The future of vocational education is at a crossroads. With T Levels being positioned as the preferred route for young people and many Applied General Qualifications hanging in the balance, a critical question emerges: will a one-size-fits-all approach really serve our diverse learning needs? In this post, Michele Gregson, CfSA Director and CEO/General Secretary of NSEAD, explores why subject-specialist voices must be at the heart of policy decisions, shares encouraging signs from government, and reveals how subject associations are successfully influencing change through real-world collaboration and advocacy.

Much of the recent debate led by the House of Commons Education Committee centres on concerns around skills, pathways to employment, and the changing needs of both learners and employers. Given the cross-subject implications of these topics, the Council for Subject Associations (CfSA) is focussed on ensuring that the diversity of subject needs is properly considered in policy decisions.

In June of this year, the Department for Education (DFE) confirmed its commitment to T Levels as the preferred route for vocational pathways, and that young people would be steered towards ‘T’ Levels rather than existing Applied General Qualifications (AGQs). 

Many of these qualifications are sitting in a state of uncertain limbo; the ‘bonfire of the BTECs’ planned by the previous Government was put on pause last year, awaiting the conclusions of a series of reviews and enquiries. The much-anticipated recommendations of the Curriculum and Assessment Review (CAR) this month will be a decisive moment for the future of vocational education. 

This is an anxious time for centres who maintain that for many of their learners, applied qualifications (or a combination of options) provide a more effective route to higher education or skilled employment than a binary choice between A levels or T Levels. 

Why subject expertise matters

At the CfSA, we believe these developments reinforce the need for subject-specialist voices, including those in vocational and applied subjects, to be at the heart of policymaking:

• Different subjects require different pedagogies.
• Effective policy must reflect that reality.
• Whether academic or applied, subject expertise matters.

Will the CAR panel agree that different learners have diverse needs, and that when it comes to subjects, one size does not fit all?

Signs of hope: government response

In December last year, Education Committee Chair Helen Hayes was clear: “the future of education depends on valuing all subject pathways, not just those traditionally prioritised.” 

The Government says they are listening. In June, skills minister Jacqui Smith said,“We have moved away from blanket restrictions, such as automatically defunding any qualification that overlaps with a T-level. Instead, we have taken a practical, evidence–led approach, looking at the qualifications route by route.”

The interim report from the CAR also offers reason for hope, saying that it is “clear that they [T Levels] are not suitable as the only vocational pathway.” The panel will “consider carefully” which other options should sit alongside the new technical qualifications.”

Stronger together: the power of collective subject expertise

One of the great strengths of the CfSA is that it offers a clear voice for the collection of subjects taught in our schools, providing a collective response that brings together the different perspectives of our individual members. When it comes to vocational education, however, subjects may overlap, and each learning pathway has its own specific concerns to address. 

This is where the focused expertise of subject associations, leading research and influencing policy, is vital. Being able to present evidence that comes from a place of deep subject-specific knowledge is crucial if we are to avoid the pitfalls of ‘one size fits all’ policy proposals. When subject associations work together in the spaces where subject needs overlap, they are a force to be reckoned with. 

Case study: art, craft and design qualifications

Take the subject that my association represents. NSEAD promotes and develops art, craft, and design education, an area that offers direct pathways into one of our most successful sectors of the economy, the creative industries. AGQs have long provided a route for learners to progress into further, higher education, and training, or employment in this booming sector. When the Craft and Design T level was launched last year, against a background of defunding for AGQs, it was important to look carefully at the implications for learners. 

NSEAD worked with a collective of national organisations with an interest in craft and design, including D&TA, the subject association for design and technology. We regularly collaborate, share thinking and work together for the benefit of our sectors and stakeholders. As individual organisations and as a collective, we have a shared commitment to the development of high-quality vocational qualifications that increase opportunities for young people to study craft and design that reflects and embraces the context and working environments of these sectors. However, we had concerns. 

As a group, we agreed that whilst there is content overlap with the new Craft and Design T level, this new qualification in no way supersedes existing vocational provision. The generic T level requirement for written examination and early specialism do not reflect the way that learners develop in a creative context (and ironically creates a barrier to access for some that A level does not). 

Equally, the requirements for work placements that might make sense for some industry pathways absolutely do not work for craft and design, where the sector is predominantly individual practitioners and SMEs, unable to support work placements in the way that some other industries can. Access to placements in the creative industries is particularly difficult for learners in rural areas, creating a postcode lottery of opportunity.

We met with the DFE to set out our concerns, explained the nuance of our subjects and suggested workable solutions, with the offer of our help to support centres and their learners. Did they hear us? Well, the DFE has recently introduced new flexibilities to support industry placement delivery, enabling more young people to benefit from the opportunities that T levels provide, which could go a long way to addressing the specific needs of our sector. Art and Design AGQ’s have so far not fallen by the wayside, with the DFE confirming that existing qualifications will be funded until at least 2027. All hopeful signs, but let us see what the CAR report brings at the end of the month.

Protecting student choice and subject differences

At the heart of the vocational education debate is the importance of protecting student choice and making policy decisions that reflect the reality of how students learn, and ensuring they can access high-level choices in every subject, for every pathway.

And this is why we need strong subject associations, able to articulate the differences, and a supportive body (in the form of the CfSA) to identify the areas of common concern. Together, we can inform and influence the policymakers, but it is our individual subject expertise that gives credibility to our combined voice. We stand with our members, covering the full spectrum of subjects taught in our schools and colleges, in ensuring that subject-specific knowledge and teaching practices inform both policy and classroom practice.

Michele Gregson, CfSA Director and CEO/General Secretary of NSEAD