lady agree that if
the Government are to proceed with this policy and remove BTECs,
we need to hear from the new Minister—I welcome her to her
place—what viable pathway they envisage for those young people
who will then want to move on to higher education or skilled
employment through colleges such as Peter Symonds, which serves
my constituents and those of many of the MPs around me in
Hampshire?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. It is important
that we retain the three routes that are currently available.
In particular, BTECs provide a good route to get young people
into university. The Nuffield Foundation found that around a
quarter of students who go to university have BTEC
qualifications. A significant number of those students complete
their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least an
upper second-class degree. The Government must listen to
students. It is clear from the data that students value these
qualifications. An estimate suggests that around 34% of the
921,046 16 to 18-year-olds studying a level 3 qualification in
England are pursuing at least one BTEC.
On the benefits of BTECs, I will share some students’
experiences. First, BTECs allow students to specialise and learn
a wider range of skills. Isabella, who is studying for a BTEC in
IT at St Francis Xavier Sixth Form College, said:
“If I was to do A level computer science, I would have to pick
two other subjects that weren’t related to my chosen career
path…I would like to do something in artificial intelligence or
computer science or web developing and I realised that me doing
BTEC IT really benefits me as I study a lot of”
those areas.
Secondly, BTECs are more accessible than alternatives such as
T-levels. Summer, a level 3 aviation operations student at
Newcastle College, said:
“Many people won’t meet the qualifications”
to go on to T-levels, and
“everyone deserves an education no matter what grades they
get.”
Thirdly, BTECs also lead to beneficial health outcomes, including
for mental health. Sylvia, who is studying art, design and
communications at St Francis Xavier College, said:
“I don’t need to worry about exams or any tests, I’m just in the
moment—I design buildings and I build them.”
Not everybody is cut out to do exams.
The reality is that the plan for T-levels and A-levels to become
the qualifications of choice for most young people will leave
many students—including those with special educational needs or
disabilities and those from a black, Asian or ethnic minority
background—without a viable pathway after their GCSEs. The
Department for Education’s own impact assessment concluded that
such students had the most to lose from these changes. Defunding
BTECs risks reversing the progress made by higher education
institutions, especially in London, on access and participation
in recent years. BTECs are engines of social mobility, as my hon.
Friends have highlighted. Research from the Social Market
Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students who
enter university studied at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black
students enter with only BTEC qualifications.
The Government have now said that they plan to delay the
defunding until 2024-25 rather than 2023-24, and that their plans
will apply to only a “small proportion” of the total level 3
BTECs and other applied general-style qualifications. On the
first point, delaying a bad idea does not stop it being a bad
idea. On the second, removing a small proportion of
qualifications for which a high proportion of students are
enrolled will still have a devastating impact. For example,
around 80% of applied general enrolments in the sixth form
college sector are in just 20 subject areas.
It is time for the Government to listen, and they need to
consider reversing their plans. Does the Minister think that the
new Prime Minister will change the Conservative party’s
disastrous policy on this issue? Will she guarantee that funding
will not be removed for any BTEC qualifications unless an
impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that they are
not valued by students, universities and employers? Will she
ensure that students and practitioners can contribute to the
process of identifying qualifications that are deemed to overlap
with T-levels? Can she assure us that some of the most popular
BTECs—in subjects such as health, business, IT and applied
sciences—will not be scrapped through the reapproval process
simply to help drive up the numbers of students taking
T-levels?
(Warley) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend comes to the end of her speech, may I say
to her that it is not just in London that BTECs have proved so
useful? It is also the case in the west midlands conurbation,
which has a very diverse population and a sizeable skills gap.
That is why the Government should look at offering BTECs
alongside T-levels. T-levels have a huge role to play, and
employer demand is there, but employers also recognise the
upgrading of young people’s skills and abilities through
undertaking BTECs. It is not just on the educational side, but on
what the Government always say they are looking at—the outputs,
which employers value as well.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely spot on.
In conclusion, the Government argue that changes are needed and
that their plans are about streamlining and improving the quality
of post-16 qualifications, but I and others firmly disagree with
that assessment. We do not believe that the reforms will achieve
their desired outcomes. The Government need to listen not just to
me but to students, practitioners and employers, who all see the
value of retaining BTEC qualifications.
4.45pm
(Taunton Deane) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here now that I am back on the Back
Benches, as one of the 56 who were driven to resign. This is the
first debate that I have spoken in since then, which demonstrates
how important I feel it is. There are a number of reasons for
that.
BTEC qualifications are important nationally and for my
constituency, which has several excellent further education
colleges that I will mention. I am pleased to follow the hon.
Member for Battersea (), who opened the debate.
There were 669 signatories to the petition in my constituency—the
eighth highest by number of constituents. Normally, when so many
people sign a petition, it demonstrates that lots of others
support the subject. That is why I am here.
To cut to the chase, I understand the need to equip students
between 16 and 18, or indeed those studying in later life, with
the best skills and tools to get into jobs and to work with the
businesses that need them. That is really important for growing
our economy. In that respect, I supported the Skills and Post-16
Education Act 2022.
I have real concerns, however, about the proposal to axe BTEC
qualifications, which, in a large proportion of cases, function
perfectly well. I completely understand that it would be worth
looking at the multifarious range of courses, because clearly
some are repetitive and some do not quite align with the jobs and
skills we need, but a great many of them certainly do. I do not
believe that they should just be removed so that people are left
with only T-levels and A-levels. I perfectly understand their
place as well, but it seems like throwing the baby out with the
bathwater to get rid of something that is already performing
well.
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. I hope that the
Minister will recognise that T-levels are not universally
available throughout the country, because of the work placement
requirement that comes with them. Getting rid of BTECs and
replacing them with T-levels actually limits choice for people,
because the availability of T-levels is variable and depends on
the jobs in the local economy.
That is a really good point. It was not raised by people in my
area—it may not be the case there—but the case certainly has been
made that T-levels are basically the equivalent of three A-levels
rolled together, and not every student is quite ready to do that.
Students also have to get the same qualifications at GCSE to do a
T-level, so already, one might be alienating a certain number of
students who might find the BTEC really good and go on to do some
of these other things. There are many things that I urge the
Minister—I welcome her to her place—to look at and listen to, now
that we have this reprieve.
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
The hon. Lady has hit on an important point. If the Government
are saying that T-levels have greater rigour than BTECs, and if,
by definition, T-levels will not be appropriate for many students
who currently do BTECs, the Government have to tell us what their
plan is for those students. If the plan is not a level 3
qualification, what is it?
I am not always the first person to agree with the Opposition,
but I think we have a lot of synergy here. What is most important
is putting students first and coming up with what we can do for
them—and then, in fairness, what they can do to help the country
and the economy because they are well trained and they have the
right skills.
We have a reprieve, but I believe that it is only a delay at the
moment. I urge the Minister to use that delay to listen to all
these comments and work out what sort of system might keep all
three qualifications in the right shape or form.
Further to my earlier intervention on the hon. Member for
Battersea (), if the Government wish
to proceed with this, they have the right to do so—if they can
convince the House that it is the right thing to do. However,
young people have had enough anxiety over the last few years, and
they are making decisions now. They do not have time for delay
and navel gazing. We need a steer sooner rather than later;
otherwise, it just adds to their anxiety.
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I think that we all
recognise that our students have come through a very difficult
time. Indeed, the colleges, in planning, also need some clear
steers. His point is well made.
I want to speak very specifically about my own sixth-form
college, Richard Huish College, which has been rated outstanding
by Ofsted for the third consecutive year, and has an outstanding
record over 20 years. Nearly 800 students every year do applied
general qualifications—that is, BTECs—and a significant number go
on to very high-quality education and a whole range of other
courses. BTECs are definitely a useful stepping-stone. I have
spoken to those students, and many of the points that I am about
to raise have come from those discussions. I will highlight some
of the examples. One student did two A-levels, psychology and
sociology, and then a BTEC in music production. She has gone on
to Magdalen College, Oxford, to do human sciences.
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
That is a really important point. BTECs can enable students to go
to university at Oxford and Cambridge, but Oxford and Cambridge
will not recognise the T-level subjects.
That is another well-made point. All those things must go into
the mix in making sure that we get this right for our young
people.
Another example is a student who studied the BTEC extended
diploma in public services and went on to do paramedic science at
the University of Plymouth. Another did the business BTEC and
went on to do a higher-level apprenticeship with the accountants
Ernst and Young. Another did the extended diploma in public
services and went on to join Avon and Somerset police. Another
did health and social care, and went on to an adult nursing
degree at Cardiff University. A further student did a health and
social care diploma and went on to a teaching course at the
University of Plymouth—and so on and so forth. That demonstrates
the breadth of the qualification.
There is also a strong link, particularly in my constituency,
between students doing a health-related BTEC and then going into
nursing, which is critical. We have another very good FE college,
University Centre Somerset. In fairness, it does T-levels and
BTECs, and that is all going well, but it takes a lot of students
on to its nursing courses. We need those people in Somerset, and
probably all over the country. We particularly need them in
Somerset because we have a wonderful new hospital. As the MP, I
was responsible for helping to get the upgrade and the new
theatres, and we are working on that. There is a massive call for
more nurses, and we want those nurses to stay in my lovely
constituency. If we can train them there, and they can get a
great, well-paid job, we will not haemorrhage them to elsewhere
in the country. We need them to stay in Somerset, particularly
because we have an ageing population. I would like my young
people to stay in my wonderful constituency.
(Luton South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an important point about the link-up and
the circular needs in our local communities. For example,
students can do a biomedical science BTEC at Luton Sixth Form
College, they can go to the University of Bedfordshire in Luton
and then they can work at Luton and Dunstable University
Hospital. Would she agree that it is important that that
practical link-up is maintained?
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That is exactly the
point that I was trying to make. We are demonstrating that that
is what is happening in Somerset. I certainly want that to
continue, and in fact to grow, and for us to nurture all those
people to live and work in this wonderful environment. It is a
beautiful environment in which to work anyway, so if we can give
them a good job and good training, I am sure that they will be
tempted to stay. That is particularly important. A significant
number of people go into teaching from these courses, which is
also important. There are a lot of concerns that moving from this
binary system of T-levels and A-levels, and that it will mean our
BTECs become defunded, so can the Minister assure me that that
will not be the case? As I said, it will be much more appropriate
for many young people to start with the BTEC.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester
(), we want our students to have
a viable pathway, and that point about the uncertainty was such a
good one because they will already be thinking, “BTECs are the
way for me”—having that confidence because it is not three
A-levels rolled into one—but suddenly they are getting a bit
uncertain about what we are doing for them.
