In just 16 months’ time, the introduction of the first T levels will mark the beginning of what the secretary of state, Damian Hinds, has said will result in “25 high-quality courses, with a clear line of sight to actual job roles…”

England has experienced a number of false dawns in technical education. From TVEI in the mid-1980s to the 14-19 diplomas a decade ago, Lords Baker, Wolf and Sainsbury have all sought to leave their mark on the landscape.

Read more: First awarding bodies for new T levels announced

Background: Fears over funding for introduction of T levels

Opinion: T levels: the 5 big issues yet to be addressed

Systemic failure

The planned introduction of T levels is probably our last chance in England to correct over a century of systemic failure in education, skills and industrial policy.

A key challenge policymakers still need to come to terms with is the potential for over-selling the likely success of T levels. Already the Department for Education media operation has described these, as yet, non-developed courses as “gold standard” qualifications on a par with “gold standard” A-Levels.

To make such a claim before a single student has graduated with a T level or employers have hired a T level cohort directly into jobs, seems like hubris.

Danish brewery group Carlsberg famously made a claim: “Probably the best lager in the world.” After falling sales and negative feedback from consumers, Carlsberg was pushed back on the defensive, with a new marketing campaign: “Probably not the best beer in the world, so we’ve changed it.”

This is what happens when you oversell the benefits of something. And T levels are no exception. Consumers in this context are parents, T-level students and crucially, employers.  Simply stating something is gold standard does not make it so. Realistically, it will be in the late 2020s - over a decade from now - before we will know for certain if the “world-class” rhetorical claims being made by ministers square up with reality.

Diversity and choice

Whatever the competing claims, in many ways, T levels are a fundamental departure from the current relationship between the qualifications market and the state. A levels were first introduced in the early 1950s. Since then, educators have exercised a clear choice in terms of which exam boards they wish to use for their students. Competition between awarding organisations and exam boards has helped drive innovation and investment.

Over time, this has undoubtedly saved the taxpayer from having to make millions of pounds of additional investments in GCSEs, A levels and other types of academic and vocational qualifications.

The Federation of Awarding Bodies initially opposed the T level single licensing model, not because we are against the government bringing in these new qualifications. But because we can see the downside risks of what happens when monopolies are allowed to form.

Procurement disasters

You only have to look at government procurement disasters in other sectors to see what can go wrong. From rail franchise failures to construction giants like Carillion going bust: what both these examples show is that when consumers and the public sector are reliant on just one provider, this can lead to disastrous consequences when things go wrong.

The real risk in future is that if just one T-level franchise goes down, it may irreparably damage all the others. And, at that point, the future job prospects of literally thousands of learners will be at stake. Market choice, diversity of provision, and an inclusive approach to learners is a good thing in our qualifications system.

A more critical reading of what the government is really trying to do with T levels, and other reforms to qualifications like those below level 3, is a cack-handed attempt, by stealth, to both nationalise and rationalise the market over time. Ministers seem bent on a top-down-driven approach that eventually will end up restricting market choice for 16-19-year-olds and other adult learners.

Artificially manipulating the market would be a fundamental mistake: a throwback to a bygone era when the state always seemed to know best. And coming at just at a time when citizens and consumers are demanding more, not less choice in their lives.

Quality is not cheap

The shift to a quality model is not cheap, and that comes against a backdrop of a real-terms cut in 16-18 funding. Your average 16-year-old FE student gets just £4000 per level 3 course per annum. Some of the equivalent occupational apprenticeship funding bands, for example, are offering nearly twice as much, reflecting the additional costs of supporting learners in the workplace.

Successful industry placements and the specialist teachers that will be required for T levels, including better provider facilities, is not going to be possible with the current proposed T-level funding rates. Awarding bodies fully support the Association of Colleges in calling for an uplift in the T-level base rate of at least £1000 per student, including the call for wider investment in FE, as part of the Love Our Colleges campaign.

We cannot assume that employers are going to simultaneously spring into action to provide high-quality industry placements. England is not Switzerland, where two-thirds of young people are successfully placed with employers, doing apprenticeships or technical education, at the age of 16. To secure the success of T levels long-term, Ministers may have to consider either financial subsidies to firms to offer the placements; or possibly legislate for companies over a certain size to provide 16-18-year old people with enough placements, effectively mandating employers in the occupational routes offered by T-levels to engage more effectively with the scheme.

The history of employer engagement in work experience in England is abysmal, so appealing solely to an altruistic motivation, on the part of businesses to support T-levels, is fraught with challenges. Especially when the government is saying that a T-level will not be valid unless 45 days of industry experience has been successfully completed.

Part of an ecosystem

T levels are more than a technical study programme, including a Level 3 qualification. They should be judged in the context of the broader challenge of solving the country’s deep inability to break away from a ‘low skills equilibrium’. The puzzle is this: more people are in work than ever; youth unemployment has nearly halved in recent years. Yet England’s relative productivity has taken a battering in the past decade because of our failure, as a nation, to invest sufficiently in the skills and work processes that will deliver more output per employee for a typical hour worked. 

Finding tomorrow’s technicians, scientists and engineers is more than just a supply-side challenge. Qualifications are a currency at the end of the day. But like all successful currencies: they require efficient systems of exchange, strong partnerships between producers and consumers; real demand from industry; as well as other sensible policies and regulations that will enable them to prosper. This is what is now at stake in terms of ensuring T levels are the unqualified success that those working in the education sector would like them to be.

Tom Bewick is the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies