Consultation outcome

Regulating alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications at level 3: analysis of consultation responses

Updated 10 January 2023

Summary

This was Ofqual’s second consultation on the regulation of alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications, arising from the Department for Education’s (DfE) review of post-16 qualifications at level 3.

In the first consultation, Ofqual sought views on the overall regulatory approach it should take for these qualifications. In this second consultation Ofqual sought views on the draft Conditions, requirements, and statutory guidance needed to implement the decisions made following the first policy consultation.

Ofqual also sought further views on the proposed approach to grading scales (for alternative academic qualifications) and qualification titling (for both alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications), as well as the associated Conditions and statutory guidance needed to implement these proposals.

There were 33 responses to this consultation.

In relation to grading scales, there was overall agreement with the proposed approach and with the draft statutory guidance. The benefits of a longer term move towards a smaller number of more common grading scales were recognised. Respondents also noted the need for awarding organisations to have the flexibility to use approaches tailored to specific qualifications. Respondents felt the proposed statutory guidance setting out what awarding organisations should consider when determining their approach was helpful, with a small number of suggestions for how it could be made clearer.

In relation to qualification titling, there was support for a clear and consistent approach to titling. It was felt this would help users to navigate the future landscape, though respondents felt that some aspects of the proposals, in particular the different elements that would make up qualification titles, risked being overly complex.

Beyond grading and titling, the rest of the consultation sought views on the draft Conditions, requirements and statutory guidance. These proposals will implement the policy decisions already taken. The consultation also sought views on the equalities and regulatory impacts of these proposals. Respondents’ comments generally indicated support for the approach taken in the proposed Conditions, requirements and statutory guidance, with a small number making suggestions for how they might be made clearer.

With regard to the equality impacts, respondents were keen that potential equality impacts are monitored following the re-development of qualifications to meet these new requirements.

With regard to the regulatory impact of the proposals, respondents commented on the potential burden on awarding organisations to ensure qualifications meet new requirements. They also highlighted the burden for centres needing to familiarise themselves with the new qualifications.

Background

The DfE is conducting a review of post-16 qualifications at level 3, which is aiming to simplify the qualifications landscape, improve the quality of the provision and ensure that students are adequately equipped to progress to their desired destination, whether that is further study or employment. Ofqual is working with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and the DfE to ensure that the qualifications meet the government’s intentions.

Ofqual consulted earlier this year on the proposed approach to regulating these qualifications. Some of the proposals in the consultation related solely to alternative academic qualifications, with others relating to both alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications. The decisions made following consultation can be found on our website.

Following the announcement of these decisions, Ofqual consulted on the specific Conditions, requirements and statutory guidance needed to implement these proposals, as well as asking for further views on approaches to grading and titling.

This consultation was divided into 2 parts:

• part 1 sought views on the proposed approach to grading scales (alternative academic qualifications) and titling (alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications), and the associated Conditions and statutory guidance needed to implement these proposals
• part 2 sought views on the specific Conditions, requirements and statutory guidance needed to implement the decisions made following the first consultation, in relation to:
  • content
  • assessment strategies and the associated requirements for alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications
  • qualification purposes
  • assessment, including Assessment by Examination^{[footnote 1]} and non-exam assessment
  • standard setting
  • qualification reviews
  • withdrawal of approval for public funding
  • interpretation and definitions

The responses to our consultation are summarised in this document.

Further information

Further information about the roles and responsibilities of Ofqual, IfATE and the DfE in relation to level 3 alternative academic and technical occupation qualifications is available on the Single Access Point (SAP). This webpage contains information on the steps and processes awarding organisations will need to understand and follow to submit level 3 alternative academic and technical occupation qualifications as part of the 2025 to 2026 funding approval process.

Approach to analysis

The consultation consisted of 21 questions. Respondents were asked to complete the consultation online or email their responses to Ofqual.

Respondents to this consultation were self-selecting, and therefore the sample of those who chose to participate cannot be considered as representative of any group. Efforts were made to engage as many interested parties as possible by holding stakeholder events, using social media, and posting information on the Ofqual website.

The responses to the consultation questions are presented in the order in which they were asked. For most of the questions in part 1, respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with the proposal and were given the opportunity to provide a comment. In part 2, respondents were asked to provide any comments in relation to the proposed Conditions, requirements or statutory guidance. Respondents were not required to answer all questions.

In some instances, respondents answered a question with comments that did not relate to that question. Where this was the case, these comments have been reported against the question to which the response relates, rather than the question against which it was provided. Some respondents also commented on the underlying policy and regulatory approach, for which decisions have been previously announced and which were not the subject of this consultation.