The point that the hon. Member for Battersea and others made so
ably about disadvantaged backgrounds is significant, because the
data shows that a high proportion of people from disadvantaged
backgrounds start with a BTEC and loads of them go on to
university. The universities know that, and we are trying to
level up and include everybody. That is something that needs to
be taken into account.
I will make one further point, which is particularly relevant to
Somerset. We have a high proportion of small and medium-sized
enterprises in our county, and they simply cannot provide the 45
days of work experience required for a T-level. I understand why
that is important and why T-levels are designed to include it,
but these are not huge companies; they are small SMEs, and a lot
of them find it difficult to give somebody even a week’s work
experience. That needs a lot of attention, because otherwise even
the T-levels will struggle in Somerset. What we do not want is to
be left with a whole load of brilliant young students for whom
A-levels are not appropriate and a T-level is not appropriate,
and who are just not getting the opportunities that they
need.
To conclude, my plea is to look at this really carefully and
listen to what everybody is saying, because we are all saying it
with the best intentions. We want to support the Government and
their skills and opportunities agenda, because that is absolutely
the right way to go. It is really good to be looking at all of
this, but could we potentially have an evidence-based assessment
of the whole situation so that we are doing the right thing for
our young people?
4.57pm
(Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I am
grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea () for leading the debate
and speaking with characteristic eloquence about what the
Government’s plans to defund applied general qualifications will
mean for young people living in her constituency.
Like my hon. Friend, I have been deeply moved by the many
messages I have received in recent weeks from students studying
at Wirral Metropolitan College, urging me to speak in this debate
and to stand up and defend the principle of student choice. Many
of those young people live in some of the most deprived
communities in the country, and they understand all too well what
the Government do not: that guaranteeing young people access to a
wide range of educational opportunities is essential if they are
to realise their full potential. That message has been
underscored by many of my older constituents who now work in
sectors as diverse as academia, administration and aerospace, for
whom BTECs were a vital stepping stone towards university or
training in industry.
Much of today’s discussion will understandably focus on pathways
to work or further study, but we must never forget that education
is all about broadening one’s horizons in other senses. Although
much of what a person studies at age 17 and 18 has little bearing
on their day-to-day work, it nevertheless plays an important role
in shaping more well-rounded, thoughtful and inquisitive adults.
Since the Conservatives came into office 12 long years ago,
education policy has been treated as a plaything for
policymakers, who have little grounding in the sector and are
more interested in ideology than in outcomes. Rhetoric has
trumped hard-earned experience and successive Education
Secretaries have been free to make far-reaching reforms, despite
the protestations of education experts, practitioners and young
people themselves.
The result is that today levels of social mobility are in
freefall, while the UK continues to lag far behind our European
neighbours when it comes to investment in technical training and
education. Now Ministers want to do away with a system of
qualifications that is widely respected, recognised and
understood, replacing it with T-levels, which are entirely
untried and untested.
For many people working in further education, these plans will
undoubtedly revive memories of the ill-fated vocational diplomas
and A-levels. However, whereas those served only to distract the
Government from attending to the more profound questions
concerning education provision, I fear that these new proposals
will have the far graver consequence of entrenching long-standing
educational inequalities for years to come. Indeed, the
University and College Union has warned that by limiting student
choice to a traditional academic education or a narrower
vocational pathway, we risk giving rise to an overlooked middle
of learners who are unable to access either.
For far too long, the Government’s approach towards education
policy has been warped by a grotesque desire to preserve a
privileged education for the elite few, and by the belief that
university is somehow innately superior to a vocational
education. The consequence is that vocational education is today
poorly understood, even by Ministers who seek to reform it.
Ministers have fundamentally failed to grasp the fact that not
everyone studying a vocational subject wishes to enter an
occupational role, and nor should they be expected to commit to
such a significant decision at such a young age. The education
unions are quite right to fear that the Government’s plans for
T-levels risk forcing some students, who would otherwise study
BTECs, into lower levels of learning or out of education
entirely.
Our country faces some extraordinary challenges in the coming
years. The landscape of work is set to be fundamentally
transformed by the growing pace of automation, while the
existential threat posed by the climate crisis demands that we
invest in an unprecedented level to lay the foundations for a
high-skilled and green economy. These changes all have enormous
implications for the future of education provision and, in
particular, vocational education. We are in desperate need of a
rethink of our priorities and a clean break with the idea that a
vocational education is somehow second rate.
However, instead of showing the vision, ambition and commitment
to fundamental change that the times call for, Ministers are
instead focusing on repackaging technical qualifications and
restricting student choice. In the short term, it is young
working-class people in my constituency who will suffer, but soon
enough our whole country will be forced to pay the price.
5.02pm
(Meon Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first
time, Sir Mark. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Battersea
() and the Petitions
Committee for scheduling the debate. The petition has attracted
many signatures from my Meon Valley constituency and elsewhere in
Hampshire, where we are fortunate to have some really strong
colleges serving our students. Although I do not have a
sixth-form college in my constituency, some of my constituents
attend colleges in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member
for Winchester () and other nearby colleges. In
the lead-up to the debate, I have been contacted directly by
student constituents who have concerns, and I am pleased to speak
on their behalf too.
In the post-covid landscape, we must help students to catch up,
as well as ensuring that education meets the changing needs of
employers and the future life of young people. One thing that I
know employers look for is certainty. There has been an endless
debate about the value of qualifications and about how well
qualifications relate to what employers need, which is why I
wrote a paper on assessment nearly two years ago and why there
have been five commissions since on the subject, which I will
come to later. Indeed, tomorrow we will be setting up an
all-party parliamentary group on assessment—I say that in case
anybody here is interested in joining.
With BTEC, we have a proven qualification in many subjects that
provides value for everyone—students and employers.
Qualifications such as BTEC are taken close to the point at which
many students are likely to enter work. They are relatively more
important than A-levels to young people who are not going to
university, as they prepare students well for work immediately,
whereas university students have another three or four years
before facing career-level employers for the first time after
graduating.
I am pleased that most universities recognise BTECs as part of
the mix of qualifications for entry to university. I did not know
about T-levels, but I have looked them up and the hon. Member for
Battersea is absolutely right that Cambridge and Oxford do not
accept them at this stage, but I hope that might change.
I welcome the intentions towards employability skills that the
Government showed in bringing in T-levels. However, where BTEC
qualifications best fit the needs of students and employers, they
should be retained. Let us take nursing and healthcare, for
instance. All the medical bodies have said that they are
concerned about the impact of scrapping BTEC courses on their
ability to recruit in future. Students who take BTECs can become
support workers, and many go on to qualify as nurses, midwives
and radiographers. NHS employers estimate that about one fifth of
those studying for a nursing degree started with a health and
social care BTEC. At the same time, NHS bodies have doubts about
the viability of replacement T-levels because, as we have heard,
they require a 45-day work placement, which many employers
struggle to offer. That is a problem for people who want to go
into medicine too; finding work experience is very difficult.
Ending BTECs without having a suitable replacement will make it
hard to recruit into those professions and others, including
apprenticeships, so we must ensure that every route into those
jobs is kept open.
We should also look at the social impact of the proposed changes.
The equalities impact assessment, which formed part of the
Government’s response to the consultation, states that removing
BTECs will mean that some students do not attain a qualification
at level 3. There is simply a commitment to mitigate that with a
higher-quality level 2, and mitigations are outlined to support
continued progression to level 3, but it is not clear what they
will be. The EIA highlights concerns about the uncertainty of the
future approval criteria.
Hon. Members will agree that to expect students to start on a
path when neither they nor the Government know where it will lead
is unacceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane
() articulated well. The EIA is
clear that students from minority and more deprived backgrounds
will be disproportionately affected by this change. It is not
good enough to say that we will make a better level 2 for them.
That is not how we advance social mobility.
This experience should teach us that the structure of senior
education assessment is becoming more confused, not less. We have
A-levels for the academic strand, which is completely separate
from vocational strands. T-levels do not provide learning in some
subjects in the way that BTECs do. We are proposing to end BTECs
in general while retaining some specialist qualification. As I
mentioned in the paper that I wrote, it is time to look again at
how we structure education between the ages of 14 and 18 so that
young people can work towards a range of qualifications that
complement each other—education and vocational, with the ability
to do different strand at the same time.
We should end the situation in which young people take GCSEs,
which are only a milestone in their education, before moving into
a confused offer of A-levels, T-levels and whatever other limited
qualifications remain after this review. We need a vocational
path alongside T-levels. All the commissions that have published
on this subject agree that our assessment system is no longer fit
for purpose.
University technical colleges are one of the best innovations in
education in decades. Many of my constituents go to one in
Portsmouth, and I would love to have more surrounding my
constituency, because the demand for UTC places in Hampshire
outstrips supply. That is the right kind of environment for young
people to take in a mixture of subjects and qualifications. By
starting at 14, they avoid a jolt in students’ education at 16.
Students do GCSEs, but it is a secondary thing; it is something
they have to get through, rather than linking to what they want
to do.
As usual, my hon. Friend is making a very thoughtful speech. In
Hampshire, we have a tertiary system: we have big sixth-form
colleges and very few sixth forms attached to state secondary
schools. UTCs are an important element of choice that maintains
the system that has worked well and served our county and
constituents for many years.
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That should not stop a
curriculum that starts at 14 and continues to 18. It just means
that it continues in a different building, perhaps with a
different uniform. It is a way of progressing, and it is very
easy to do. It should not be a barrier to changing to a different
sort of curriculum. It also means that people would have a much
more coherent education. They would then be able to go into the
workplace, further training or higher education, properly
equipped with a wide range of experience. It is a bit like an
English baccalaureate, although I do not think we should call it
a baccalaureate—I have spoken about that many times and will not
speak about it now.
Employers, teachers and students in my constituency all tell me
that we should have a meaningful reform of senior education, and
I agree. The present situation with BTEC, as this petition
emphasises, is one that we must avoid letting happen again.
