Regulating post-16 VTQs at L2 and L3
Part 6 Equality impact assessment
Ofqual is subject to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This assessment considers the potential equality impacts – positive and negative – arising from our proposals to regulate V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates, both for students who share particular protected characteristics and for those who may be affected due to other factors such as their socio-economic background. We welcome views on the impacts identified, suggestions for mitigation, and any additional impacts not covered.
What do we know about the cohort likely to take these qualifications?
Ofqual’s internal analysis of the diversity of the 18-year-old cohort showed that, in 2023, 60% of 18 year-olds took A Levels only, 23% took VTQ Performance Table Qualifications (PTQs)[1] only, and 16% took a mixed programme of at least one A Level and at least one VTQ PTQ. Around 1% of students completed a T Level.
Our analysis of the 2023 cohort showed that overall there were small differences in the types of students taking A Levels, VTQ PTQs, mixed programmes and T Levels, in terms of special educational needs (SEN), eligibility for free school meals (FSM), gender and ethnicity. For example, 5.7% of students studying only VTQs had special educational needs (SEN), compared with 4.7% of students studying only A Levels, and 6.7% studying mixed programmes. 3.1% of students studying T Levels had SEN. Separate analysis by DfE suggests that the proportion of enrolments for students aged 16 to 19 with a disability on level 2 vocational and occupational qualifications is 25%.
14.8% of students studying only VTQs were eligible for free school meals (FSM), compared with 7% studying A Levels, 11.8% studying mixed programmes and 9.4% taking T Levels. Using the income deprivation affecting children index (IDACI), for those taking only A Levels, the highest percentage of students sat in the lower IDACI categories (less deprived), and the lowest percentage of students sat in the higher IDACI categories (more deprived). The opposite was true for the VTQ only group where there appeared to be fewer students in the lower IDACI categories and more in the higher IDACI categories.
Ofqual publishes an annual equalities analysis that explores how attainment gaps for students with different characteristics vary over time. The most recent analysis showed the probability of an ‘average’ student attaining the top grade in Applied Generals and Tech Levels was 5.2% and 10.6% respectively. The probability of an ‘average’ student attaining a grade A or above was 18.2%. This difference may reflect the lower prior attainment of cohort taking Applied Generals and Tech Levels, compared with A Levels.
Accessibility
Accessibility is fundamental to effective and valid assessment, and this is reflected in Ofqual’s regulatory requirements. Assessments should be designed to test subject content in a way that is as accessible as possible, without introducing unnecessary barriers to students showing what they know, understand and can do.
Awarding organisations are required by Ofqual to:
- comply with Equalities Law, removing any unjustifiable disadvantage for students who share a particular characteristic, including students with SEND
- meet Ofqual’s rules on assessment design and have regard to Ofqual’s statutory guidance on designing and developing accessible assessments
Ofqual’s guidance sets expectations for the accessibility of assessments, including that they are:
- well-targeted and construct relevant – assessing only the knowledge, skills and understanding intended to be assessed, as set by DfE’s subject content
- free of irrelevant design features that can create unnecessary barriers. For example, non-essential images may disadvantage visually impaired students.
Because of the complexity of assessment design, Ofqual’s guidance helps awarding organisations balance competing factors and avoid irrelevant features that could unfairly disadvantage certain groups. Awarding organisations must monitor and refine their assessments to prevent disadvantage.
Ofqual will review the accessibility and quality of the new V Level, Foundation Certificate and Occupational Certificate qualifications through:
- assessment strategies, which must demonstrate that assessments are fair, valid, reliable, high-quality and deliverable
- accreditation processes, to ensure new qualifications meet regulatory requirements (including accessibility)
- ongoing monitoring once qualifications are in delivery.
Reasonable adjustments
Under the Equality Act, awarding organisations are required by law to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students. Awarding organisations should design assessments with accessibility in mind, minimising the need for reasonable adjustments. However accessible an assessment is, some students will always need reasonable adjustments (or access arrangements[2]) to access it in a way which is comparable to other students. Ofqual’s proposals for V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates will not impact on the obligations on awarding organisations to provide reasonable adjustments, providing standards, confidence and fairness are maintained.