Who responded?

There were 33 responses to the consultation. All responses have been considered as part of this analysis.

There were 27 official responses from the following types of organisations:

• 15 awarding organisations or exam boards
• 8 representative or interest groups
• 1 university or higher education body
• 3 other organisational responses

There were 6 personal responses from:

• 2 teachers or senior leadership team members
• 2 consultants
• 2 other individuals

The respondents were based in the following locations:

• 32 England
• 1 non-UK

Part 1 – Proposals for regulating alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications

Navigate to specific response section:

Question 1

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to specifying statutory guidance relating to awarding organisations’ approaches to grading and grading scales?

Extent of agreement	Number of respondents
Strongly agree	4
Agree	17
Neither agree nor disagree	2
Disagree	2
Strongly disagree	3

There were 31 responses to this question. Twenty-one respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposals, 5 disagreed or strongly disagreed and 2 neither agreed nor disagreed. Twenty-seven respondents provided additional comments. Three respondents provided comments without indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed.

A large number of respondents, including awarding organisations and representative groups, commented on the need to allow flexibility in grading scales, and thought the proposed guidance allowed for this. While respondents recognised the benefits of not having many different grading scales, they said the flexibility to use proven approaches, and to match grading scales to qualifications, was important. Awarding organisations commented on the need for approaches to be appropriate to the qualification and said that the approach to grading is fundamentally linked to the nature of the assessment. They also said that imposing specific grading scales on qualifications could lead to less reliable results and that, while fewer grading scales may give the appearance of commonality, it would only be meaningful where there are processes to ensure standards were comparable across qualifications.

Awarding organisations also commented that while they understood the desire to move towards fewer grading scales, it was unclear whether, or how, it would be decided which existing grading scales might continue to exist to achieve this reduction.

Many of those who responded commented on the importance of grading scales being understood by employers, higher education institutions and other users. A large number of respondents, while welcoming the move towards fewer different grading scales, said that it would not be appropriate to go as far as requiring a single scale (which is not what was proposed). They felt some flexibility was needed to ensure grades meet the needs of employers, reflect the design of specific qualifications, and are understood by users. Many said that, from an employer’s perspective, simplicity and consistency, as opposed to a wide variety of approaches, would make the qualifications landscape easier to navigate.

Respondents said that consistency, for example in terms of whether the highest point on a grading scale was A or A* in a lettered grading scale, would benefit users and help them compare qualifications. But respondents also commented on the potential for confusion if grading scales were to change from existing, well understood approaches, although they thought that any confusion would be outweighed by the overall benefits of a more navigable landscape.

With regard to the statutory guidance itself, many of the respondents felt the guidance provided a positive step towards a more navigable landscape and would ensure that awarding organisations are aware of Ofqual’s expectations. A representative group commented that the proposed guidance did not go far enough, and that they would prefer the move to a smaller number of grading scales to be implemented sooner. Some respondents commented that while the guidance looked helpful, they were not sure it would reduce the number of grading scales, and that in the short term, many qualifications would continue to use existing approaches.

A small number of respondents commented on the timing of any changes awarding organisations might make in response to the guidance. Given the draft statutory guidance does not propose a single grading scale but signals the intention to move towards fewer different grading scales, respondents said that it was not clear when this would happen.

Some awarding organisations commented about the suggestion that they should consider each other’s approaches. They said this would require awarding organisations to cooperate with each other, which could be facilitated by Ofqual. This would help to support a common understanding of the different approaches.

A small number of respondents commented on the need to consider the impact of any changes in approach on international markets where some qualifications are also used. They commented that the guidance does not refer to this, nor does it consider how grading scales might be compared with unregulated qualifications.

The small number of respondents who disagreed with the proposed approach, mainly awarding organisations or their representative groups, said they did not believe there was evidence of any issues with current approaches to grading. They felt that existing approaches were appropriate, and that changes were not required. They commented that changes to grading scales may be difficult to justify and were likely to cause unnecessary financial and administrative burdens to awarding organisations and centres through their implementation.

Question 2

Do you have any comments on the drafting of our proposed Condition (ATQ6) and statutory guidance on specified levels of attainment (grading and grading scales)?

Twenty-three respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations. The majority of those who commented provided general feedback on the overall approach, rather than commenting specifically on the drafting of the guidance.