5.09pm
(Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea () on leading the debate
with an excellent speech, and the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition
on their excellent campaigning on the issue. I am a proud former
student, and now governor, of Luton Sixth Form College—the UK’s
first sixth-form college—which now educates over 3,000 students.
I am also pleased to be co-chair of the all-party parliamentary
group on sixth form education, so I would like to extend my
thanks to the Sixth Form Colleges Association in particular for
all their hard work in the area.
Every student deserves a first-class education, and I know that
giving students choice to shape their learning, assessment and
career path is critical to their successfully achieving their
future aspirations. However, the Government’s proposals seem to
fly in the face of that. #ProtectStudentChoice estimates that at
least 34% of the 16 to 18-year-olds studying a level 3
qualification in England are pursuing at least one applied
general qualification—that is more than 300,000 students. Many
young people would be better served studying an applied general
qualification, such as a BTEC, rather than an A-level or
T-level-only study programme. It should not be one route over
another. The three-route model would work well. That is why the
over 108,000 people who signed the petition and I are steadfast
in our opposition to the Government’s plan to defund BTECs.
Working class people in my town should not be held back by that
short-sighted narrowing of opportunities. BTECs have transformed
the life chances of thousands of young people in Luton and made a
significant contribution to our local economy—there are numerous
examples of young people in Luton pursuing their aspirations
through BTECs, whether that be work, further qualifications or
university—and that is backed up by research. I have made the
point many times before that disadvantaged young people are among
those with the most to lose from the Government’s plans. That is
evidenced by the Department for Education’s own equality impact
assessment, which states
“those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged
backgrounds, and males”
are
“disproportionately likely to be affected.”
BTECs are a route to university for many of those young people.
The Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white
working-class students that enter university studied at least one
BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter with only BTEC
qualifications. The Nuffield Foundation found that a quarter of
students now enter university with BTEC qualifications, and are
more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. The vast
majority of BTEC students complete their studies successfully,
with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1.
I was contacted by a constituent ahead of the debate to share
their experiences studying BTECs. They said that:
“Dyslexia greatly affects my short-term memory, making exam-based
qualifications which rely on memory recall, such as A-levels,
almost completely out of reach for myself and others with
dyslexia.”
Instead, they
“pursued a BTEC in mechanical engineering, which allowed for me
to be assessed on coursework and practical applications across
the span of two years. If it was not for my BTEC qualification
and the support I received throughout that process, I would not
be able to pursue a BEng at university today.”
They summed the point up better than I could, saying that:
“BTECs are a vital lifeline to all neurodivergent and
underprivileged children in the UK, for whom A-levels may not be
a viable option. Students with dyslexia, ADHD and ASD face larger
barriers to mainstream forms of education than most, and by
cutting funding for BTECs, it will ultimately deter these
students from achieving their potential and integrating them into
industry workforces.”
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This
Government have had an obsession with exams over the course of
the last 12 years, as though they are the only way of
demonstrating what a student knows. Does the fact that so many
students get a second chance through BTECs, and go on to be
successful at university and get degrees, not prove that the
focus on exams, and on dismissing the achievements of those
students who have qualifications largely based on coursework, is
entirely wrongheaded?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will go on to talk
about choices and how people can progress and make different
choices about their careers and future, and what they want to do,
but that is exactly it. Narrowing those options will make things
much more difficult.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment
has been made of how to support neurodivergent students who will
be impacted by the proposals to defund BTECs. , principal of Luton Sixth
Form College, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the
Member for Luton North (), has made this point to me:
“By allowing that flexibility for A Levels and forcing the T
Level route for students with lower prior attainment the
government is creating a divided society that is penalising the
most vulnerable in our society. The point is that many young
people do not want to, or even should not have to, decide their
future path at 16. Interests, aspirations and capabilities all
change”.
To re-emphasise the point, it is not about favouring one route
over others, but empowering young people to shape their own
learning. T-levels could be a welcome development, but they
should sit alongside BTECs, rather than replace them.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to keep options
open for young people. Deciding our whole future at the age of 16
would have been unrealistic for most of us, and it flies in the
face of what most educational systems around western Europe are
doing. Does my hon. Friend also agree that employers want young
people with a rounded range of skills and
qualifications—vocational, academic and practical—and that the
obsession with people going down an academic or a vocational
route is completely at odds with what happens in most
workplaces?
I thank my hon. Friend for her—as ever—very thoughtful
contribution, and I thoroughly agree with her. As Ministers know,
T-levels will not fill the gap, because this is not just about
the qualification and the specific workplace at the end of the
process, but about tailoring learning and types of assessment to
suit people’s development.
I understand that the Government’s justification for defunding
some BTEC qualifications is that they overlap with one of the new
T-level qualifications, or that they have not been reapproved as
they do not meet new quality and necessity criteria. The
#ProtectStudentChoice campaign has raised concerns about the
overlap process: it is not transparent, and some unusual
decisions have been made regarding qualifications. For example,
one awarding organisation’s diploma in health and social care
featured on the list, but diplomas from other awarding
organisations did not. Engineering BTECs were included, despite
most engineering T-levels featuring in waves 3 and 4. Some
clarity on that point would be very welcome.
Fundamentally, there is no student, provider or employer input
into the overlap process. The reapproval process is expected to
make its first announcement in September, so I urge the Minister
to ensure the same failures are not replicated. As all BTEC
qualifications must go through that process, it must be
transparent, and decision making must not be the sole preserve of
Whitehall and external consultants. As a bare minimum, the
public—especially hard-working students—expect the Government to
be open and clear about their plans. Not doing so severely
damages trust in the Government to do the right thing and the
credibility of the policy, so the Government must go further than
simply delaying the defunding of BTECs by 12 months and making
vague commitments to remove only a small proportion of them. They
should rethink their plan and guarantee that funding will not be
removed unless an impartial, evidence-based assessment has
concluded that a qualification is not valued by students,
universities or employers. Reckless policymaking that could be
disastrous for social mobility and the economy must not take
place without hard supporting evidence.
5.18pm
(Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea () on opening this
excellent debate.
Here we have another broken promise from the Conservative
Government. For months, we Liberal Democrats have warned that the
Government were planning to scrap BTECs, and our concerns were
heightened during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education
Act 2022. We were given assurance after assurance, but here we
are. It is interesting to see that as soon as some Conservative
Members are free of the shackles of Government, they stand up and
support BTECs—I wish there were more.
Obviously I am speaking up for BTECs, but I also think the
Government are going in absolutely the right direction in terms
of skills and opportunities, recognising that they need to be
aligned with business needs. I am sure the hon. Lady would agree
with that.
I absolutely agree, but the Government are going to scrap BTECs,
and the hon. Lady is opposing that. That is the only point I was
making.
In July, the Department for Education introduced a twin-track
system, for A-levels and T-levels, for young people at the age of
16, and the result is that funding for most BTEC qualifications
will go. One hundred MPs and peers—including me—wrote to the
Department for Education in support of the #ProtectStudentChoice
campaign, a coalition of 21 organisations that represent students
and staff in schools, colleges and universities, whose aim is to
save BTECs. I thank the more than 100,000 petitioners, many of
them from Bath College and Bath Spa University. We will continue
to resist the move to defund BTECs.
It is the creative subjects in particular that will suffer. The
Government intend to scrap those BTECs that they deem to overlap
with A-levels and T-levels, but the process of assessing what is
an overlap is not at all transparent. Who were the six assessors
commissioned by the DFE to review the 2,000 or so qualifications?
What were their backgrounds and experience? Where is the written
evidence of their conclusions in order to defund 160
qualifications? Ofqual has quality-assured the qualifications for
many years, and Ofsted, which oversees the quality of education,
has at no point suggested that the qualifications lead to poor
outcomes, so why will they go?
BTECs are invaluable in order to provide very different types of
educational experiences. We have already heard a lot about that.
They are popular with students and respected by employers and
they provide a well-established route to higher education. They
work, so what other than a narrow-minded ideological view has led
the Government to scrap most of them and create less choice,
especially for those learners who come from disadvantaged
backgrounds? We Liberal Democrats acknowledge that from time to
time, the range of qualifications needs to be reviewed, but not
by closing viable educational pathways, especially for those
students from poorer or minority backgrounds. Research from the
Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class
students entered university with at least one BTEC, and so did
37% of black students.
Removing BTECs as an option risks students failing courses or
picking courses that they are not engaged with. Students today
need more, not less, support. They need more, not less, choice.
They need choices and a Government who understand that by
providing diverse pathways to qualifications, we will all end up
with a much better, wider and diverse workforce. I hope the
Government will think again.
5.23pm
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I start
by congratulating the 13,437 people who signed the petition
entitled “Don’t scrap funding for BTEC Performing Arts”—I will
come back to that in my speech. I also congratulate and place on
the record my thanks to the more than 108,000 people who signed
the #ProtectStudentChoice petition. Like other hon. Members in
the debate, I want to refer on the record to the excellent work
that my local college, Lewisham College, does in developing our
young people and others so that they can go on and be successful
in BTECs and continue their education further.
The securing of a Westminster Hall debate clearly shows the
strength of feeling about the plans to defund BTECs. I am really
glad to see people from all different political parties
contributing to the debate and showing the strength of feeling on
this issue. I am sure that they are all aware that young people
in England can currently choose between three types of level 3
qualifications at the age of 16: academic qualifications such as
A-levels; technical qualifications that lead to a specific
occupation; and applied general qualifications, such as BTECs,
which combine the development of practical skills with academic
learning.
That all changed in July 2021 when the Department for Education
confirmed plans to replace the three-route model with a two-route
model, of A-levels and T-levels. As a result, funding for the
majority of BTEC qualifications will be removed. It is
disappointing that the Government reached that decision after the
Wolf review said that BTECs are
“valuable in the labour market, and a familiar and acknowledged
route into higher education”.
Although the Government insist that it is not a cut, it is.
Mr Perkins
My hon. Friend refers to the Government’s decision a year ago in
July 2021, but that is also four Education Secretaries ago. Does
she agree that we have Education Secretaries who pop into the job
for a few months without any prior knowledge of the work, make
massive decisions and disappear to do a different job, leaving
those lifelong educationalists to pick up the pieces from the
appalling work that they have done?