Ofqual collects and publishes data on access arrangements, including reasonable adjustments for disabled students, for GCSEs, AS and A Levels. Ofqual has not historically collected and published equivalent data for other qualifications but we are considering the potential for collecting this data for V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates when they are introduced.
Summary of anticipated equality impacts and mitigations
Ofqual’s overall approach to regulating V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates is intended to support DfE’s steer that these qualifications should have greater consistency and comparability than is the case for current post-16 qualifications. Overall, we think this will result in a positive equality impact, as all students, regardless of which pathway they take, will be taking a high-quality, consistent national qualification.
The table below sets out the potential equality risks for each proposal in turn, together with any mitigations designed to address them.
|
Proposal |
Equality impacts |
Mitigation |
|
Accreditation |
Introducing an accreditation requirement will have a positive impact as awarding organisations will not be able to award the new qualification until it has met Ofqual’s accreditation criterion. Ofqual’s review will determine whether a qualification is capable of complying with all of the General Conditions of Recognition, Qualification Level Conditions and, for V Levels, Subject Level Conditions. This will include checking that the qualification meets Ofqual’s rules and guidance in relation to Equalities law, assessment design and accessibility. |
Not applicable |
|
Assessment strategy |
Ofqual’s proposal that awarding organisations should develop and keep under review an assessment strategy will mean that awarding organisations have to explain their overall approach to the design, development and delivery of their qualifications. This will mean that awarding organisations have to set out how they will meet Ofqual’s rules and guidance including those in relation to Equalities law, assessment design and accessibility. We consider this will have a positive impact. |
Not applicable |
|
Size |
Ofqual proposes to require awarding organisations to develop qualifications in line with the sizes specified by DfE. As the size specified is a matter for DfE, we do not consider that Ofqual’s proposal has any particular equality impact. |
Not applicable |
|
Purposes |
Ofqual has developed purposes in line with DfE’s policy intentions for each qualification. Ofqual proposes that awarding organisations should develop assessments in line with the general purposes set out. For example, in the V Level purposes, the highest priority is given to the information about a qualification the result provides, reflecting DfE’s policy intention that V Levels can be used for progression to higher education. This proposal impacts on some of our other proposals, for example to have a 7-point grading scale to reflect the full range of achievement expected from the V Level cohort. As the purposes reflect DfE’s policy intentions, we do not consider that Ofqual’s proposals have any particular equality impact. |
Not applicable |
|
Subject content and assessment objectives |
Ofqual proposes that awarding organisations should develop assessments that cover the national subject content, and for Occupational Certificates, the relevant parts of the occupational standards, as specified by DfE. Subject content is a matter for DfE, and DfE will conduct its own equality impact assessment on its draft content. As our proposal reflects DfE’s policy intention, we consider that Ofqual’s proposal will have no identifiable equality impact. We also propose setting assessment objectives for V Levels. This will help to ensure that assessments developed by awarding organisations against national subject content are designed in a comparable way and support the setting and maintenance of standards. Overall, this should have a positive impact on all students, as it will support consistency across awarding organisations. |
Not applicable |
|
Assessment design/structure |
Assessment by Examination and Non-exam Assessment We propose that the new qualifications include a balance of Assessment by Examination and Non-exam Assessment, and that Non-exam Assessment should be a significant proportion of the overall assessment. By specifying a balance of assessment methods, we think this could have a positive impact as students will not be wholly assessed by either exam or Non-exam Assessment. We are proposing that V Levels will include 40% Assessment by Examination, although this may vary depending on the subject content set by DfE. Our regulations will ensure consistency across awarding organisations so that V Levels in the same subject will have the same proportion of timetabled and centre-marked assessment. This will have a positive impact on all students as they will have the opportunity to demonstrate what they know, understand and can do in more than one type of assessment, and they will have a more consistent experience of assessment regardless of which awarding organisation’s qualification they take. We also propose to put in place a terminal assessment requirement, whereby 40% of the overall assessment for the qualification must be taken in the final series of the two-year course and that this must be Assessment by Examination set and marked by the awarding organisation. This approach means that a significant proportion of assessment will take place at the end of the course. While this could increase exam anxiety for some students, it will support standard setting in the overall qualification. For Non-exam Assessment, we propose that assessments should be set by the awarding organisation, with centre adaptation permitted. Requiring assessments to be set by the awarding organisation should have a positive