Of those whose comments related to the drafting of the guidance, the comments included the following suggestions:

• where the guidance refers to the need to gather evidence that grading scales meet the needs of users, the possibility of different users having competing needs should be referred to
• in relation to gathering evidence to support an awarding organisation’s approach, the guidance should note that such evidence may only become available during a qualification’s lifetime
• clarity about whether the guidance applies to reviews of existing qualifications as well as developing new qualifications
• the guidance should provide examples of decisions awarding organisations might take, having followed the guidance, that would be considered either acceptable or unacceptable
• a query about how an awarding organisation could take account of approaches taken by other awarding organisations. In some instances, these may relate to new qualifications that had not yet been published, or where there were commercial barriers to sharing such information

Respondents also commented that it would be helpful to be clear about whether there was a hierarchy in the way the principles set out in the draft statutory guidance should be applied, and how to manage any conflicts between these.

The other comments made were of a general nature in relation to the approach, rather than the drafting of the guidance itself. Of these, the majority expressed support for the introduction of the guidance. Respondents commented that:

• the guidance was clear and provided clarification of Ofqual’s expectations
• more consistent approaches would benefit users and those who take the qualifications
• the flexibility in the guidance was welcomed, as it allowed for the structure of the grading system to match the purpose of the qualification
• approaches must strike a balance between what stakeholders are familiar with, and what is needed to differentiate between students
• there should be a standardised grading scheme which should be linked to competence and be determined by the specific sector to which the qualification relates

A small number of respondents queried what issue the guidance was intended to address. Respondents also felt that the expectations set out could apply to all qualifications, not just those within the scope of this guidance. A small number of respondents commented on the possible burden and financial implications on awarding organisations of having to follow the guidance.

Some respondents commented about the guidance that awarding organisations should gather evidence that their approaches meet their users’ needs. They said many awarding organisations already do this when they are reviewing their approaches. This is a requirement under the General Conditions of Recognition. As such, they felt that the guidance should not pose an additional burden on awarding organisations.

Question 3

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to setting out, through a bespoke Condition, titling requirements which reflect the DfE’s and IfATE’s expectations for alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications respectively?

Extent of agreement	Number of respondents
Strongly agree	2
Agree	13
Neither agree nor disagree	7
Disagree	6
Strongly disagree	1

There were 29 responses to this question. Fifteen respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed approach. Seven respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed, and 7 neither agreed nor disagreed. Twenty-eight respondents provided comments.

Overall, respondents were supportive of the proposed approach if it would lead to clear and consistent approaches to titling, which are easy for users to understand.

Respondents had mixed views on the proposed approach. Those who agreed thought that common titling requirements would be helpful for users. Amongst those who disagreed and those who neither agreed nor disagreed, concerns were raised that the proposed approach would make qualification titles longer and introduce further complexity to the system, rather than improving clarity. Several respondents suggested that, rather than including a reference to IfATE in the title for alternative technical qualifications, it would be preferable to see the IfATE logo on specifications and/or certificates. One respondent suggested that the inclusion of ‘IfATE’ in the title may be misleading as it could lead to a perception that IfATE was, at least in part, responsible for the delivery of the qualification.

One respondent wanted clarity on the collective name the DfE and IfATE will give to these qualifications. They also wanted clarity on whether these qualifications would be a new regulatory qualification type, for which they would need to be recognised. Another respondent noted that when titles are long, users tend to shorten them themselves.

Some respondents expressed concern about the proposal to include Total Qualification Time (TQT) in titles for alternative academic qualifications. It was suggested that terms that are already in use and understood by users, such as award, certificate and diploma, should be used and that the focus should be on building awareness of the meaning of these terms rather than introducing a new method of including size in titles. One respondent noted that the use of existing terms would also minimise burden on awarding organisations. Some respondents queried why an indication of size would not be required for alternative technical qualifications.

Question 4

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to disapply General Condition E2.1 (requirements on qualification titling) in respect of alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications?

Extent of agreement	Number of respondents
Strongly agree	5
Agree	12
Neither agree nor disagree	8
Disagree	5
Strongly disagree	0

There were 30 responses to this question. Seventeen respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal to disapply Condition E2.1 in respect of alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications. Five respondents disagreed, and 8 neither agreed nor disagreed. Twenty-three respondents provided comments.

Of the 17 respondents who agreed with the proposal, 7 were awarding organisations and the rest were a mix of representative groups and individuals. Ten respondents who agreed with the proposals provided comments. There was general agreement with the proposal, noting that if a bespoke Condition was introduced it made sense to disapply the General Condition.

