The Department for Education (DfE) has launched a consultation (open until 12 January 2026) on Post-16 Level 3 and below pathways that focuses on how to design and implement a new vocational route at Level 3: V Levels.
The move toward V Levels follows long-running reform debates about vocational qualifications. The Government has previously proposed trimming down or defunding many Applied General Qualifications like BTECs in favour of T Levels. There was clearly a vocational gap in this approach and now V Levels are proposed as a third pathway at Level 3, alongside A levels (academic) and T Levels (technical). They aim to simplify the current landscape of separate vocational and technical qualifications by grouping them into a single, clear qualification family.
V Levels would be roughly the size of one A level, letting students mix and match with A levels or other V Levels. Content is designed to be linked to occupational standards, so they are relevant to employment, apprenticeships, or further study. In their current proposed form, V levels may be too “small” to cater for an engineering pathway to fill the gap left by defunding BTECs.
The EPC proposes a brief Executive response to the V and T levels elements of the consultation only, highlighting the following key points which are based on our policy stance on BTECs, previously subject to wider consultation (including consultations on the Advanced British Standard, BTEC reforms, and level 3 pathways). Primarily, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and that removing BTECs could leave gaps in accessible pathways to HE and employment for many students. . In addition:
1. Vocational qualifications are vital progression routes
EPC evidence shows that BTECs and Level 3 vocational qualifications have been effective in widening access and providing progression into engineering HE and careers, particularly for learners who do not follow a purely academic route. BTECs are respected, effective, and important for disadvantaged students in engineering. As such, any V Level design must preserve the core strengths of existing vocational routes (practical skills, employer relevance, progression to HE), and not be a narrow substitute that limits flexibility.
2. Lessons should be learned from the roll out of apprenticeships and T levels in terms of progression to HE
EPC has previously highlighted the risk that new systems disadvantage young people aiming for engineering HE. We seek clear evidence on how V Levels will support university admissions, what information universities will receive to develop admissions and curriculum criteria and how they compare to BTECs/A levels in technical and academic rigour. Mapping of the maths content of T levels was conducted by the EPC only after T levels had been rolled out. This is an important facet of the Government’s introduction of new qualifications and shouldn’t be overlooked again. We have previously cautioned that education reforms can disproportionately impact learners from diverse or disadvantaged backgrounds., the proposed structure may limit the effectiveness of V Levels in STEM progression and risk creating a qualification misaligned with employer and higher education needs.
3. Ensure links to occupational standards include HE progression
The consultation proposes linking V Levels to occupational standards, which the EPC has previously found (through our degree apprenticeships project) to be too narrow and employer dominated. Standards should be reviewed (and developed) in consultation with higher education and engineering employers so that V Levels prepare learners for both skilled employment (in SMEs not just large firms) and further HE study. Occupational standards should not only serve short-term job outcomes but also align with longer-term skill needs and student development.
The establishment of new T levels where occupational standards do not exist should address that existing apprenticeship Standards can be too narrow. This is an opportunity for the development of Standards through a more open and ongoing evolution, allowing greater input from learning providers before and after the establishment of the standards.
4. Support progression into higher education for disadvantaged students and under-represented learners
Flexible entry and support pathways within V Levels are needed to ensure that learners with diverse prior attainment can progress successfully into engineering careers or HE.
5. Ensure a range of Level 3 pathways are retained during implementation
The EPC has consistently emphasised that reducing qualification choice at Level 3 can harm student progression and equity, especially in engineering. In previous submissions, they warned against curtailing qualifications like BTECs before new routes have proven effective. The EPC supports the introduction of V Levels in principle but urge the Government to retain a diversity of Level 3 pathways (including transitional or parallel options) until it is clear V levels work for engineering and related sectors.
If you would like to comment on our thinking, or propose additional content, please contact us by 7th January 2026.