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. These are
people’s lives, future and opportunities to get on in life. Quite
often, they are lifelines. I speak from experience. After failing
my GCSEs, as a working-class 16-year-old with a difficult
background, it was a BTEC in performing arts—I am doing a bit of
performing now—that got me back into education and, ultimately,
to university. It made me excited about education again. A BTEC
was my second chance.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s ambition for a
lifelong loan entitlement, so that adults can return to learning
and achieve level 4 and beyond qualifications, will be
compromised if it does not give people the widest possible range
of opportunities to get the level 3 qualifications that will
enable them to take advantage of that subsequent opportunity?
My hon. Friend makes a good and important point about everybody
having access to the education at the points and times in life
that they need it. This Government’s decision to hastily remove
BTEC funding quite simply makes a mockery of their claims to be
levelling up in education. That is made worse on examining impact
assessments of the decision, which highlight that 27% of BTEC
students are deemed the most disadvantaged.
I am wholeheartedly opposed to the changes. Scrapping BTEC
funding is simply the wrong call for several reasons, but one of
the main reasons has to do with my life story of a young kid who
many thought was never going to go on to achieve anything. I went
to Accrington and Rossendale College and studied my BTEC in
performing arts. That led me to believe that I could go on to
university. That led me to believe that I could stand here one
day as an MP. They offer life-changing opportunities for
people.
It is fascinating to hear the hon. Lady’s story. Given her
experience, does she agree that it is important that we provide
education that engages young people who otherwise find academic
subjects very difficult to engage with at first? They need to be
moved towards an educational route that engages and enthuses
them.
I absolutely agree. Studying performing arts taught me that I
loved history and geography and taught me about team working.
There are so many other skills that are important in life.
BTECs are engines of social mobility. Research from the Social
Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students
who enter university studied at least one BTEC, and 37% of black
students enter with only BTEC qualifications. It has already been
said that research from the Nuffield Foundation found that a
quarter of students now enter university with BTEC
qualifications, and are likelier to be from disadvantaged
backgrounds. The vast majority of BTEC students complete their
studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1. I
must confess I only got a 2:2. My question is simple: why do
Ministers want to take this second chance away from young people
and others up and down the country, when it is evidence
based?
To end, I state once again how strongly I oppose the defunding of
BTECs. We all know that the scrapping of BTECs will be disastrous
for social mobility and for the economy. The Government should
rethink their plans to scrap those valuable qualifications and
guarantee that funding will not be removed from any BTEC unless
an impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that
students, universities or employers do not value it; we know that
at the moment they do.
(in the Chair)
I call .
(Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark—
(in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry, I called .
I am sorry, Sir Mark, I thought you said . I misheard you; my
apologies. I will sit down.
5.30pm
(Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark.
I, too, thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for
Battersea (), for leading this
hugely important debate. I also thank all the 108,000 people who
signed the petition and the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition for
their unprecedented campaign, bringing together teachers,
learners, parents and businesses from across the country to ask
the Government to think again on the issue.
I welcome the new Minister to her place. She has on a plate the
chance to change the opportunities of thousands of young people
across the country by looking again at this policy. I hope that
she is listening carefully and will take this action as her
homework over the summer, but urgently, because once defunded,
the BTECs will be hard to put back into place. It would be much
better to stop, rethink and not defund the BTECs.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I am conscious that our education system in Northern Ireland is
different from the one here, so the debate is slightly different
for us. Every time there is a major educational change, one to
two years’ worth of children always pay the price for those
changes to teaching and marking. Children cannot afford to be the
losers, so does the hon. Lady share my concerns that the Minister
and the Government must be cognisant of making any changes or
deciding to go in a different direction?
The hon. Member makes a good point: the changes will be
detrimental. That is what teachers are telling us all—the MPs
present today and many others. They have said that through the
petition and they have told us. That is why I am in this
Chamber—because the heads of my local institutions have told me
of the detrimental damage if the change goes ahead.
I speak on behalf of colleges and sixth forms in Wandsworth,
which are deeply concerned about the impact, especially on
disadvantaged young people. The outcome will be perverse, the
exact opposite of what the introduction of T-levels is supposed
to do. No one present objects to T-levels; we object to taking
away the three-track system.
One college, South Thames College, has already been mentioned by
my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. The South Thames
Colleges Group has 21,000 students across south London. I have
talked to those at the group, and they have a large number of
students who are taking business BTEC, but would not move to the
T-level because, first, they cannot work part-time—a T-level is
full-time. Many people have to work part-time to make ends meet
for their family, and they will not be able to do so. Their
families will say, “Sorry, you cannot carry on in education. We
need you to work,” so they will have to drop being able to go to
South Thames. I met several of those students, who say, “I have
been able to come here to do a business BTEC and my siblings want
to come, but my family says they probably won’t be able to if
moving to a T-level, which is full-time.”
Secondly, the college will find it hard to find enough business
placements in our area. As has been mentioned by other Members,
there is a high number of SMEs—small businesses—in Wandsworth
that will not be able to take on the business placements,
especially as so many are struggling at the moment. Just this
morning I met the head of the Wandsworth chamber of commerce, who
said it will be very hard for businesses to be able to support
T-levels. They really want to see more students doing business
BTECs and other business qualifications, but the Government’s
change will have the opposite effect and will be damaging to our
local economy.
The third reason why students will find it difficult to stay in
education is that there are barriers to higher-level entry for
T-levels. T-levels are supposed to replace BTECs as the step into
post-16 education, but BTECs do something that T-levels do not.
Finally, those who have to stay on and do their GCSE maths,
English and catch-up will have to spend a year doing that and
then start the T-level, which puts them a year behind their
peers. Their peers will be going ahead with their qualifications,
and they will feel that they are behind. It will not be
attractive to take up a T-level, having had to spend a whole year
catching up with GCSEs. If they could do the BTEC alongside
catching up with GCSEs, it would be far more attractive and would
keep young people in education.
South Thames College notes that the Department for Education’s
impact assessment for its consultation acknowledges that students
from more disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to be taking
the qualifications that the Department is planning to remove, and
that it will need mitigation action to avoid causing them
detriment. St Cecilia’s Church of England School in Southfields
shares exactly the same concerns as those of South Thames
College. It offers BTECs in business, travel and tourism, music
tech and applied science. I have introduced South Thames College
teachers to previous Ministers so that they could talk about
their concerns, and I invite the Minister to meet those teachers
in order to talk to the people who know what effect the change
will have.
At St Cecilia’s, BTEC business attracts more pupils than other
subject—about 25 a year. It is a popular subject at GCSE, and
many then want to progress from the level 2 course to the level 3
course. It is the most valued and popular BTEC, accounting for
about 25% of the school’s BTEC students, who cannot just switch
from BTEC business to T-level business. The cuts would mean that
a significant number of pupils in year 11 would not be able to
progress to the sixth form. Worryingly, I am hearing that schools
are saying they will not be able to offer anything except
A-levels if we move to the proposed system. That is not what
Ministers want to be the outcome of introducing T-levels, but it
will be if there is no stop, reset and rethink.
Most sixth forms the size of St Cecilia’s will struggle to offer
T-levels. They lack the space, the resource and the ability to
merge the qualifications into a timetable in which other BTECs
and A-levels are offered. St Cecilia’s says that it will not have
the staff capacity to organise all the business placements that
are needed, which would be another barrier. The school would be
competing with other sixth forms and colleges in an already
packed market in Wandsworth. If that is true in south London, how
much more will it be true around the country? How much more will
rural areas be affected? I just do not see how the needs of the
new business T-level can be met. The head of St Cecilia’s
says:
“Many pupils in Year 11 at St Cecilia’s opt to take a blended
courses of BTEC alongside A levels, and so not being able to
offer Business would reduce the rich diversity in our current
Sixth Form too.”
If schools cannot offer T-levels for those reasons, they may
switch to A-level business, but that would be a barrier to entry
for pupils who prefer or need to study in a different way, for
many reasons. St Cecilia’s leadership believes that defunding
BTECs would go against the Government’s clear principle of
placing curriculum development at the heart of school
improvement. It is not trusting our student leaders, heads of
education and teachers to make the best decisions, and it goes
back to pupil choice as well. School leaders should be given the
freedom to decide which courses are best suited to their cohorts,
because they know them very well. That means a choice between
BTECs, T-levels, A-levels and apprenticeships.
I would like to know what the Department is doing to address the
concerns of institutions such as South Thames College and St
Cecilia’s. Will the Minister come and meet them? I particularly
want to know what mitigations are being proposed to help
disadvantaged young people who will affected by the change. Has
there been an evidence-based assessment? The Minister should look
at the evidence base for making this huge decision. Will she
commit to permitting a wider range of part-time work options to
count as an industry placement? Will she relax restrictions on
the number of placements that can make up the industry placement
total?
Those are all important questions, but the most important
question is whether she or her replacement will look again at
this ill-thought-out and reckless policy. I implore her to
rethink and not to defund BTECs. Colleges, sixth forms and
students oppose it, and the losers will be the most
disadvantaged.
In one fell swoop, this change will disproportionately cut
educational opportunities for black and Asian students, for
students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, for students
with learning disabilities, and for students with mental health
challenges. It is not too late to look again at the policy and
stop it. By doing that, the Minister will improve the educational
opportunities of young people across the country.
5.40pm
(Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark,
particularly as you are a fellow north-west MP. I congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Battersea () on bringing an
important issue to the Chamber. I hope that the Minister will
give us a reasonable response.
I place on record my gratitude to all teaching staff and support
staff in my constituency and across the country and the world.
The last two and a half years have been challenging for all of
us, but teaching staff, support staff and people who work in the
catering teams—everyone—have gone above and beyond. All hon.
Members present will agree that we are very grateful to them for
their significant contribution.
I have received correspondence from Aquinas College and Stockport
College in my constituency. My constituency was one of the top 10
constituencies where the petition was signed, because some 639
constituents signed it. Nationally, 108,349 people signed it,
which is a serious number. I often attend debates in Westminster
Hall with just two or three hon. Members, but there are several
MPs here from pretty much all the political parties, which
reflects the subject’s importance.
Aquinas College in my constituency educates more than 2,200 young
people every year, and its principal Danny Pearson has written to
me on the matter. Stockport College is part of the Trafford
College Group and educates more than 5,500 young people across
several boroughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and
Urmston (), who is a good friend and who
made an intervention earlier, and I work closely with the
Trafford College Group to ensure that those young people, and
some older people such as me, have the opportunities that they
need, that our economy needs and that Greater Manchester
needs.