A small number of respondents commented on the inclusion of a reference to size in the qualification titles, agreeing that the proposal to include TQT rather than the terms award, certificate and diploma was helpful. However, one respondent thought that “excessive” use of TQT in the title could lead to misleading titles.

Most of the respondents who disagreed with the proposal did so because they thought that Condition E2.1 was sufficient and should continue to apply to level 3 alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications.

A respondent who disagreed expressed concern that the titling requirements prevented using NVQ in titles for qualifications which are based on recognised occupational standards and conferring occupational competence. This respondent noted that this could cause confusion since the term NVQ is widely recognised by employers.

Question 5

Do you have any comments on the drafting of our proposed Condition on titling?

Twenty respondents provided comments, the majority of which were awarding organisations.

There were 5 comments on the drafting of the proposed Condition. Two respondents stated that the Condition as drafted was appropriate. One respondent stated that it was difficult to comment in full as there are key aspects of the qualification title yet to be confirmed. Another respondent questioned the titling requirements for alternative technical qualifications. In particular, what was meant by “the occupation or specialist job role alignment” and “the level of competence delivered in the qualification”.

Most of the comments did not relate to the drafting of the Condition, and instead focused on the policy proposals for titling covered in questions 3 and 4. Many of the comments focused on themes covered in the analysis for those questions, such as:

• the need for simplicity in titling
• concerns about the inclusion of a reference to size
• questioning the need to disapply Condition E2.1 and introduce a bespoke Condition.

Some respondents expressed support for the use of awarding organisation brand names in titles. One respondent however thought that this should not be permitted, to avoid employers relying on historic familiarity with a brand rather than developing an understanding of the reformed qualifications.

Some respondents emphasised the need to improve higher education institutions’ and employers’ understanding of the role of IfATE. This was particularly the case if IfATE is to be referenced in titles. They also noted the need to improve familiarity with any terminology related to size, if the terms award, certificate and diploma are not used.

Several respondents expressed concern that the use of a collective name in the titles may suggest qualifications have more in common than may be the case. Another respondent commented that the collective names across alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications should be similar, as progression for each may be to either higher education or employment. Another concern raised was that any collective names included in titles for these qualifications may not be considered acceptable in other UK jurisdictions. They said this could lead to qualifications being known by different titles depending on where in the UK the student is located, which could cause confusion amongst users.

Part 2 - Proposed Conditions, requirements and statutory guidance

Navigate to specific response section:

Question 6

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ9 (relating to content)?

Twenty-two respondents provided comments in response to this question, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

The majority of respondents provided comments which indicated support for the approach taken in the proposed Condition.

There were 10 comments on the drafting of the Condition. Of these, 4 respondents were concerned that there was an overlap between the proposed Condition and the existing General Conditions of Recognition. They wanted the General Conditions to be reviewed to prevent duplication. One of these respondents felt there was an overlap between Condition ATQ9 and Conditions E9 (Qualification and Component levels), E7 (Total Qualification Time) and E3 (Publication of a qualification specification), specifically E3.2 which highlights what should be included in the specification.

Some respondents felt that this Condition should include additional information within the purposes of the qualifications to reference skills that could be developed from the qualification. Alternatively, it could include more information for students to help them in their choice of study, such as rationale, entry requirements (including recognition of prior learning), and potential professional association membership.

The other respondents who commented on the drafting requested detailed information on what would be required in the design of assessments.

Question 7

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ2 (relating to assessment strategies) and the requirements relating to assessment strategies for (a) alternative academic qualifications and (b) alternative technical qualifications?

Twenty-five respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Most of the respondents provided comments which indicated support for the approach taken in the proposed Condition and requirements.

Ten respondents made specific comments about the general need for flexibility to accommodate all sectors and the different forms of assessment methods such as online assessments, rather than about the drafting of the Condition.

Four awarding organisations raised concerns about the potential burden if a different assessment strategy had to be produced for each qualification, suggesting a less detailed assessment strategy could be produced and used for several qualifications. Alternatively, it was suggested that an assessment strategy may be produced for a suite of qualifications which may reduce the perceived burden. Others suggested that the assessment strategy requirements for alternative technical qualifications should align to the IfATE approval criteria to reduce burden.

One awarding organisation thought that the proposed Condition was unnecessary as it is similar to existing General Conditions but did not specify the existing Conditions to which they were referring.

Four respondents, including representative groups and awarding organisations, requested clarity on the term ‘requirements’, and whether the requirements were forms of Conditions or guidance.

There were some responses that did not relate directly to the question. They included a comment about the need for awarding organisations to continuously review the centre assessment processes to ensure that assessments are rigorous and standards are maintained.

