Beyond Qualification Reform: V Levels, university recognition and the future of post-16 progression

By Dr Robin Webber - Jones, Deputy CEO - Executive Director of Curriculum at the Bedford College Group and Professor Julie Brunton, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Education and Student Experience, at the University of Bedfordshire.

England's post-16 education system is undergoing one of its most significant periods of reform since the expansion of further education in the late twentieth century. The previous introduction of T Levels, the rationalisation of Applied General Qualifications (AGQs), and the planned development of V Levels collectively represent a substantial restructuring of curriculum pathways. While much of the policy discourse has focused on simplification, employer responsiveness and technical excellence, a more fundamental question remains largely unresolved: how will these reforms reshape progression opportunities, and, specifically, progression opportunities into higher levels of education and skill?

This question matters because progression to higher education remains one of the most powerful determinants of social mobility within contemporary England. The significance of current reforms therefore extends beyond curriculum architecture or qualification design. They concern the distribution of opportunity itself.

Central to this debate is the emerging role of V Levels. While T Levels have attracted considerable attention as the flagship technical qualification, it may be V Levels, rather than T Levels, that ultimately determine whether post-16 reform expands or constrains educational opportunity. Their future status within university admissions systems could become the defining factor in whether the reformed landscape achieves genuine parity of esteem between academic and technical routes or reinforces existing patterns of educational stratification.

Qualifications derive their value not merely from curriculum content but from social recognition. Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital remains instructive here. Educational credentials acquire status because institutions recognise and reward them, thereby converting achievement into social and economic advantage. As Colley et al. argue, qualifications derive legitimacy through institutional recognition and acceptance. The challenge facing V Levels is therefore not simply whether they are educationally robust, but whether they become established as trusted currencies of progression within higher education, in whatever format that comes.

Recent policy documentation places progression firmly at the centre of the new qualification. V Levels are intended to sit alongside A Levels and T Levels as one of the principal Level 3 pathways in England and to support progression to both higher education and employment. However, formal equivalence does not automatically create parity of esteem. The existence of a qualification route does not guarantee that it will be valued equally by institutions or learners.  It does not mean that V Levels will be better at securing higher and degree apprenticeships for candidates than A Levels are, and nor does it mean that A Levels will be only route for people wishing to enter university (indeed there are many routes for this already currently).

The debate surrounding qualification reform has often focused on the potential loss of AGQs, particularly BTECs, as established routes into higher education. Research has consistently shown that these qualifications have played a significant role in widening participation, especially among learners from disadvantaged backgrounds.  The research also shows that those on these routes do not and did not always continue and complete on these routes compared to those coming from an A Level background. The significance of V Levels lies in their potential to occupy a similar space for higher level skills admissions within the new qualifications architecture while supporting combinations of vocational and academic learning, at the same time as preparing students to be better retained in higher levels of study.

The importance of university recognition should not be underestimated here. Hyland argues that vocational qualifications have historically struggled to achieve equal status because educational systems continue to privilege academic forms of knowledge. Similarly, Bathmaker highlights how progression pathways are shaped not only by qualification structures but also by institutional assumptions regarding what constitutes legitimate preparation for higher-level study. Viewed through this lens, the future success of V Levels may depend less on their specification and assessment model than on whether universities actively incorporate them into admissions frameworks, outreach activities and widening participation strategies.

To this end it should be noted that universities are not passive recipients of qualification reform. They are active gatekeepers whose admissions decisions help determine the value of educational credentials. If V Levels are perceived primarily as technical or occupational qualifications, there is a risk that they will become positioned below A Levels within progression hierarchies. Conversely, if institutions establish transparent admissions criteria and publicly communicate confidence in the qualification, V Levels could become an important mechanism for widening participation.

The broader implications of these reforms can be understood through Sen's capability approach. The critical issue is not whether learners are offered pathways, but whether those pathways provide equivalent capacities for progression and aspiration. A more structured system may improve coherence, but if some qualifications lead to narrower opportunities than others, capability remains unevenly distributed.
Ultimately, the success of post-16 reform will depend not simply on qualification design but on qualification recognition. The future role of V Levels is therefore likely to be one of the most important tests of whether England can create a genuinely permeable post-16 system in which technical and academic learning are different but equally valued routes to success.
 

References
Bathmaker, A.M. (2017) Post-secondary education and training, new social divisions and the rediscovery of a theoretical tradition. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(1).
Bernstein, B. (1971) Class, Codes and Control. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The Forms of Capital.
Colley, H. et al. (2003) Learning as Becoming in Vocational Education and Training.
Hyland, T. (2006) Vocational Education and Training: Knowledge, Theory and Practice.
Keep, E. and Mayhew, K. (2014).
Marginson, S. (2016) The Dream is Over.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom.
Wheelahan, L. (2007).
Young, M. and Muller, J. (2016).