James Scott, the principal of Trafford College Group, wrote to
me. I found his contribution quite serious and that is one reason
I am here. Mr Pearson and Mr Scott both expressed serious
concerns about the Government’s plans to remove funding for these
qualifications. Lots of constituents have also contacted me in
the last few days regarding this debate, so it is a serious
issue.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up, but actions speak
louder than words. We need to invest in our young people and our
education system to make sure that people are given the
opportunity for education, further education and skilled
employment. We do not want a race to the bottom and zero-hours
contracts; we want skilled, well-paid jobs that people can rely
on so that they can have dignity and survive in this brutal cost
of living crisis.
I will not repeat at length the comments of several hon. Members,
but BTECs have made a significant contribution to the local
economy and social mobility in the UK. Defunding them will leave
many young people without a viable pathway, which will in turn
have an impact on their progress to skilled employment or higher
education.
Several hon. Members have made the point about the
disproportionate impact that the cuts will have on disadvantaged
young people. That point is covered in the Department for
Education’s equality impact assessment, which the Government
should not ignore—although I am not hopeful that the Government
would not ignore their own equality impact assessment. I would
welcome some comments from the Minister on that point.
I am a proud Labour MP and trade unionist. The National Education
Union, the University and College Union, Unison and NASWUT all
support the campaign, and as I and several hon. Members have
said, almost 110,000 people signed the petition, so it is a
serious campaign. I could repeat the points that have already
been made by colleagues, but although the debate can last up to
three hours—you look concerned, Sir Mark, but do not worry—I will
not.
Social mobility is important, and we need investment. The cuts
have not been properly thought out and will have a serious impact
on Greater Manchester and the north-west. I hope that the
Minister will take our comments on board and that her response
will be useful to our constituents. Thank you for calling me to
speak, Sir Mark.
(in the Chair)
Thank you. I taught for four years at a college in the hon.
Gentleman’s constituency, so I concur with a good amount of what
he said. I call .
5.46pm
(Twickenham) (LD)
Thank you, Sir Mark; it is a pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship. Please forgive me for mishearing you earlier, and I
apologise to the hon. Member for Putney (), who made an excellent
speech—probably far better than what I am about to say. I thank
the Petitions Committee for proposing this debate, and the hon.
Member for Battersea () for opening it so
ably.
Vocational and technical qualifications and training have for too
long been incorrectly treated as inferior to academic
qualifications. Right across our society—I include myself in this
and hope that my own mindset is shifting now—we share an
ingrained cultural bias in favour of academic achievement.
Vocational skills, however, are more important than ever, as our
country faces immense skills shortages across so many different
sectors.
Although the Government’s new-found focus on vocational and
technical training is welcome, the Liberal Democrats are opposed
to the defunding—that essentially means scrapping—of the majority
of BTECs. As many hon. Members have said, that will hurt the most
disadvantaged students, and it narrows choice instead of widening
opportunities for all. In so doing, we are kickstarting a
damaging defunding process from 2024, before the T-level concept
has even been properly proven and the new qualifications bedded
in.
BTECs are immensely popular: more than a quarter of a million
students take BTEC qualifications in any given year. They are
disproportionately taken up by students from poorer backgrounds,
ethnic minorities, and those with special educational needs and
disabilities, as the DFE’s own impact assessment has confirmed.
The hon. Member for Luton South () and my hon. Friend the
Member for Bath () have already cited the large
percentage of white working-class and black students who, having
taken BTECs, make it to university and achieve a 2:1, so perhaps
I can instead quote Lord Baker, a former Conservative Education
Secretary. During the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education
Act 2022, he described the plan to defund BTECs as “absolutely
disgusting” because it would deny
“black, Asian, ethnic minority, disadvantaged and disabled
students…hope and aspiration.”—[Official Report, House of Lords,
12 October 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1789.]
The hon. Member for Battersea started her argument on the issue
of choice—that is the crux of the matter, and there is
cross-party agreement on it. Although there is always value in
rationalising qualifications from time to time, forcing students
to choose between A-levels and T-levels will narrow their choices
at a time when we need them to have a range of ways to gain the
transferable skills they need for their future careers. Some
BTECs will remain—those that are equivalent to a single A-level,
or a small number equivalent to two A-levels—but the majority
will disappear.
I want to give an example from Esher Sixth Form College, which is
not in my constituency but serves a number of my constituents.
Students can study BTECs in subjects such as applied science,
business or digital film and video production, in combination
with complementary A-levels in subjects such as chemistry,
computer science or graphic communication. However, BTECs also
allow students to choose an unrelated A-level, enabling them to
follow a passion.
The speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford () was brilliant, inspiring
and powerful because it was based on her personal story, and she
talked about the passion that brought her back to education. A
lot of students choose to mix and match, so that they can round
out their expertise and experiences in foreign languages, maths
or politics, which are subjects that benefit the economy and our
young people. At a time when employers are crying out for our
young people to enter the workforce with far broader skills and
experience, surely we should be broadening the choice and
allowing that mix-and-match approach rather than the Government
trying to force everyone into those two straitjackets.
Scrapping BTECs will leave many students without a viable pathway
at the age of 16. For some students who begin A-levels but do not
enjoy them and struggle to cope, BTECs offer a vocational
lifeline to supplement their academic qualifications. One
constituent of mine, Lucas, started out studying three A-levels
but switched to a BTEC in music in his first year in the sixth
form. He went from contemplating leaving without any
qualifications to achieving the highest grade in the county in
his BTEC. He is now working as a teaching assistant supporting
children with special educational needs and disabilities, and he
is concerned about what scrapping BTECs and removing choice will
mean for his pupils in the future.
In response to the petition, which is signed by 331 of my
constituents from Twickenham, the Government argued that reform
is necessary. As I have already said, I and my party fully agree
that we must do much more to achieve parity between vocational
and academic qualifications, but scrapping BTECs is not the
answer. They have recently undergone a rigorous process of
reform, they are popular with students, respected by employers
and provide a well-established route to higher education or
employment. The Government’s answer in terms of T-levels is
welcome. Technical qualifications giving 16 to 19-year-olds a
mixture of classroom and on-the-job experience, including a work
placement, are really welcome but, as a number of hon. Members
have touched on, there are problems, which I want to go into in
more detail.
The Association of Colleges is concerned that the transition is
being rushed, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. If there is
to be this transition, it should take place over 10 years,
ensuring that no qualifications are defunded without a full
alternative being in place. On that point, I was talking to the
principal of Richmond upon Thames College, in my constituency,
just this morning. About one in 10 of his current students is
studying a course that is due to be defunded and because the
college is only part way towards introducing T-levels, for a
number of reasons, there is no alternative. Future students would
have no alternative if those courses were defunded from 2024
onwards.
It is premature to start to defund BTECs before T-levels are
fully bedded in and understood. Indeed, during the passage of the
Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, another Conservative
former Education Minister, , said that T-levels
“should succeed on their merits, not because viable alternatives
are removed by government”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12
October 2021; Vol. 814, c. 1793.]
That chimes with a lot of what we have heard today, and that
point was made by a Conservative former Education Minister.
Ministers claim that students are confused by the current range
of qualifications, but there is little evidence to support that.
There are 39 subjects available across the entire sixth form
college sector, with only nine available at Esher Sixth Form
College, which I mentioned earlier. Ministers may be confused by
that choice, but students certainly are not. Every year, about a
third of Esher’s cohort studies at least one BTEC. The
flexibility for students to be able to pull together their own
study programme is essential as they try to work out what the
right choices are for them for the future.
The T-levels that are being introduced are 25% practical and 75%
academic, which, as some people have already alluded to, puts
them out of reach of many students who might achieve lower grades
in their GCSEs. They are often the people who really flourish on
the BTEC pathway. The Association of Colleges has warned that
T-levels will exclude the most disadvantaged students,
particularly those who do not obtain a level 4 in maths and
English GCSE. T-levels are rigorous and large qualifications, so,
although the Government do not require maths and English for
T-level entry, many colleges require it.
As hon. Members have alluded to, there is a real challenge with
the industry placement that comes with T-levels. Trying to
achieve 45 days is incredibly difficult. The Policy Exchange, a
Conservative think-tank, says that only 8% of employers are
currently offering a placement for the duration required for
T-levels, and it is harder to find placements in some sectors
than others. For instance, the digital industries often have
teams working remotely, and we know that there is also a
challenge between rural and suburban and urban areas.
The principal of Richmond upon Thames College told me this
morning how difficult it is for him to get employers to engage
with and provide work placements for vocational qualifications.
That is in Greater London, in Twickenham, where there is a
plethora of employers on the doorstep. Sadly, he is leaving
Richmond upon Thames College later this year to go and head up
Petroc, a college in Devon—I happened to visit Petroc with the
new Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton
(), during the by-election.
One of the challenges facing the principal of Richmond upon
Thames College as he goes to Petroc is that in a rural area—the
hon. Member for Taunton Deane () already made this point—it is
even harder to find employers to engage with T-levels, so he has
his work cut out, but I wish him all the best.
We really need to see where those completing T-level courses go
next. The Association of School and College Leaders has
stated:
“We are…watching the number of T level students who end up in
university with real interest. If T level students are going to
end up in university in large numbers, and not in further
technical training, then it brings into question why BTECs are
being defunded. After all,”
that is
“the government’s main argument for scrapping BTECs in order to
introduce T levels…The government can’t have it both ways.”
I completely agree with that point.
My final point is on defunding and process. There has been a real
lack of transparency about which BTECs are being chosen first to
be defunded. When questions have been asked about improving
transparency, very little has been forthcoming. I see that as
part of a wider trend. We were talking about BTECs today, but in
terms of wider applied general qualifications, RSL Awards is
based in my constituency, an awarding body for contemporary music
and arts qualifications—it does the Rockschool qualification
grading. Some of its qualifications got delisted for reasons it
fails to understand. It tried to appeal, but has been
unsuccessful—it has been told “case closed”.
RSL told me that—as with the BTEC point—more than a quarter of
its students on some of its music qualification courses are from
black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. In classical music
courses we just do not get that diversity; it tends to be much
more white and middle class. Having a breadth of qualifications
means that young people from a range of backgrounds are able to
engage and secure qualifications. If the Government are going to
continue down this route, we should at least have a bit more
transparency about what is being defunded and when.