Question 8

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ8 (relating to Alternative Academic Qualifications purposes) and the proposed general purposes for alternative academic qualifications?

Twenty-seven respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations. Thirteen respondents said they had no specific comments on the Condition or that the Condition reflected the decision following the first consultation.

There were 14 comments on the proposed Condition and the proposed general purposes for alternative academic qualifications.

Most of the respondents provided comments which indicated support for the approach taken in the proposed Condition and general purposes. In particular, the flexibility to make trade-offs between purposes to enable prioritisation of some general purposes over others, where it was not possible to fully meet them all, was welcomed.

Four awarding organisations asked for clarification of General Purpose E(i) or E(ii) (which relate to the size of the qualification within a student’s overall programme of study). They felt that referring to qualifications which form “a substantial part of a Learner’s^{[footnote 2]} programme of study”, or “the sole element of a Learner’s programme of study” was confusing and referring to them as to them being either ‘Alternative’ to A levels or ‘Alongside’ A levels could help provide greater clarity about their size.

Two awarding organisations queried the inclusion of General Purpose D (“providing a basis for schools and colleges to be held accountable for the performance of their Learners”), suggesting that this was an accountability measure rather than a purpose for the qualification.

One awarding organisation reiterated comments they made in the policy consultation, suggesting that the increased level of detail in the purposes posed a threat to validity, if qualifications were also used by users for other reasons which fell outside of these general purposes.

Question 9

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ5 (relating to assessment) and the requirements relating to assessment?

Twenty respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Fourteen respondents provided comments on the drafting of the proposed Condition and requirements, most indicating general support for the approach taken.

Three respondents commented on the approach to exemptions from Assessment by Examination requirements (in particular from the requirement that assessments are taken simultaneously by all students and for there to be no more than 2 opportunities for assessments in each academic year). They said the drafting should be explicit about what was permitted. This would enable external assessments to be made available for subjects where Assessment by Examination occurring simultaneously for all students would be difficult, such as art. One awarding organisation requested clarification on the detail required to support exemption requests.

Some awarding organisations commented on the use of the word ‘deadlines’ in the requirement relating to the number of opportunities when marks for non-exam assessments could be submitted in each academic year. They asked why ‘deadlines’ was used rather than ‘windows’. They commented that it would need to be clear whether the requirement related to a single deadline, or an overall window, as this could impact the way in which assessments are delivered.

There were also some responses in relation to the previous policy consultation. Two respondents reiterated their desire to reduce the requirement for a minimum of 40% of the qualification to be assessed through Assessment by Examination, or for this requirement to be removed altogether. They questioned the necessity and value of Assessment by Examination for certain subjects.

Question 10

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ10 (relating to standard setting)?

Twenty-two respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Nine respondents provided comments which indicated general support for the approach taken in the proposed Condition. Many said that the proposed Condition reflected the decision following the first consultation and that it supported effective oversight of the qualifications.

Some respondents commented that the maintenance of standards between qualifications would be important. Many went on to state that maintaining standards between assessments was also important and suggested factors to consider to ensure that standards are maintained, such as assessor and moderator reports, assessment standardisation, and assessor training.

One awarding organisation commented on the wording in Condition ATQ10.3 which sets out the range of evidence to which an awarding organisation must have regard when setting standards. They stated that ‘where available’ should be added at the start of the requirement in limb ‘d’ of the Condition (which states that “the level of attainment demonstrated by Learners who have previously been awarded the qualification”), as it would make the requirement more precise. Some representative groups felt that the requirements set out in this draft Condition were already covered by the General Conditions, although they did not specify which General Conditions they were referring to.

Some respondents also felt that the word ‘consistency’ in Condition ATQ10, which requires “awarding organisations to have regard to any guidance which may be published by Ofqual in relation to the promotion of consistency between the measurement of Learners’ levels of attainment in that qualification and similar qualifications made available by other awarding organisations”, may need further explanation. They queried whether there is a requirement for consistency over time similar to the requirement for comparable outcomes at A level and if so, how this can be achieved between qualifications that have different grading scales

One respondent felt it would be crucial for students taking these qualifications, and those using the results (such as higher education institutions), to understand how standards in ‘new’ versions of the qualifications compared to previous versions, and how different alternative academic qualifications compared to one another. They noted the challenges of doing this, particularly in the absence of clarity about the specific qualifications that would be considered alternative academic qualifications.

Question 11

Do you have any comments on the drafting of our proposed statutory guidance on standard setting?

