Consultation on regulating Digital Functional Skills qualifications

Question 1

Proposals at a glance

Accepted Answer

The Department for Education (referred to as the Department in this document) is introducing new qualifications called Digital Functional Skills qualifications (FSQs) that seek to provide students with the core digital skills needed to participate fully in society. The Department is introducing them as part of their plans to improve adult basic digital skills and the new qualifications will sit alongside Essential Digital Skills Qualifications as part of the government’s adult digital offer.

As set out by the Department, Digital FSQs will be introduced from August 2023 and will be new qualifications replacing the existing Functional Skills Qualifications in Information and Communication Technology (FSQs in ICT). Unlike FSQs in ICT, which are available at Level 1, Level 2 and Entry levels 1, 2 and 3, Digital FSQs will be based on Entry level and Level 1 subject content.

The Department published the final subject content on 29 October 2021 following a consultation in May 2019. Awarding organisations will use this subject content to create the new qualifications.

Ofqual will regulate Digital FSQs and consulted on initial policy proposals for the regulation of the new qualifications. This consultation took place at the same time as the Department’s consultation on the subject content. The decisions from that consultation are published alongside this second consultation on the regulatory arrangements for Digital FSQs.

In Part 1 of this consultation, Ofqual is consulting on the detail of the following proposals:

to set requirements around the weighting of marks allocated to the assessment of practical digital skills within assessments
to set requirements around the coverage and sampling of subject content
to issue guidance on the differentiation between qualification levels
to issue guidance on assessment
to set requirements around the number of components and assessments
to set requirements around minimum and maximum assessment times
to introduce a Functional Skills Qualification Level Condition to ensure that awarding organisations will not be able to make FSQs in ICT at any level available after a 12-month transitional period

In Part 2, Ofqual is consulting on the subject-level and qualification-level Conditions, requirements and guidance which would give effect to the decisions already made, and the proposals, if implemented, following this consultation.

Question 2

Audience

Accepted Answer

This consultation will be of particular interest to awarding organisations, as it sets out the detail of the rules with which they will have to comply.

However, this consultation is open to anyone who may wish to make a representation and may be of interest to:

students and apprentices who might study Digital FSQs
teachers, tutors, exam staff and other representatives from schools, colleges, training providers, apprenticeship providers, and other places where the Digital FSQs might be delivered in future
higher education institutions, further education colleges and training providers that may be making offers to students for future academic years
bodies representing educational institutions
bodies representing teachers or other staff working in the education sector
employers who might be receiving job applications from students taking these qualifications, or who might already employ these students
professional bodies, regulators and industry groups

Those with an interest in this work may also want to refer to the published decisions document, which sets out the decisions taken on the overall approach, following the previous consultation.

Question 3

Consultation arrangements

Accepted Answer

Duration

This consultation will be open for 9 weeks starting on 25 November 2021 and ending on 27 January 2022 at 23:45.

We expect to announce the outcomes to this consultation in early 2022. If we proceed to implement some or all of these proposals following this consultation, we will set out the date when our subject-level and qualification-level Conditions, requirements and guidance take effect, and the date by which we would expect awarding organisations to comply with them.

Respond

Please respond to this consultation by completing your response online.

You do not need to respond to every question. However, we would welcome responses to those questions where you wish to express a view.

For information on how we will use and manage your data, please see Annex A: Your data.

Question 4

Introduction

Accepted Answer

The new Digital Functional Skills qualifications

The Department for Education (referred to as the Department in this document) is introducing new qualifications called Digital Functional Skills qualifications (FSQs) that seek to provide students with the core digital skills needed to participate fully in society. The Department is introducing them as part of its plans to improve adult basic digital skills and the new qualifications will sit alongside Essential Digital Skills Qualifications as part of the government’s adult digital offer.

As set out by the Department, Digital FSQs will be introduced from August 2023 and will be eligible for national funding through the adult digital entitlement. Unlike FSQs in English and maths, they will not play a part in the government’s accountability system, other than being reported as part of provider achievement rates.

Digital FSQs will be introduced from August 2023. They will be eligible for national funding through the adult digital entitlement. Unlike FSQs in English and maths, they will not play a part in the Government’s accountability system, other than being reported as part of provider achievement rates.

In January 2019, we received a letter from the then Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills setting out her expectations for the reform of Information and Communication Technology (FSQs in ICT).

The Minister expected Digital FSQs to further reinforce understanding of the Functional Skills brand, and to adopt several features in the existing and reformed qualifications, including:

a Pass or Fail grading system
55 hours of Guided Learning
providing reliable evidence of students’ achievement against demanding content relevant to the workplace and everyday life
providing a foundation for progression to further study or employment
giving users of qualification the confidence that the level of qualification achieved is comparable across awarding organisations and over time

The Minister’s letter also set out that Digital FSQs will:

be developed from subject content, derived from the new national standards for essential digital skills
be available at two levels only – Entry level 3 and Level 1, the same as the new Essential Digital Skills qualifications
not play a part in the government’s accountability system, with the exception of provider qualification achievement rates

The Department published the final subject content on 29 October 2021 following a consultation in May 2019. Awarding organisations will use this subject content to create the new qualifications.

Ofqual’s approach to regulating Digital FSQs

We consulted on our policy proposals for how we will regulate the new qualifications at the same time as the Department consulted on the subject content, taking account of expectations set out by the then Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills.

In our policy consultation, we proposed that, as far as possible, we would regulate Digital FSQs and the awarding organisations that deliver them against our General Conditions. However, we also proposed to introduce some subject level Conditions, requirements and guidance to achieve the government’s intentions for Digital FSQs.

Our starting point in developing our policy approach was the bespoke conditions for the reformed FSQs in English and maths. This was in response to the ministerial steer to reinforce understanding of the Functional Skills brand, to adopt several features of the reformed FSQs, and to give users confidence in the comparability of the qualifications over time and between awarding organisations.

There were also subject-specific factors that influenced the approach we took. The content and the nature of the skills being assessed in Digital FSQs is different from that previously assessed in FSQs in ICT, reflecting the digital world of today.

May 2019 consultation decisions

Having considered the responses received, we have published our decisions alongside this consultation. In summary, we decided to:

regulate primarily through the General Conditions of Recognition, with a limited number of subject-level Conditions
include a purpose statement within the introduction to our Conditions document which aligns with the purpose statement set out by the Department for these qualifications
adopt the subject content developed by the Department into our subject-level Conditions
require qualifications to be awarded at Entry level 3 and Level 1 only
introduce a bespoke rule for Total Qualification Time to reflect the Department’s decision that the qualifications will have 55 hours of guided learning
not set rules around the weightings of skills areas in the subject content but expect a reasonable balance across the skills areas
require that all assessments are set by the awarding organisations
require that marking of assessments at Entry level 3 is permitted to be conducted either by the awarding organisation, or a centre, or both
require that marking of assessments at Level 1 is conducted by the awarding organisation
permit centre adaptation of contexts for assessments at Entry level 3, but not at Level 1
require a single Pass or Fail grading model
require a mark-based approach to assessment, with a student’s results being based on overall performance across the whole of the assessment or assessments and with decisions about grading to be made separately from marking
consult on expecting assessments generally to be made available online and on-screen but not to set any other rules around assessment availability
not require a single technical approach to setting and maintaining standards but to require awarding organisations to explain the approach they intend to use and to require that whatever approach is used, it is based on a range of quantitative and qualitative evidence
regulate differently for the first year of awards and to adopt an enhanced level of scrutiny of qualification outcomes post results at level 1
require all awarding organisations to explain and justify the approaches they are taking to designing, delivering and awarding their qualifications in an assessment strategy document
put in place arrangements for there to be a technical evaluation of the new qualifications, and for awarding organisations to comply with any requirements we set around this process
set a 12-month transitional period for the withdrawal of FSQs in ICT and the introduction of the new Digital FSQs
disapply General Conditions E1.3-1.5 (Qualifications to have support), E7 (Total Qualification Time) and E9 (Qualification and component levels) to remove regulatory burden or to allow for bespoke subject level conditions

Some of our policy consultation questions were deliberately open-ended and we have developed our thinking in light of the feedback we received and changes to the Department’s subject content.

We are now consulting on our remaining proposals and on the draft subject-level and qualification-level Conditions, requirements and guidance, which would bring into effect any proposals we decide to implement following this consultation.