To conclude, we have heard clearly from all sides that it is very
difficult to understand why the Government want to scrap what is
a very popular qualification with both students and employers.
They are trying to shoehorn young people into T-levels or
A-levels at a time when they need more support than ever to
realise and rebuild their futures. It is such a retrograde step
and will damage the prospects of the most disadvantaged students.
If the Government are serious about levelling up—they tell us
they are, although we have not heard much about it from any of
the Conservative leadership candidates yet—and truly mean it when
they say they want to champion vocational training, I hope the
new Minister, whom I welcome to her place, listens to the
thousands of people who signed this petition, college leaders,
teachers and experts in this field up and down the country, as
well as many former education Ministers and Secretaries of State,
some of whom I have quoted. They really must think again.
6.00pm
(Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Mark. I thank all those who pushed for today’s
debate—particularly the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the
Association of Colleges, which have been particularly vocal in
standing up to the anti-BTEC orthodoxy that threatens to take
hold in ministerial offices at the Department for Education.
This has been a really excellent debate with valuable
contributions from both sides of the House. I will reflect on a
few of them before I get into my remarks. My hon. Friend the
Member for Battersea () presented the subject
excellently and set up the debate. She said that a quarter of
students who end up going to university do so through a BTEC.
That is an important statistic, and Social Market Foundation
research, which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members
raised, shows that 44% of white working-class students who attend
university studied a BTEC. That point was repeated by the hon.
Member for Bath (), my hon. Friends the Members
for Lewisham, Deptford () and for Birkenhead (), and the hon. Member for
Twickenham (). It was one of the major
themes of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle
() reflected on the fact that her
daughter had done a BTEC. My son also went through the BTEC route
and ended up going to university. I think it is safe to say that,
without BTECs, he would not have got that university
education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke
passionately and movingly about the difference that a BTEC made
to her life and her life chances. My right hon. Friend the Member
for Warley () spoke about the importance
that these qualifications have, alongside T-levels, to employers
in the west midlands.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane () spoke about the important role
that BTEC played in addressing the shortage of nurses in her
community, and the need for those people to stay locally.
Controversially, she spoke about the value of evidence-based
assessment. I warn her that she needs to stop that kind of talk
if she wants to get back into this Government, but a lot of us
appreciated that point, which was well made.
The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke about the
equalities impact assessment and made the incredibly important
point that, if these qualifications disappear, many students
simply will not have the routes that are currently available to
them. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South () spoke about neurodivergent
students, and it is important that their needs are reflected.
There is not a single one of us who is not regularly contacted at
our constituency surgeries by the parents of neurodivergent
students who are absolutely at their wits’ end. These courses
enable such students to access the life opportunities that others
take for granted, and they say that they really help them and
matter to them, so we should take that incredibly seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston ()—I know from her time as the
shadow Education Secretary that she is incredibly passionate
about vocational students—said that the Government should end
their obsession with saying that all students are either academic
or vocational, and that they should recognise that some students
want an approach that gives them a broad choice. My hon. Friend
the Member for Lewisham, Deptford paid tribute to her local
college and said that this decision makes a mockery of levelling
up. That is a really important point. It was obvious to anyone
who watched the Conservative party leadership hustings last night
that levelling up seems to have disappeared entirely from the
lexicon of the potential Conservative leaders. It may be that
they have decided to distance themselves from the mockery that my
hon. Friend highlights. Many of us appreciated her
contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney () said that, once they are
lost, these qualifications cannot be easily replaced, and she
reflected on the fact that many of her local institutions had
contacted her with their concern about the approach that the
Government are taking. Of course, that should not surprise us,
because when the Government conducted their own consultation back
in September, they found that 86% of respondents disagreed with
the approach that they were proposing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport () said that his constituency
was one of the top 10 constituencies in the country in terms of
the number of people from it who signed the petition. I know that
all of us have had large numbers of constituents contacting us
about this issue, but it seems like many of us have a lot to do
if we are to catch up with Stockport in terms of the level of
interest in this issue.
The hon. Member for Twickenham reflected on the comments of Lord
Baker in another place, who described the situation as absolutely
disgusting. Lord Baker also described this move as
“an act of educational vandalism.”
That should be reflected upon.
It is important to recognise that the broad coalition that is
spearheaded by the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition and backed up
by organisations such as the Sixth Form Colleges Association,
Youth Employment UK, MillionPlus, the Apprenticeship Network and
an array of employers and trade unions has forced the Government
to change their position. It is important that we all make the
point that the Government could look again at what they propose,
but it is also important to recognise that there has been a
significant U-turn from where the Government were back in
September last year. The Labour party and I are pleased to have
played our part in that campaign, urging Ministers to rethink
their decision to axe these courses.
It is also worth recalling the history of the Government’s
shambolic and damaging approach to this question that we are
considering today. It started with Ministers besmirching the
reputation of BTECs. The Skills Minister at the time, the hon.
Member for Chichester (), who was the one before
the one before the Minister here today—well, it was 10 months
ago, of course—described BTECs as poor-quality qualifications,
when announcing that they would be scrapped to make way for
T-levels.
In September 2021 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon.
Member for Stratford-on-Avon (), who was the brand-new
Education Secretary at the time—he was the one before the one
before this week’s one, who is the fourth Education Secretary we
have had in the space of a year. It is said that a year in the
life of a human being is like seven years in the life of an
Education Secretary. That appears to be the case. We get this
dazzling array of new Education Secretaries, so I can only
imagine how busy the person responsible for the board at the
Department of Education must be, as they constantly have to
change the name and the picture up in reception that shows the
Education Secretary.
Returning to the point that I was making, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, told us
when he was Education Secretary that the Government would conduct
a review. Many of us believe that the Government ought to have
conducted the review before they sent out the message to students
and lecturers that the qualification they were working towards
was poor quality. Then the Government announced that they would
defund 150 level 3 qualifications, which, in truth, is less than
10% of all of the level 3 qualifications out there.
We are pleased that the Government have performed something of a
U-turn on this issue. In the final analysis, however, if they
continue with their current policy, they will have scrapped less
than 10% of all the level 3 qualifications currently on offer
but, within that, they will have scrapped several courses that
both employers and educationalists have real concern about. For
example, the health and social care BTEC offers students a strong
general introduction to the career opportunities available in the
healthcare sector, and over 13,000 new students enrolled to study
for it last year. It is important to reflect that if BTECs are
scrapped, as the Government currently suggest they will be, a
huge number of students will not have the breadth of options
available to them.
There are a number of important questions for the Minister to
respond to. Many colleges are deeply concerned that the amount of
work experience required to replace even the limited number of
BTECs being replaced cannot be found. The Government have already
downgraded the work experience requirement in the early years of
the T-level qualification. If it becomes apparent that providers
in many areas are unable to find the amount of work experience
required to deliver the number of T-levels, the Government will
have a choice. Will the Government reduce the work experience
demand further? Will they allow BTECs that do not have the work
experience element to continue? Or will they accept that many
students will be shut out of accessing a career for which there
is a widespread skills shortage. Which one is it?
Secondly, if the Government’s view is that T-levels are more
rigorous than BTECs, and they are scrapping BTECs, what is the
plan for those students who previously would have been able to
study a BTEC and will now not have a level 3 qualification at the
age of 16 or 17? What assessment have the Government made of
which students are likely to miss out, as has been reflected by
so many contributors to the debate? Is it not the truth that it
will mean more students from deprived communities, more white
working-class boys and girls, more BAME students, and more
students from rural and small-town communities will likely not
have a level 3 qualification in place? If so, what plans are in
place for those students?
Early feedback shows that T-levels require considerably more time
studying and working. Many students, particularly those from
deprived communities, are expected by their families to work
alongside their studies. T-levels make that much more difficult,
and that is being cited as a barrier to poorer students accessing
them. What assessment has the Minister made of how that barrier
could be addressed? Does it strengthen the case, in her view, for
some sort of student subsidy, along the lines of the education
maintenance allowance, to enable T-level students to afford to
take up this opportunity? Does she accept that it was a huge
mistake for the Government to denigrate a qualification that
students were in the process of studying for before having
completed their review? Given that so few courses are being
replaced, will she apologise on behalf of the Government to the
students, their lecturers and the employers, whose achievements
the Government have belittled?
Finally, I have met many students studying T-levels. Although it
varies from coast to coast, many clearly see them as a route to
university. T-levels were initially envisaged as a route towards
work. Does the Government accept that for many students that will
not be the path they pursue? On that basis, is it still sensible
for T-levels to be so narrowly focused on a single discipline?
Should the Government not recognise that a broader qualification
would allow students to learn which is the correct path for them
from a position of knowledge?
The Labour party welcomed the introduction of T-levels. We want
them to be a success and we hope that a future Labour Government
will address the current flaws within them. I urge the
Government, even at this late stage, to think again about the
decision. We know that they will come back in September. There
are a number of popular courses where educationalists and
students tell us it would be deeply damaging if they were
abolished. We want to ensure that our system of post-16
vocational and technical education is fit for purpose. Every MP
in this debate, alongside the organisations championing the
#ProtectStudentChoice campaign, want this too. Let the Government
pause and put this decision on hold, and ensure that we have an
evidence-based approach to its replacement. Let us not lose the
qualifications that have real value to both employers and
students.
(in the Chair)
Just before I call the Minister, I declare an interest. I left
school at 16 and eventually got to higher education through
vocational qualifications. I have the privilege of sitting here
today because of that. The Minister has been extremely patient,
listening for nearly two hours to the contributions. I am quite
sympathetic to the position she is in, but I am sure that she
will handle it well.
6.14pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education ()
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I
thank the hon. Member for Battersea () for opening this
important debate, and every hon. Member who has taken part. A
number of important questions have been raised, and I hope to
cover many of them in my speech, so do bear with me—I have tons
of notes here.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss my Department’s
plans for the reform of level 3 qualifications, including how
BTECs will fit into the future landscape alongside A-levels and
T-levels. The introduction of T-levels is critical to driving up
productivity and supporting social mobility. Based on the same
standards as apprenticeships, T-levels have been co-designed with
employers and draw on the very best examples of international
practice. They will raise the quality and prestige of the
technical offer in this country, ensuring that young people
develop knowledge and skills that hold genuine labour market
currency. It is this model that makes T-levels special, and it is
the reason why we want them to be the qualifications of choice
for 16 to 19-year-olds, alongside A-levels.