Nineteen respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations. Six respondents said they had no specific comments on the statutory guidance. Six respondents commented on the proposed statutory guidance, the majority of whom indicated general support for the approach taken.

Some respondents also asked for further information or clarification on the following:

• how to select evidence of prior attainment or prior assessment
• what processes will be put in place to facilitate the sharing of awarding organisation evidence
• the frequency of awarding in light of the number of opportunities to submit results

One awarding organisation wanted to know how Ofqual would be monitoring the standards on an ongoing basis, and whether it would be considering comparable outcomes or comparable performance.

One awarding organisation felt that gathering evidence on previous assessment performance would be an added cost burden to awarding organisations and requested clarification on what evidence would be expected.

Question 12

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ3 (relating to reviews of alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications by Ofqual)?

Nineteen respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Nine respondents provided comments, the majority of whom indicated general support for the approach taken in the proposed Condition.

Some awarding organisations and representative groups requested further information about the frequency of the reviews as it was felt that the reviews could impose additional burden.

One awarding organisation said that the reviews would require significant resource both from awarding organisations and Ofqual. They commented on the need to ensure this was manageable for all involved to ensure reviews are delivered in a timely and consistent manner.

Two awarding organisations felt that the General Conditions already allowed for the requirements set out in the proposed Condition. One of these awarding organisations cited General Condition D5, which relates to compliance of qualifications with Regulatory Documents rather than compliance following a review.

Question 13

Do you have any comments on the drafting of the proposed Condition ATQ7 (relating to the withdrawal of approval for public funding)?

Twenty respondents provided comments, the majority of which were awarding organisations.

Eight respondents had no specific comments on the Condition or said that the Condition reflected the decisions following the first consultation.

Two respondents commented on the drafting of the Condition. One awarding organisation said that Condition ATQ7.2a (relating to decisions by Ofqual about the disapplication of these Conditions following the withdrawal of approval for public funding) could be expressed more clearly by also giving an example of under what circumstances an awarding organisation may withdraw their own qualification. Another awarding organisation asked for clarification on the use of the word ‘otherwise’ in ATQ7.2a (“Ofqual may decide, upon application by the awarding organisation or otherwise, that the Alternative Academic and Alternative Technical Qualifications Qualification Level Conditions should no longer apply to that qualification”). They also asked to what extent funding and regulatory status is linked.

Another awarding organisation said that the General Conditions already included requirements in relation to withdrawal of qualifications. This may have been a misunderstanding of the Condition, which related only to the withdrawal of public funding. They also wanted clarification of the circumstances under which funding could be removed, but the qualification remains available.

Some awarding organisations and representative groups questioned the policy decision upon which the Condition was based, in particular the requirement to notify Ofqual where approval for public funding is withdrawn. They felt that this process of notification creates unnecessary work for the awarding organisation. They suggested Ofqual and the DfE should share this information directly, to reduce the burden on awarding organisations of having to notify Ofqual where approval for funding is withdrawn.

Some comments were unrelated to this question in the consultation and were queries about funding criteria or processes which are a matter for the DfE rather than Ofqual.

Question 14

Do you have any comments on the drafting of proposed Condition ATQ1 (relating to interpretation and definition)?

Twelve respondents provided comments, the majority of whom were awarding organisations

Two respondents commented on the drafting of the Condition. These respondents thought that the definition of an Alternative Technical Qualification in the drafting of the Condition was unclear. They thought that the phrase, “…not a Technical Qualification” could be confusing because it sounds similar to Technical Qualifications which form part of the T Level.

Some awarding organisations and a range of representative groups asked if the Extended Project Qualification was covered by these requirements and if it would continue to be available in the future. Respondents noted that the list of qualifications exempt from the proposed Conditions did not specifically refer to Extended Project Qualifications.

Other comments related to whether specific qualifications would be covered by the Conditions, such as the International Baccalaureate Diploma and professional vocational qualifications, or whether they would be exempt.

Equality impact

Question 15

Are there any other potential impacts (positive or negative) on students who share protected characteristics that have not been identified?

Option	Number of respondents
Yes	8
No	15

There were 23 responses to this question, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Fifteen respondents said that Ofqual had identified all the potential impacts. Eight respondents said that there were other potential impacts which had not been identified.

Twenty-one respondents provided a comment, 10 of whom did not answer the question about whether any potential impacts on students with protected characteristics that had not already been identified.

Two respondents said that students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) are likely to be disadvantaged by some of the proposals, with particular reference to the prescriptiveness of assessments. One respondent said that having set assessment dates would likely have an impact on students with long-term medical conditions.

