Failure to announce a pause and review of level 3 reform is a cause for concern. Doing so is crucial to a solid plan for social mobility

As the priorities for our new government were laid bare in today’s King’s Speech, there is much to be excited about for those working in the further education and skills sector. However, as is often the case in politics, interpreting the legislative agenda is as much about what isn’t said as what is.

Labour’s previous promise to ‘pause and review’ the Conservatives’ plans to defund qualifications that compete with T Levels was never gong to feature today, because it doesn’t require primary legislation. However, continued silence on the matter is of grave concern, especially after yesterday’s intervention by Gordon Brown and Lord Sainsbury.

The formal announcement of the new Skills England is welcome. It promises to partner together central and local government, businesses, training providers and unions to meet the skills needs of the next decade.

So is official recognition in Labour’s report Breaking down the Barriers to Opportunity that in recent years there has been a lack of clarity and an absence of a long-term strategy under which learners, businesses and training providers could thrive.

But why no mention of that promise to pause and review Level 3 qualifications? If it wasn’t technically necessary for the King’s Speech, the sector would nevertheless benefited from some certainty in this regard.

As reported in FE Week, former prime minister Gordon Brown and Lord David Sainsbury have called on the new government to ignore that promise. They call for an end to “the ‘wild west’ situation that currently exists”. According to them, the multiple and overlapping vocational courses of “varying quality” on offer to school leavers “supress talent”.

At the Skills and Education Group, where our core mission is to advance skills and education to improve the lives of individuals, we couldn’t disagree more.

Limiting post-16 education to a choice between A Levels, T Levels or an apprenticeship, narrows learner and provider choice, reduces opportunity and does absolutely nothing for social mobility.

It puts the emphasis on and the opportunity back into the hands of those who are academically driven and causes us to ignore the heavily practical, hands-on training that currently epitomises vocational training.

I am a product of an FE vocational training course. I did not thrive in a classroom setting. I am also the former chair of the Federation of Awarding Bodies. Now, as chief executive of the Skills and Education Group, I know that a choice of courses, of ways in which to learn and of environments to learn in is crucial if we are to serve all of the young people we should.

Yes, options may need tidying and standards may need clarifying, but to eradicate a breadth of choice would be a big mistake. The result would be many learners falling by the wayside: the carers, chefs, computer programmers, engineers, builders and the chief executives of tomorrow.

Let’s not forget: we know there are already problems with T Levels. Reports are starting to emerge of low attainment, especially in deprived areas. We know there aren’t enough work placements to fulfil the T Level offer. And we also know it is near impossible to create T Levels in some disciplines.

So we would ask the government to give our sector that pause and review. You say you want economic growth, to partner businesses and working people and to break barriers to opportunity. Please don’t start by reducing the opportunity currently open to many.