We have put significant investment into T-levels, as well as
support for the sector, to help providers and employers prepare
for them. We are confident that they will be a success and we
will continue to carefully assess the progress of our reforms to
ensure that no student or employer is left without access to the
technical qualifications they need. There are now 10 T-levels
available at over 100 providers across the country. By 2023, all
T-levels will be available, and around 400 providers have signed
up to deliver them.
We are introducing T-levels gradually to ensure quality from the
start. Our confidence in their success is reinforced by the
significant levels of investment and support that we have in
place. We have made £400 million in capital funding available to
support delivery since 2020, ensuring that young people can learn
in world-class facilities and with industry-standard equipment.
We have also put in place substantial support for schools,
colleges and employers to help them deliver high-quality industry
placements—I will cover this later, because I know that a few
people were concerned about the placements—for all T-levels on a
national scale.
We have supported providers in building capacity and networks
with employers through the capacity and delivery fund, including
through investing over £200 million since 2018-19. We want
T-levels to deliver great outcomes for learners—I am sure that
everybody in this room wants that—so we are committed to ensuring
that teachers and leaders have the support they need to deliver
them well.
In the two years to March 2020, we invested up to £20 million to
help providers prepare for the delivery of T-levels, and to help
teachers and leaders prepare for change. That included £8 million
for the new T-level professional development offer, led by the
Education and Training Foundation. We invested a further £15
million in 2020-21 and we have committed over £15 million in
2021-22 to continue this offer. Since its launch in 2019, almost
8,500 individuals and FE providers have benefited from T-level
professional development programmes to help update their
knowledge and skills, for first teaching T-levels in September
2020 and beyond. We will continue to publish regular updates and
evidence as part of our annual T-level action plans, which can be
found on the Government website.
On Thursday I met Leeds City College students and tutors—it was
my first visit in this post. There was great enthusiasm for
T-levels and for our apprenticeship programme. It was wonderful
to see that the majority of the students I spoke to have already
secured permanent employment in the sector that they studied in,
which is an important move forward. We read about students
securing permanent job roles at the companies that they did their
T-level placements with, and other students securing
apprenticeships. Employers congratulated existing students and
looked forward to the next generation of T-level students
starting their placements.
However, these essential reforms will have their full benefit
only if we simultaneously address the complexities and variable
quality of the broader qualifications system. Therefore, to
support the introduction of T-levels, we are reviewing the
qualification that sits alongside A-levels and T-levels to ensure
that every funded qualification has a clear purpose, is high
quality and will lead to good outcomes for students.
Successive reviews, including the Wolf and Sainsbury reviews,
which have been touched on today, have found that the current
qualifications system is overly complex and does not serve
students or employers well. Through our reforms, we want every
student to have confidence that every qualification on offer is
high quality, to be able to easily understand what skills and
knowledge that qualification will provide and, importantly, where
that qualification will take them.
Our reforms are being made in three stages. First, we will remove
the funding approval for qualifications with low or no
enrolments. Secondly, we will remove the funding approval for
qualifications that overlap with T-levels. Finally, we will
reform the remaining qualifications—I will go into further detail
on that in a moment. As part of securing early progress in the
review, we confirmed that we would remove funding approval from
qualifications that have had fewer than 100 publicly funded
enrolments in a three-year period. Through this “low and no”
process, we have confirmed that around 5,500 qualifications at
level 3 have low or no enrolments, and will therefore have
funding removed by August 2022.
The next phase of our reforms is to remove funding approval for
qualifications that overlap with T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds,
which will reduce the complexities for learners and employers. By
“overlap”, we mean that the qualification is technical, that the
outcome achieved by the young person is similar to that set out
in a standard covered by a T-level, and that it aims to take a
student to employment in the same occupational area. Just as
T-levels are being introduced in phases, we are also taking a
phased approach to removing funding approval from technical
qualifications that overlap with T-levels. This provision lists
qualifications overlapping with wave 1 and wave 2 T-levels, and
includes only 160 qualifications of over 2,000 qualifications
available at the time. We will publish the final list of
qualifications that will have public funding withdrawn in
September 2022.
We have listened carefully to concerns about the reform timetable
and have built in an extra year so that public funding approval
is not withdrawn from overlapping qualifications until 2024, to
help ensure that providers are ready. That means qualifications
that overlap with T-levels will not have funding approval removed
until the relevant T-level has been available to all providers
for at least a year. It is important that there are no gaps in
provision, and that we retain the qualifications needed to
support progression into occupations that are not covered by
T-levels.
Our final reform—our policy statement on level 3
qualifications—was published in July last year. It set out the
Government’s decision on the types of academic and technical
qualifications that will be necessary alongside A-levels and
T-levels at level 3. On the academic side, we are absolutely
clear that students will be able to take applied general style
qualifications, including BTECs, alongside A-levels as part of a
mixed programme where they meet our new quality and necessity
criteria. That could include areas with a practical or
occupational focus, such as health and social care—that has been
mentioned—or STEM subjects, such as engineering, applied science
and IT.
We will also fund large academic qualifications that would
typically make up a student’s full programme of study areas where
there are no A-levels and no equivalent T-level. It can also
include areas that are less served by A-levels, such as
performing arts, creative arts or sports science, where they give
access to HE courses with high levels of practical content.
I want to ask the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford () if we are the same person?
We have a similar background: I too am a working-class girl who
studied a BTEC national—although mine was in business and
finance—and I also have a background in performing arts. It is
evident that the Labour party is not the only broad church; the
party of government is too. As a mature student I went on to
study economics at the Open University, and international
relations at the University of Lincoln while I was a
parliamentary candidate—I know what it is like for someone to
juggle things and try to pay their way at the same time.
I listened carefully to the Minister as she described the new
landscape and how she sees it fitting together. She said a few
moments ago that there was confusion about the range of
qualifications that had been on offer. Listening to her just now,
I have to say that I am still pretty confused about the landscape
that we are moving into. What do the Government plan to do to
communicate really clearly, to students, institutions and
employers, how the new landscape will work?
If the hon. Lady bears with me, I will come to that point; it was
touched on earlier and I will answer it with regard to the
pathways.
On a more technical route, we will fund two groups of technical
qualifications alongside T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. The
first will be qualifications in areas where there is not a
T-level. The second will be specialist qualifications that
develop more specialist skills and knowledge that could be
acquired through a T-level alone, helping to protect the skills
supply in more specialist industries and adding value to the
T-level offer. Adults will be able to study a broader range of
technical qualifications than 16 to 19-year-olds, which takes
into account prior learning and experience. That includes
technical qualifications that allow entry into occupations that
are already served by T-levels.
I hope that has made it clear that we are not creating a binary
system. Our aim is to ensure that students can choose from a
variety of high-quality options, which I will go into. That is
why it is important that we reform the system, to ensure that all
qualifications approved for funding alongside A-levels and
T-levels are high quality, have a clear purpose and deliver great
outcomes, which is the most important thing.
As the post-16 qualification review continues, a new funding
approval process will confirm that all qualifications that we
continue to fund alongside A-levels and T-levels are both
necessary and high quality. Both Ofqual and the Institute for
Apprenticeships and Technical Education will have a role in
approving those qualifications, and they are currently consulting
on their approaches at level 3.
We are unashamed about raising the quality of technical education
in this country. Students will benefit from the reforms because
they will take qualifications that are high quality and meet the
needs of employers, putting them in a strong position to progress
to further study or skilled employment. Where students need more
support to achieve a level 3 qualification in the future, we are
working with providers to provide high-quality routes to further
study. We have introduced a T-level transition programme to
support learners in progressing to T-levels. We are also piloting
an academic progression programme to test whether there is a gap
in provision, which supports students to progress to and achieve
high-quality level 3 academic qualifications in future.
We are determined to act so that all young people can learn about
the exciting, high-quality opportunities that technical education
and apprenticeships can offer. Through the Skills and Post-16
Education Act 2022, we have strengthened the law so that all
pupils have the opportunity for six encounters with providers of
technical education qualifications and apprenticeships as they
progress through school in years 8 to 13. For the first time, we
are introducing parameters around the duration and content of
those encounters, so that we can ensure that they are of high
quality. The new requirements will strengthen the original
provider access legislation—the Baker clause.
We will continue to gather evidence to ensure that our reforms
across both technical and academic qualifications are working as
intended. In particular, the unit for future skills, as announced
in the levelling-up White Paper, will ensure that across
Government we are collecting and making available the best
possible information to show whether courses are delivering the
outcome that we want. That will help give students the best
possible opportunity to get high-skilled jobs in local areas.
Employers will benefit from our reforms, which place them at the
heart of the system and will ensure that technical qualifications
are genuinely grounded in the needs of the workplace. The
Construction Industry Training Board has said that the reforms to
technical education are a great opportunity to put things right
that industry should seize. We will also strengthen and clarify
progression routes for academic qualifications, to ensure that
every funded qualification has a clear purpose—that is vital—is
of high quality and could lead to good outcomes.
I will now touch on some of the questions that were raised across
the Chamber.
The educational plans that the Minister has described are exactly
the plans that the petitioners are concerned about. Has the
debate given her pause for thought about going ahead with the
reforms and then assessing the outcomes—as she has just
described—rather than waiting and looking again at the reforms
before they are cut, because then it will be too late? We will
simply not know how many people are not doing the courses, rather
than assessing the people who are doing the courses and their
educational outcomes. Has the debate given her pause for thought
about the plans that she has just outlined?
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We are consulting
vigorously, and I was actually going to bring in her points here.
She mentioned colleges in her area. I happily meet colleges, and
that goes for colleges represented across the Chamber. My ears
are open to this, because it is something I am passionate about.
Social mobility is a big thing for me. Coming from a regular
background, I want to ensure that every child has a great start
in life, so my door is open.
I was asked about creating a barrier for disadvantaged and BAME
students. We are not withdrawing funding approval from all BTECs
and other applied general qualifications. We will continue to
fund BTECs and applied general-type qualifications as part of a
mixed programme where there is need and where they meet new
criteria for quality and necessity. Students who take
qualifications that are more likely to be replaced have the most
to gain from the changes, because in future they will take
qualifications that are of a higher quality, putting them in a
stronger position to progress to further skills or skilled
employment. The most important outcome is that they have a decent
start in life and good-quality jobs.