impact overall by increasing the consistency of experience for students. Centre adaptation may have a positive equality impact as centres will be able to contextualise the assessment to take into account the facilities or equipment available, and will still be required to make reasonable adjustments in line with their obligations under the Equalities Act. For Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates we are proposing a specified proportion of Assessment by Examination (40% and 30% respectively), with guidance for awarding organisations on how to decide which part of the content to assess in this way. It is important to note that Ofqual’s definition of Assessment by Examination does not require exams to be a written test and awarding organisations may develop other forms of assessment that meet our requirements. Regardless of assessment method, disabled students will be entitled to reasonable adjustments, as they would be with any regulated qualifications. Synoptic assessment We propose to include requirements that awarding organisations must include questions or tasks in their assessments which allow students to produce developed responses. It is possible that this may have a negative impact on some students with SEND or English as an additional language. Ofqual research (yet to be published) suggests some disabled students find extended writing tasks more challenging, anxiety inducing, and sometimes require use of skills (i.e. use of grammar) they struggle to show and that are ancillary to assessment objectives. However, for some students, such as neurodiverse students, there may be a positive impact compared to responding to selected response questions (e.g. multiple choice) as they may take selected response questions literally or be frustrated by the lack of context they feel they need to answer. |
The impact of requiring terminal assessment is mitigated by this approach allowing for more teaching and learning time to ensure students are well prepared for the assessment, and a reduction in assessment (and any associated pressure) throughout the course. A proportion of the assessment is likely to take place in year 1 of course, with some Non-exam Assessment in year 2. This, combined with a compensatory approach to marking, will mean that a student’s grade will not be entirely reliant on their performance at the end of the qualification.
We do not intend to specify in which assessments developed responses are required. This could mean they are included in Non-exam Assessments which may reduce students’ anxiety and allow more time to demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and skills. Students with disabilities that mean they have difficulty with extended responses would be entitled to reasonable adjustments, as they would for any qualification. |
|
Modular assessment and assessment availability |
Ofqual is proposing to require that the new qualifications are modular, with limits on the number of assessment series and submission windows available per year. Modular assessment approaches can support student motivation and engagement, and mastery learning. For example, Baird et al., 2019, in their review for Ofqual on modular and linear GCSE exams, found that for some students, such as disabled or low attaining students, modular assessment designs can support learners to maintain a consistent level of engagement and performance where it otherwise might be more variable. The opportunity to retake assessments in modular qualifications can be viewed negatively as leading to grade inflation or more positively as allowing students, particularly those who are disadvantaged, to attain more highly than they otherwise could (Baird et al., 2019). We have not proposed restricting opportunities to retake assessments, although the availability of assessments will naturally limit the number of opportunities to retake assessments. We think this is proportionate as it will allow some opportunity to retake assessments but will prevent students from repeatedly re-taking assessments, which would have an impact on time available for teaching and learning. Overall, we think this approach would have a positive impact. |
Not applicable |
|
Grading scale |
We propose setting a common grading scale for each of V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates. We believe this will have a positive impact on all students, as grading will be consistent across awarding organisations. The proposed length of grading scales will also have a positive impact. For V Levels, introducing a longer grading scale than currently exists in many 360 GLH Applied Generals, and a slightly longer scale than exists for A Levels, will allow for greater differentiation across the attainment range. We think this will have a positive impact as the achievements of lower-attaining students will be recognised. There is some evidence from another country (Sweden) that a grading structure with more individual grades can be discouraging, particularly for lower attaining students. However, these students were in a different country with a different culture and educational and assessment context, so there may be factors at play other than grading structure. Other studies suggest greater levels of feedback (through grades) can support better learning and engagement amongst students. For Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates, we are proposing a shorter Pass/Merit/Distinction grading scale. The existence of 2 additional grades above pass will have a positive impact as it will help to motivate students to develop their expertise beyond the minimum needed for a pass, whilst recognising the attainment of higher achieving students. |
Not applicable |
|
Standard setting |