Question 5

Consultation details

Accepted Answer

In Part 1 we are consulting on our proposals to:

set requirements around the weighting of marks allocated to the assessment of practical digital skills within assessments
set requirements around the coverage and sampling of the subject content
issue guidance on the differentiation between qualification levels
issue guidance on assessment
set requirements around the number of components and assessments
set requirements around minimum and maximum assessment times
introduce a Functional Skills Qualification Level Condition to ensure that awarding organisations will not be able to make FSQs in ICT at any level available after the 12-month transitional period

In Part 2 we are consulting on the draft subject-level Conditions, requirements and guidance we propose to put in place for the decisions we have already made about how we will regulate Digital FSQs. We are also consulting on the draft subject-level and qualification-level Conditions, requirements and guidance for the proposals set out above, should we decide to implement them following this consultation. These Conditions, requirements and guidance will sit alongside our existing rules and guidance for all qualifications.

We would like your views on both our proposals and the draft subject-level and qualification-level Conditions, requirements and guidance.

A diagram showing three bullet-pointed lists demonstrating a summary of our key decisions and remaining proposals regarding Digital FSQs.

Overview

available at Entry Level 3 and Entry Level 1 only
assessments usually available on-screen
AO set assessments at both levels
AO marked assessments at Level 1. Permitted but not required at Entry Level
graded – Pass or Fail

Assessment design

one component
maximum of 2 assessments
the overall assessment design should be capable of assessing all the subject content statements
any individual assessment (or pair of assessments):
- can sample from the subject content statements
- must sample from all subject content skills areas
overall assessment time to be between 90 and 120 minutes

Mark-based

compensatory approach between and within assessments – no hurdles
minimum 70% of marks from assessing practical digital skills

Part 1: Proposals for regulating Digital FSQs Subject content

Weighting of marks allocated to the assessment of practical digital skills within assessments

Background

The draft subject content consulted on by the Department in 2019 identified some subject content statements as knowledge statements and others as skills statements. In our previous consultation, we proposed to set rules so that all awarding organisations took the same assessment approach to the subject content statements, otherwise Digital FSQs offered by different awarding organisations would not be comparable.

Most respondents to that consultation agreed that having a consistent assessment approach for the subject content statements would support comparability between awarding organisations, and over time. It was also felt that this would avoid a ‘race to the bottom’ where decisions about assessment were made for reasons of cost or manageability rather than validity.

We did receive some feedback of the risk that any rules we set might stifle innovation or lead to over-assessment, because we appeared to be ruling out the indirect assessment of knowledge through the demonstration of practical skills.

Proposal

In light of the changes to the Digital FSQ subject content and further discussion with awarding organisations, we are now proposing a different approach to achieve comparability between awarding organisations, and over time.

We think that identifying each subject content statement as either a knowledge statement or a practical digital skills statement for the purpose of assessment might lead to an atomistic approach to assessment which deconstructs the statements into separate and distinct elements and increases predictability, especially when the skill or knowledge to be tested is quite narrow in focus.

We now propose to set rules for the weighting of marks which could be gained through questions assessing practical digital skills, and those gained through questions assessing knowledge.

Through our engagement with awarding organisations, they have reflected on their experience of developing Essential Digital Skills qualifications and have suggested that a different weighting for questions assessing practical and knowledge skills was required across the two qualification levels. Some awarding organisations suggested that a greater proportion of marks should be allocated to questions assessing knowledge at Level 1.

However, as the intended aims and outcomes for the 2 qualification levels are very similar, we are not convinced that a difference in weightings between the qualification levels is justified.

Instead, we propose a minimum weighting of 70% of marks to be gained through the assessment of practical digital skills at both qualification levels. The remainder of the marks should be allocated to questions or tasks which assess knowledge. This balance would put the focus of the qualification on the demonstration of practical digital skills but would give awarding organisations greater flexibility to design less predictable and potentially more innovative assessments.

We would expect awarding organisations to justify their approach to the interpretation of subject content statements for the purposes of assessment in their assessment strategy, together with their weightings.