Mr Perkins
The Minister’s point somewhat misses the tenor of the debate so
far. She is hearing that a lot of students from more deprived
communities will not even get on to a course because of its
make-up or because it will be full time, meaning that they will
be unable to afford to do the course. Simply saying that they
might have better opportunities when they complete a course does
not take into account the fact that lots of them will not even
get on to a course in the first place. I hope the Minister will
look into that when she does her review.
As I said, I am a woman who juggles and I know what it is like to
have to pay my own way. Coming from a family who were not
affluent, I had to work to pay my way at the same time as I did
my BTEC.
Mr Perkins
The Minister would not have been able to do that if it had been a
T-level. She would not have had the time.
Not necessarily, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on
board.
T-levels will equip more young people with the skills, knowledge
and experience to access skilled employment or further technical
study, including higher education in related technical areas. We
want as many young people as possible to benefit, which is why we
have focused on supporting access. That includes introducing a
T-levels transition programme and flexibilities for SEND
students, and removing the English and maths exit
requirements.
I was asked about students who have dyslexia and their
frustration about taking exams. That is already covered in the
Equality Act 2010; it must be considered whether a student will
need reasonable adjustments, which can include being given 25%
extra time when sitting exams.
There was a question about Oxbridge not accepting T-levels.
Oxford’s admissions office says that BTECs are unlikely to be
suitable for its courses unless taken alongside A-levels.
I was looking at Oxford’s website today. It says that the
university will be accepting BTECs and will not be accepting
T-level subjects. I want to make sure that the Minister is
absolutely accurate in what she is saying.
If the hon. Lady had let me finish rather than jumping in, she
would have heard the full context. First, Oxford’s admissions
office says that BTECs are unlikely to be suitable for the
university’s courses unless taken with side A-levels, as it says
on the website. Secondly, we are continuing to engage with Oxford
and Cambridge on accepting T-levels, so watch this space.
There were some questions about different pathways and what sorts
of qualifications young people will be able to take, other than
T-levels and A-levels. On the academic route, students are able
to take qualifications similar to the current applied generals in
mixed-study programmes with A-levels where they complement the
skills and knowledge in A-levels, and where they enhance
students’ opportunities for progression to further study in
related fields of HE. That could include areas with a practical
or occupational focus, such as health and social care, STEM and
subjects such as engineering, applied science and IT.
We will also fund large academic qualifications that would
typically make up a student’s full programme of study in areas
where there are no A-levels and no equivalent T-levels. That
could include areas that are less well served by A-levels, such
as performing arts, creative arts and sports science, for access
to HE courses with higher levels of practical content. We will
also continue to fund the international baccalaureate diploma and
access to the HE diploma for adults.
I have spoken at length, and for a long time, to Bath Spa
University, which teaches a lot of creative subjects. What
reassurance can the Minister give my university, Bath Spa, about
the creative BTECs that are going to be scrapped?
As I have already said, where a course is not covered by a
T-level or A-level—I mentioned performing arts, creative arts and
sports science—the option is available.
We will fund two groups of technical qualifications alongside
T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. The first will be qualifications
in areas where there is no T-level. The second will be specialist
qualifications that develop more specialist skills and knowledge
than can be acquired through T-levels alone, helping to protect
the skills supply in more specialist industries, and adding value
to the T-level.
Adults will be able to study a broader range of technical
qualifications than 16 to 19-year-olds, which takes account of
prior learning experience. Those include technical qualifications
that allow entry into occupations that are already served by
T-levels, such as data technician or senior production chef.
On the pathway, we have made it clear that students will be able
to take BTECs and applied general qualifications alongside
A-levels as part of a mixed programme. Our impact assessment
recognises that students who take qualifications that are more
likely to be defunded have the most to gain from these
changes.
There were questions about overlap, and about students who have
already signed up for courses. All qualifications on the final
overlap will be funded until the current students have completed
their studies.
There was also a question about work placements, which is a valid
one. We have put in place substantial support for schools,
colleges and employers to help them deliver high-quality industry
placements for all T-levels on a national scale. We are engaging
directly with employers through the Department’s employer
engagement team to develop a pipeline of industry placements, and
we are providing an extensive programme of focused support to
help ensure employers and providers are able to deliver
placements.
We have a national campaign in place to raise the profile of
T-levels to an employer audience, and we have established a
network of T-level employer ambassadors to engage with others in
their industries on T-levels and placements. We have also
implemented different delivery models to ensure placements can be
delivered by employers across all industries and all
locations.
It is right that the Minister is doing all that engagement with
employers and so forth, but what about the students who will not
be able to take up work placements, given their other
commitments? This is one of the advantages of studying a BTEC.
That 45-day commitment might not be possible, particularly for
mature students—possibly like the Minister herself.
If anything, we could flip that on its head, because this is a
unique selling point. In these work placements, students will
gain the soft skills needed in employment, and valuable
experience to build up their CVs, which can help secure them
future employment.
We have invested over £200 million since 2018-19 through the
capacity and delivery fund to support providers in building
capacity and networks with employers. We will continue to monitor
the delivery of placements and work closely with providers and
employers to identify what support they will need to deliver
high-quality placements.
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out what the Government
are doing, but there are not enough work placements for the small
number of people doing T-levels at this stage—that is why the
Government have downgraded them—much less for the sort of
expansion she is talking about. We hear what the Government are
doing about it, but the question I asked her is: in the event
that they cannot get enough work placements, what are the
Government going to do?
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I am more confident
than he is that we will get these placements.
Mr Perkins
You haven’t got them now.
No, but I have seen at first hand what the Department is doing
with employer engagement, so watch this space. The shadow
Minister can come back to me if it is to the contrary, but we are
finding—the evidence is showing—that more and more employers are
signing up for this.
On the question about our new Prime Minister, the reforms were
mentioned in our manifesto. It said:
“Our reforms and investment in education and skills mean more
children are leaving school better equipped for working life and
there are more high quality apprenticeships.”
On the evidence base, the impact assessment was published
alongside the level 3 Government consultation response in July
last year, as I have already mentioned, and it is on the
Government website. However, the case for change, providing
evidence of the need for reform and for T-levels, was published
in July 2016, and the document about streamlining qualifications
at level 3 was published in March 2019.
We have an opportunity to put things right that industry can
seize on. We can also strengthen and clarify progression routes
for academic qualifications, as I have already said. I would like
to thank all colleagues, from across the House—
On the Minister’s point about putting things right, I wonder
whether she will comment on this Government scrapping education
maintenance allowance in 2010, I believe. They have not replaced
it. That fits in with the theme of defunding education. Will the
Minister comment? The data pointed out that because that £30
allocation was scrapped, fewer young people went into further
education.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think he will also
find that more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are going
into education than ever before.
I had a problem with mishearing before and I may have misheard
again, but I do not think I have heard the Minister mention the
word “choice” once. The central argument made by all sides in
this debate is about the reduction of choice. We have heard for
many years from Conservative Ministers and different Conservative
Governments that choice is fundamental to their philosophy, yet
here they seem to be reducing choice, and that will come at the
cost of the most disadvantaged. Yes, a few BTECs will remain, but
the vast majority of pupils will be forced into A-levels or
T-levels or just to go straight into the workplace with very few
qualifications. Please will the Minister address that point—how
the Government are decimating choice by defunding BTECs in this
way?
I completely disagree. To me, the most important thing is
outcome. There is choice there. We have said that if
people—[Interruption.] Let me finish, thank you. There is choice.
Look at apprenticeships. To me, the most important thing is the
outcome, as I have said. If people can have better quality and
higher paying jobs, that is a better start in life than taking
courses that do not have the same outcomes.
I am going to conclude. I thank all colleagues, from across the
House, for their contributions today. It has been a real pleasure
to discuss the importance of developing our skills system.
Transforming post-16 education and skills is at the heart of our
plan to build back better and level up the country. We are
ensuring that students everywhere have access to the
qualifications that will give them the skills to succeed.
T-levels are a critical step in the quality of the technical
offer. They have been co-designed with more than 250 leading
employers and are based on the best international examples of
technical education. But these reforms will have their full
benefit only if we streamline and address the complexities and
variable quality of the broader level 3 qualification.
As a former BTEC student myself, I understand the benefits of
technical education. [Interruption.] I will continue. I want to
reassure everyone across the House that we are not withdrawing
funding for all BTECs. Students will be able to take BTECs and
applied general qualifications alongside A-levels, as part of a
mixed programme, where those qualifications meet the new quality
and other criteria. We want every student to have confidence that
every qualification on offer is high quality—that, rather than
choice, is so important: high quality, which will lead them into
jobs—and to understand what skills and
knowledge—[Interruption.]
(in the Chair)
Order. Let the Minister speak.
Thank you, Sir Mark. We want students to understand what skills
and knowledge a qualification will provide them and where it will
take them, and our reforms will deliver that.
6.44pm
I thank every Member who spoke. We heard incredible speeches from
my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (), for Luton South (), for Lewisham, Deptford
(), for Putney () and for Stockport (), and the hon. Members for
Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), for Bath (), for Taunton Deane () and for Twickenham (), and many other Members made
powerful interventions.
The petition, which was signed by more than 100,000 people, is
about preserving and protecting student choice, and unfortunately
I do not believe the Minister addressed that in her response. The
proposal will cut funding and reduce choice for the young people
we say—well, many of us say—we want to ensure have choice and
opportunity.
We heard about the transformative impact that BTECs can have on
lives and vocational training—including for you, Sir Mark, among
many others. Nobody is saying that T-levels are not the way to
go, but students need options and choices, and the Minister did
not acknowledge that.
I hope the Minister recognises the strength of feeling across the
House. This is not party political: Members from all parties
spoke about the difficulties that students from disadvantaged
backgrounds—particularly those with special educational needs or
a disability, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds—will
face. I do not believe the Minister fully addressed how the new
qualifications will support disabled students. If she did cover
that, I ask that she writes to update me, but I do not believe
that those points were addressed.
We have to keep pressing the Government on this issue. I hope
that there will be transparency, and that they will involve
campaign leaders and organisations, trade unions and student
bodies in their review of the new T-levels. At the end of the
day, although the Minister studied BTECs herself, I am just not
sure she fully gets it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 592642, relating to
BTEC qualifications.
|
