By Claire Green, Post-16 and Skills Specialist, Association of School and College Leaders

Is the introduction of V levels a genuine reform, or just a cosmetic change from qualifications which already exist?

Many in the sector are sceptical that they are essentially a re-brand of the applied general qualifications (BTECs etc) and new alternative academic qualifications they will replace.

However, examining the detail offered in both the post-16 white paper and accompanying  consultation document suggests otherwise.

Parity of esteem
If done well, V levels offer a genuine opportunity to simplify a complex system and ensure that vocational education is given the parity of esteem it deserves.

Three key features distinguish V levels from their predecessors and will be critical to their success:

1. Nationally-set content
Unlike AGQs, which are developed by awarding organisations, the content of V levels will be centrally set by the Department for Education (as it is for A levels and T levels). This is a significant shift. The aim is to ensure consistency, rigour, alignment with national priorities, and (presumably) to avoid the fragmentation that has characterised the current system.

While this approach could bring greater clarity and comparability across qualifications, it also raises questions about flexibility and responsiveness. A centrally controlled model must find ways to remain agile and inclusive of sector expertise.

2. Alignment with occupational standards
A second defining feature of V levels is their explicit link to occupational standards. These standards, developed by employers and overseen by Skills England, describe the knowledge, skills, and behaviours required for specific job roles. By aligning V levels with these standards, the government hopes to ensure that vocational qualifications are directly relevant to the labour market and provide a clear line of sight to employment.

This alignment is a positive step. It enhances the credibility of vocational education and helps students see clear pathways to employment, without requiring them to commit to a narrowly defined T level. However, care must be taken to ensure that this focus on job readiness does not come at the expense of broader educational goals, such as developing transferrable skills and supporting progression to higher education.

3. A single, unified brand
Perhaps the most visible change is the creation of a single V level brand, replacing the current patchwork of AGQs offered under various names. The government proposes removing awarding organisation names from qualification titles, following the model used for A levels and T levels.

This simplification could help students, parents, and employers better understand what a V level represents. A unified brand may also raise the profile of vocational education and build public confidence. 

However, branding alone is not enough. The success of V levels will depend on the quality of their design, the support offered to providers, and the extent to which they are recognised by universities and employers. The government’s communications strategy will be crucial, particularly considering the challenges faced during T level rollout.

A word of caution
While the principles behind V levels are sound, their size and flexibility will be critical. The white paper suggests that V levels will be offered as single, full-time qualifications (360 guided learning hours). 

The curriculum and assessment review appears more open to flexibility, acknowledging the need for larger V levels in some vocational and creative areas not covered by T levels. However, the government’s response expresses concern that offering both large V levels and T levels could create confusion.

This is a potential misstep. One of the key strengths of AGQs has been the flexibility they offer to students, not only in combining single qualifications, but being able to combine double qualifications with a third option. And there may continue to be a need for triple vocational qualifications in broader areas than are offered by T levels.

The curriculum and assessment review points out that the characteristics of learners taking AGQs and other level 3 qualifications is different from those taking A levels and T levels. A higher proportion have SEND and are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and a lower proportion have achieved maths and English GCSE grade 4.

It is important that we continue to provide these young people with high-quality routes.

Diversity of provision
As the sector digests the proposals, it’s clear that V levels are more than a simple rebranding of AGQs. They represent a genuine attempt to create a more coherent, respected vocational route that stands alongside A levels and T levels.

However, for V levels to succeed, they must retain the flexibility that has made AGQs so valuable. 

That means offering a range of sizes and combinations: not just a one-size-fits-all model. 

If the government gets this balance right, V levels could become a defining feature of a more navigable and equitable post-16 landscape. If not, we risk losing the diversity of provision that has enabled so many young people to thrive.