One respondent said that certain ethnic minorities would be disproportionately impacted as they are more likely to be from a lower socio-economic background or to be diagnosed with SEND. Another respondent said that disadvantaged students are more likely than other students to be taking qualifications that are alternatives to A levels and T Levels in the first place.

Other groups that respondents thought may be negatively impacted included students who do not have a suitable home environment, and those who do not have English as their first language. Respondents did not specify any particular disadvantage that these students would face nor whether the disadvantage was as a result of proposed Conditions or the policy itself.

Several respondents highlighted the importance of monitoring any equalities impacts on an ongoing basis to enable any disproportionate outcomes to be tracked.

Question 16

Are there any additional steps that could be taken to mitigate any negative impact, resulting from the proposals, on students who share a protected characteristic?

Option	Number of respondents
Yes	4
No	17

There were 21 responses to this question, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Four respondents thought that there were additional mitigations that could be taken, while 17 thought that there were not. Six respondents provided a comment.

One respondent suggested the proportion of Assessment by Examination should be increased to 60% from the proposed minimum of 40%. They said external assessment is fairer to disadvantaged students. Another respondent thought that more could be done to mitigate the impacts of introducing a minimum of 40% Assessment by Examination, to ensure accessibility for students with a protected characteristic who may be disadvantaged by this proposal.

Two respondents emphasised the importance of reviewing and reporting any differential impact on students with protected characteristics.

Question 17

Do you have any other comments on the impacts of the proposals on students who share a protected characteristic?

Five respondents provided comments. One respondent highlighted the importance of considering the impact on students with non-protected characteristics who may face other barriers (for example socio-economic status). Another respondent highlighted the importance of all qualifications being as accessible as possible.

Respondents also made comments that related to overall qualifications policy, rather than the specific proposals in this consultation.

These included:

• 2 respondents who noted that they were supportive of the reforms in technical education
• 1 respondent who commented on the funding of qualifications, expressing a concern that some applied general qualifications that may be defunded are used by large numbers of students to access higher education
• 1 respondent who commented specifically in relation to T Levels, which are outside of the scope of these proposed Conditions, requirements and statutory guidance

Regulatory impact

Question 18

Are there any regulatory impacts that we have not identified arising from our proposals? If yes, what are the impacts and are there any additional steps we could take to minimise the regulatory impact of our proposals?

Option	Number of respondents
Yes	12
No	13

There were 25 responses to this question, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

Thirteen respondents said there were no additional regulatory impacts. Twelve respondents said that there were additional impacts, and 8 did not indicate either way. Fourteen respondents provided comments. Many of these comments related to impacts identified as part of the regulatory impact assessment, as opposed to new impacts.

Most of those who provided comments mentioned the potential burden caused by either the development of qualifications, the approvals process or the review of qualifications.

Awarding organisations or representative groups commented on:

• the need for clarity about which subjects would be permitted for alternative academic qualifications, to mitigate the risk that awarding organisations spend time and resources developing qualifications in subjects that will not be funded
• the need for clarity about what is meant by a high-quality qualification, to support awarding organisations’ development of qualifications
• the need for reviews of qualifications as part of the approvals process to be completed quickly, and consideration of what support could be made available to awarding organisations in preparing their qualifications for review
• the need for clarity about how often Ofqual reviews of qualifications may take place
• the need for collaboration between Ofqual and IfATE to ensure an efficient process

One awarding organisation commented on the potential burden of having to meet new regulatory requirements for smaller awarding organisations. They felt that increasing the specificity and volume of regulatory requirements would increase the overall burden on awarding organisations, and this had the potential to disproportionately affect smaller awarding organisations.

Other comments from awarding organisations included:

• that data reporting could be increased due to multiple agencies being involved
• the potential costs involved in collaboration between awarding organisations, for example to follow guidance relating to considering approaches to grading taken by other awarding organisations
• the potential costs incurred by awarding organisations to put in place and follow an assessment strategy
• the potential burden if qualifications have to be redeveloped as a result of the overall policy, for example having to change the proportion of Assessment of Examination

Some awarding organisations commented on the potential impact on centres of the proposals, including the need for awarding organisations to consider the resources required by centres to deliver non-exam assessments. Awarding organisations who commented on this question referred to the potential impact caused by having to wait until qualifications are approved before they could confirm details about their qualifications with centres, which might include information needed by centres to recruit students to these qualifications, or by publishers to create materials.

Question 19

Are there any costs, savings or other benefits associated with our proposals which we have not identified?