Ofqual proposes to set requirements for standard setting, including the way in which qualitative and quantitative evidence is used and the way in which grade boundaries for key grades are set. We do not think this approach will have any particular equality impacts but will increase fairness for all students (compared to current qualifications) as grading will be more consistent across awarding organisations. |
Not applicable |
|
Marking and moderation |
Ofqual proposes that for V Levels, awarding organisations should use numerical mark-based approaches, and for Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates, assessments can be either numerically marked or directly graded. Either way, we propose requiring a compensatory approach to marking, whereby strong performance in one part of a qualification can compensate for less strong performance in another part. We think this may have a small positive equality impact as there will be no ‘hurdles’ to students passing a qualification overall. Direct grading can support students with the lower levels of attainment by setting out learning outcomes in detail, which can support the least able students to progress. However, numerical marking gives awarding organisations greater control over standard setting. For V Levels, where entry to higher education might be predicated on achieving a particular grade, we think that having greater control over standard setting is important, which supports our proposal for numerical marking. For Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates, which are aimed at students with lower prior attainment, we are proposing to permit either direct grading or numerical mark-based approaches (or a combination of the 2), and awarding organisations can determine the best approach for their qualification. We have also proposed that Non-exam Assessment, where awarding organisations permit centre-marking, must be Moderated by the awarding organisation. We consider this will have a positive impact for all students and increase fairness for all students as this will mean that any issues identified with centre marking must be resolved before results are issued, as is already the case for students studying A Levels or Technical Qualifications within T Levels, where Moderation rules already apply. |
Not applicable |
|
Reviews of Marking, Moderation and Appeals |
Ofqual is seeking views on introducing rules about reviews of marking, moderation and appeals, similar to those already in place for GCSEs, AS/A Levels and Technical Qualifications within T Levels. We do not currently have these rules in place for other level 2 and 3 qualifications. The introduction of these rules could therefore have a positive impact on fairness for all students, and in particular for students with SEND or from lower socio-economic backgrounds who are more likely to study these qualifications. |
Not applicable |
|
Retaking Core Exams in TQs within T Levels |
Ofqual has proposed to allow additional flexibility in how TQ Core exams are retaken, in line with DfE’s policy. This increase in flexibility could have a positive impact for students with SEND by reducing the assessment burden if students need to retake the TQ Core Exams. |
Not applicable |
On-screen assessment
In relation to on-screen assessment, the proposals in this consultation have been developed in line with the proposals for GCSEs, AS and A Levels on which we consulted between December 2025 and March 2026. The anticipated equality impacts of those proposals are set out in more detail in the equality impact assessment for that consultation.
As noted earlier in this EIA, the cohort taking existing level 2 and level 3 VTQs includes a higher proportion of students with SEND and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds than for A Levels. This suggests that issues of digital inequality could arise in this context. Our proposed approach therefore takes account of this risk.
The guiding principles consulted on for GCSEs, AS and A Levels, and which have guided our approach to V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates, set out expectations for fairness and accessibility, including that on‑screen assessment should maintain, and wherever possible enhance, accessibility for students with special educational needs and disabilities. In practice, the accessibility impacts of on‑screen assessment may vary depending on individual needs and assessment design, and our proposals therefore seek to support accessibility, including for those students with SEND who may benefit from an on‑screen mode of assessment.
For V Levels in tranche 1, we have considered the use of on-screen assessment on a subject-by-subject basis, in line with these guiding principles.
For Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates we do not propose placing restrictions on awarding organisations’ use of on-screen assessment. For these qualifications, risks in relation to digital inequality and centre capacity are mitigated by the expectation that entry volumes are likely to be small, and that the use of on-screen assessment is more established in technical and occupational qualifications.
Our proposals will not restrict the availability of on‑screen assessment as a reasonable adjustment where this is necessary and appropriate to meet specific accessibility needs of disabled students.
Next steps
As well as seeking views on the potential equality impacts of our proposals through this public consultation, Ofqual will seek views from experts in accessibility and equalities (including through its Access Consultation Forum) to inform its decisions.
[1] VTQ Performance Table Qualifications at level 3 are Applied Generals and Tech Levels, at level 2, Technical Certificates, and at level 1/2, Technical Awards
[2] Access arrangements is the term commonly used by awarding organisations, schools and colleges to describe both those adjustments provided as reasonable adjustments for disabled students and those provided as a form of special consideration for non-disabled students.