Question 1

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals to:

a) set rules around the weighting of marks which could be gained through questions assessing practical digital skills and those gained through questions assessing knowledge?

b) set a minimum weighting of 70% of marks to be gained through the assessment of practical digital skills at both Entry level 3 and Level 1?

c) require awarding organisations to provide a rationale for their interpretation of subject content statements, together with their weightings, in their assessment strategy?

Coverage of subject content

Background

In our previous consultation, we took the view that demonstration of some of the skills statements would be difficult to assess in formal assessment situations (that is externally set, sat in controlled conditions). For these skills statements, we proposed that it would be a better approach for a student’s ability to be demonstrated and assessed through the course of study, and for evidence of this to be presented to the awarding organisation, rather than be included within the formal assessment.

With reference to the draft subject content consulted on by the Department, many respondents agreed that there were subject content statements which they did not think could be assessed within a formal assessment. We were also asked to clarify what our expectations were around the quality assurance of those statements assessed through the course of study. There was some concern about the manageability and complexity of the emerging assessment model.

Proposal

In light of this feedback and the changes the Department has made to the subject content following their consultation, we now think that the number of practical subject content statements which might be difficult to assess in a formal assessment has been reduced.

We are also aware that by identifying some statements as being assessed on-course and not as part of the formal assessment, we discourage awarding organisations from being innovative in their approach to assessment design and delivery, and risk inadvertently suggesting that the subject content statements not included in the formal assessment are less important than others.

We accept that the number of potentially ‘difficult to assess’ statements will be dependent on the awarding organisations’ approach to assessment design and delivery. However, we think that the final version of the subject content enables awarding organisations to design assessments which could cover all the subject content statements and meet our proposed weightings for the assessment of knowledge and demonstration of practical skills.

We are now proposing not to split subject content statements into those assessed in the formal assessment and those assessed on-course and, instead, to require the assessment design covers all subject content statements, at both qualification levels.

Sampling of subject content

Background

In our previous consultation, we proposed to include rules about the sampling of subject content to ensure that awarding organisations took a consistent approach to support comparability. Our starting expectation was that all subject content statements should be covered in each set of assessments, as this is the best way to ensure that all of the expected subject content has been taught, and that students have the knowledge, skills and understanding set out in the subject content.

We also acknowledged that there were some content statements where the Department had included the scope of the knowledge or skills in brackets, with the expectation that the content in brackets was sampled over time. In some statements however, the Department intended that the content in brackets was exemplary only. We said that we would explain in our rules what approach awarding organisations should take where content was bracketed in the subject content statements.

All respondents to this consultation agreed with the principle that we should set rules around the sampling of content to support comparability by having a consistent approach between awarding organisations, and that we should explain the approach to sampling the content in brackets in the subject content statements. However, we did receive feedback that requiring assessments to cover all the subject content could lead to long, unmanageable, predictable and contrived assessments, and that we should permit sampling of the subject content statements over time.

Proposal

In light of this feedback on our initial proposal, we have reconsidered our approach. Although the number of subject content statements has reduced in the final version of the subject content developed by the Department, we agree that there is a risk that requiring coverage of all subject content statements could lead to predictable assessments, which are not realistic, or are too long and unmanageable.

We now propose to permit sampling of the subject content statements. We will however require awarding organisations to cover as many of the subject content statements as possible in the assessment (or assessments). They must also include subject content statements from each of the 5 skills areas in their assessments to enable students to make connections between the skills areas, as expected in the subject content. Over time, awarding organisations must cover all subject content statements in their assessments and must explain in their assessment strategy how they will do this.

In the final version of the subject content, bracketed content in the individual subject content statements is no longer exemplary. For example:

Entry level 1.1 ‘Know the main features and uses of different types of device (including desktop, laptop, mobile devices, smart devices)’.

The content in brackets must be taught to students.

We propose to permit awarding organisations to sample from this content in their assessments but will expect that all bracketed content is covered over time. Again, awarding organisations must explain in their assessment strategy how they will do this.

In the final version of the subject content statements, there are now ‘scope of study’ sections included for each of the skills areas. As explained in the subject content, they are intended to provide guidance to awarding organisations to indicate, or elaborate on, the intended breadth and depth of subject content statements.

