Regulating science V Levels at subject level

Introduction 

Ofqual has a duty under the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to avoid introducing or maintaining unnecessary regulatory burden. We have considered the potential costs and benefits associated with the proposals set out in this consultation.  

This consultation relates to Subject Level Conditions (SLCs), requirements and guidance proposed for tranche 2 V Level subjects due to be first taught from September 2028.

The introduction of V Levels and the content to be taught within them are matters for the Department for Education (DfE). Our proposals relate only to the regulatory arrangements that will apply to qualifications developed against that content. The impacts assessed below therefore focus on the consequences of Ofqual's proposed regulatory requirements rather than on DfE's broader policy decisions.  

The baseline assumes that awarding organisations developing tranche 2 V Levels are regulated through Ofqual's General Conditions of Recognition and Qualification Level Conditions (QLCs) for V Levels.  

Impacts on awarding organisations 

Benefits 

The proposed SLCs provide awarding organisations with greater clarity regarding regulatory expectations when developing qualifications. 

By specifying common SLCs, requirements and guidance, Ofqual is seeking to secure consistency and comparability across qualifications offered by different awarding organisations within a subject. This may also support more efficient qualification design and regulatory review processes by providing clarity on Ofqual’s requirements. 

Costs 

Awarding organisations will incur familiarisation costs in reviewing the proposed SLCs, requirements and guidance and considering the implications for qualification design and delivery. These costs are expected to be one-off and relatively limited as the V Level QLCs have already been published and the proposed approach for the SLCs closely aligns with that adopted for tranche 1 V Level subjects.  

Awarding organisations developing qualifications in the relevant subjects may incur qualification development costs associated with: 

• designing assessments that comply with specified assessment objectives and weightings 

• meeting prescribed assessment method balances

• meeting terminal assessment requirements

• preparing evidence to demonstrate compliance as part of accreditation.  

The proposals may also reduce flexibility in qualification design relative to a position without subject-level requirements. This could restrict the ability of awarding organisations to choose different approaches to qualification design that could have been more cost effective to design and deliver.  

Overall, we anticipate the costs to awarding organisations will be minor to moderate in magnitude and largely one-off, arising primarily during qualification development, accreditation and implementation. 

Impacts on learners, centres and users of qualifications 

Benefits 

The proposals should help ensure greater consistency in assessment arrangements across awarding organisations offering qualifications in the same subject. 

By specifying common assessment objectives and assessment requirements within individual subjects, the proposals should support comparability of assessment and help ensure that qualification outcomes are interpreted consistently by learners, centres, employers and higher education providers. The proposed SLCs, requirements and guidance are also expected to support more consistent and robust qualification development across awarding organisations by setting clear expectations regarding assessment design and approaches to standard setting. This should provide greater assurance that accredited qualifications meet an appropriate and consistent standard of quality. In turn, this may increase confidence amongst learners, centres, employers and higher education providers that qualification outcomes provide a reliable indication of knowledge, understanding and skills. 

The proposed requirements relating to assessment design and terminal assessment may contribute to the reliability and consistency of qualification outcomes over time. This should support public confidence that grades awarded in the same subject represent comparable levels of attainment regardless of awarding organisation. This, as above, may increase confidence amongst learners, centres, employers and higher education providers on what the qualification demonstrates. Greater confidence in qualification outcomes may, in turn, strengthen the currency and value of V Levels as qualifications that can be relied upon to inform progression and recruitment decisions. 

More consistent qualification outcomes may provide clearer signals of learners' knowledge, understanding and skills, supporting progression to further study, higher technical education, apprenticeships and employment. Conversely, employers and higher education providers benefit from the use of V Levels as a reliable representation of a learner’s skills and knowledge.  

Overall, we anticipate the benefits to learners, centres and users of qualifications will be moderate in magnitude and ongoing, reflecting improved comparability, reliability and confidence in qualification outcomes over time. 