Option	Number of respondents
Yes	11
No	12

There were 23 responses to this question, the majority of which were awarding organisations.

Eleven respondents said there were costs, benefits or savings associated with the proposals. Twelve respondents did not think there were any other costs, savings or benefits, and one did not indicate either way. Thirteen respondents, provided comments.

Three respondents, including teachers and representative groups, commented that changes to assessment may bring additional logistical costs to centres, relating to delivering an exam series.

Such costs and burdens include:

• invigilation costs
• the need for space to hold assessments
• providing reasonable adjustments
• the costs incurred by familiarising themselves with new or redeveloped qualification

They also said that students and parents could incur costs familiarising themselves with the new or redeveloped qualifications.

Two awarding organisations commented on potential costs associated with Ofqual reviews of qualifications. They said these costs would depend on how often such reviews took place and any controls awarding organisations put in place to assure themselves of the effectiveness of qualifications outside of formal Ofqual reviews. They also mentioned the cost to awarding organisations of redeveloping existing qualifications to align with new regulatory requirements, including any changes to grading scales.

Question 20

Is there any additional information we should consider when evaluating the costs and benefits of our proposals?

There were 9 responses to this question, the majority of whom were awarding organisations.

All 9 respondents provided comments. The majority of the comments related to information that had previously been identified, or that had been included in responses to previous questions.

The comments included:

• the need to consider the potential increase in the number of reasonable adjustments required because of any increase in the proportion of Assessment by Examination
• the risk that the need to meet new regulatory requirements presents a barrier to entry for new awarding organisations, limiting innovation and competitiveness, and concentrating qualifications amongst established awarding organisations
• the burden of providing an assessment strategy, particularly if some of the information has previously been provided to Ofqual in relation to other qualifications

Question 21

Do you have any comments on the impact of our proposals on innovation by awarding organisations?

There were 17 responses to this question, the majority of which were awarding organisations. The majority of these respondents thought that the proposals may restrict innovation.

The reasons given for this included:

• the concern that the proposals would hinder awarding organisations’ ability to take managed risks and to react to changing economic and societal developments
• the difficulty of collaboration between awarding organisations unless it is managed by Ofqual or IfATE
• that requiring a minimum of 40% of the total assessment for a qualification to be through Assessment by Examination could limit innovative assessment practices
• that the additional resource needed to meet new regulatory requirements would impact on the resource available to innovate
• the risk of regulatory requirements being too inflexible to allow for new developments and innovations
• the need to ensure that any new regulatory requirements do not limit the possibility for awarding organisations to use technology to innovate, for example the use of on-screen marking or on-demand assessment approaches

A small number of respondents, including awarding organisations, commented on the impacts of the overall DfE policy. They referred to potential difficulties in meeting the requirements of Ofqual and IfATE when developing qualifications in new subject areas, and whether more established awarding organisations are better placed to meet these challenges.

A small number of respondents, including some awarding organisations and a range of representative groups, commented that they did not think the proposals would impact on innovation. They commented that the use of guidance in some areas, and the possibility of exemptions from aspects of some of the requirements would help ensure that innovation was not stifled.

Annex A: List of organisational respondents

When completing the consultation questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate whether they were responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation.

These are the organisations that submitted a non-confidential response:

• AQA Education

• Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL)

• Association of Accounting Technicians

• Association of Colleges (AoC)

• Cambridge Assessment International Education (CAIE)

• City & Guilds

• Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB)

• Federation of Awarding Bodies

• Gateway Qualifications Ltd

• Gatsby Charitable Foundation

• HOLEX

• International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO)

• National Education Union

• National Hair and Beauty Federation

• NCFE

• NOCN Group

• OCR

• Pearson

• Skills and Education Group

• The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)

• The Independent Schools Association

• Training Qualifications UK

• United Kingdom Warehousing Association

• University of Oxford

• Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT)

1. Some terms are capitalised as they have a defined meaning in Ofqual’s regulatory framework. In this instance, Assessment by Examination is defined as an assessment, which is:(a) set by an awarding organisation, (b) designed to be taken simultaneously by relevant Learners at a time determined by the awarding organisation, and (c), taken under conditions specified by the awarding organisation (including conditions relating to the supervision of Learners during the assessment and the duration of the assessment). ↩

2. We use the term Learners here and elsewhere in this document, rather than the term students, in cases where we are including an extract from the proposed regulatory framework. Learners is a defined term within the proposed regulatory framework. Under the framework the definition for Learner is a person who is registered to take a qualification and to be assessed as part of that qualification. ↩