Costs 

Centres may incur limited familiarisation costs when planning delivery and assessment arrangements for the new qualifications. 

The proposed requirements may reduce flexibility for centres by requiring more consistent assessment arrangements across awarding organisations, which could limit alternative approaches to course delivery and assessment scheduling. 

There may also be transition costs associated with the introduction of new qualifications and assessment arrangements. These costs are expected to arise primarily from the wider qualification reforms and introduction of V Levels, rather than from the specific regulatory proposals consulted on here. However, certain aspects of the proposed assessment arrangements, such as requirements relating to assessment methods and terminal assessment, could result in limited additional costs for centres relating to timetabling, staffing, logistics or uploading of learner evidence. 

Overall, we anticipate the costs to learners and centres will be low in magnitude and primarily transitional, associated with familiarisation and adaptation to new assessment arrangements. 

Impact of on-screen assessment 

In our consultation Regulating on-screen assessment for GCSEs, AS and A levels, we set out our view of the impacts on awarding organisations, centres and students. We intend to apply the same guiding principles for the use of on-screen assessment in V Levels. 

Our approach to regulating on-screen assessment is intended to manage risks to standards, fairness and public confidence and ensure secure and reliable delivery, whilst allowing awarding organisations to use on-screen assessment where appropriate and where risks can be effectively mitigated.   

Allowing on-screen assessment in Assessment by Examination may provide awarding organisations with greater flexibility in assessment delivery. In some cases, this could reduce delivery costs where on-screen assessment is less costly than paper-based assessment and allow fixed technological costs to be spread across a larger number of assessments. This may help to reduce unit costs and mitigate fee increases compared to a baseline where additional restrictions on on-screen assessment are imposed. If Ofqual was to decide that offering a choice of on-screen assessment and paper-based assessments did not require different specifications or substantially different assessment materials, then awarding organisations may not incur additional development costs.  

Potential negative impacts for awarding organisations include the costs of developing and maintaining on-screen assessment systems, managing risks associated with technical failures or cyber incidents. The extent of these impacts is likely to vary depending on how widely on-screen assessment is adopted and the arrangements put in place to manage delivery risks. 

While we recognise that the evidence on the benefits of on-screen assessment is limited, allowing on-screen assessment in Assessment by Examination could have positive impacts for learners and centres. They may benefit from greater flexibility in assessment delivery and, where appropriate, from assessments that reflect the digital environments in which learning and work increasingly take place. On-screen assessment may also provide benefits for some learners where digital delivery supports accessibility, familiarisation, or the effective use of assistive technologies. 

Centres offering on-screen assessment may face costs associated with providing suitable devices, staff training, student familiarisation, testing systems and processes, and with establishing arrangements to support secure delivery. Impacts may be greater for centres with more limited digital infrastructure or less experience of delivering assessments on screen. Learners may also face challenges where familiarity with digital assessment environments varies between centres. However, our proposals are intended to support a consistent, secure and reliable assessment experience and to maintain public confidence in qualification outcomes. 

Growth duty 

In developing these proposals, we have considered the desirability of promoting economic growth. 

The proposals seek to support reliable and comparable qualification outcomes across awarding organisations. Greater consistency in qualification design and assessment should help ensure that qualifications provide trusted signals of learners' knowledge, understanding and skills. 

V Levels may also support innovation in qualification design and assessment delivery if, where appropriate, awarding organisations make use of on-screen assessment within a clear regulatory framework. This approach could facilitate the adoption of assessment methods that reflect the digital environments in which learners increasingly study and work, while maintaining confidence in standards, fairness and reliability. 

Over time, increased confidence in qualification outcomes may support progression into further study, apprenticeships and employment by helping users of qualifications understand what successful achievement represents. The proposals are therefore expected to support the effective operation of the qualifications system while imposing only limited additional burden beyond that required to achieve Ofqual's regulatory objectives.