The examples provided (denoted by ‘such as’) are illustrative only and are not exhaustive. As these are illustrative only, we do not propose to set rules for the coverage of or sampling of the ’scope of study’ sections but we will expect awarding organisations to take account of them when designing their assessments.

Question 2

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals to require at both qualification levels that:

a) the design of the assessment must be able to cover all subject content statements, over time?

b) assessments may sample the subject content statements and the bracketed subject content in the subject content statements?

c) assessments must cover as many of the subject content statements as possible?

d) assessments must cover subject content statements from each skill area?

Differentiating between qualification levels

Background

In our first consultation, we did not include a proposal around differentiating between qualification levels because the subject content had not been finalised by the Department.

Now that the subject content has been confirmed, to support consistency across awarding organisations, we are proposing to set out our expectations for differentiation between the 2 qualification levels in our subject level rules.

Proposal

The subject content states that:

Progression between the levels should be evident in terms of:

the complexity of the tasks and activities, and any related information;

the number of stages within tasks and activities; and

the extent to which the requirement(s) is set out for, or has to be determined by, the learner

We propose to reflect this differentiation between qualification levels in our guidance on assessment design to support the development of consistent approaches between the qualification levels between awarding organisations.

Question 3

To what extent do you agree or disagree that we should issue guidance to support consistency between awarding organisations when differentiating between qualification levels?

Assessment design

Background

In our previous consultation, we asked for views on some high-level principles that we would expect the assessments to be designed against. We decided to present our expectations as principles because we could not be clear on the specific expectations that we might look to put in place around assessment design until the subject content being developed by the Department was finalised.

The principles were:

learners should demonstrate their skills by using digital devices to complete tasks set in contextualised and authentic scenarios

learners should have the opportunity to select approaches, techniques and tools to complete those skills-based tasks, using real-life applications and tools and with access to Internet

as far as possible, knowledge and skills should be assessed together, reflecting real-life scenarios, and the number of assessments should be the minimum necessary to assess the subject content

that said, only the knowledge statements in the subject content should be assessed through tests of knowledge (either via multiple choice questions or by providing open-ended answers to questions)

assessments should be designed so that they can be delivered onscreen and/or on-line, reflecting today’s digital world

awarding organisations should make full use of recent advances in digital technology to enhance the quality and relevance of assessments

We asked whether these principles would support the design and delivery of qualifications which were innovative, fit for purpose and fulfil the intentions of the subject content. We said that, following the consultation, we may decide to set controls around assessment design, based on these high-level principles, if we felt that they were necessary to support comparability.

Respondents to the consultation broadly supported these high-level principles and our intention to have digital skills assessed in a way that reflects the digital world in which we live today.

However, we were also asked to clarify our expectations around the use of digital technology and to define terms such as on-screen and online. Other respondents highlighted the difficulty some centres may have in accessing the internet, whether to receive and run the assessments themselves, or to give students access to the internet to complete assessment tasks, in particular prisons/the secure estate, and adult and community learning.

We were also asked to provide guidance on how awarding organisations should balance the need for access to the internet to complete some assessment tasks against the overall security of assessment.

We also had feedback from those who disagreed with our proposal that, while high-level principles could be helpful and support comparability, there was a risk of regulatory burden by adding rules which may not be necessary, and which might limit innovation.

Proposal

We have concluded that the best way of supporting comparability across awarding organisations would be by reflecting the principles, where they are still relevant following changes to the subject content, as either requirements or guidance in our subject-level Conditions, requirements and guidance.

Real-life focus and connections between skill areas

To satisfy the qualification purpose, learning aims and outcomes set out in the subject content, we are still of the view that students should demonstrate their knowledge and skills through assessment tasks which require the use of digital devices and which are authentic and relevant to the workplace and everyday life, as set out in principles 1 and 2. We propose to set this expectation in guidance on assessment.

As explained in section ‘Sampling of subject content’ and section ‘Number of components and assessments’, we are proposing to require assessments to include subject content statements from each of the 5 skills areas in their assessments to enable students to make connections between the skills areas, as expected in the subject content.

On-screen and online assessment

As set out in principle 5, we also consider that assessments should be designed to be delivered on-screen and online to enable students to participate in real-life digital and online activities. We think that Digital FSQs that are delivered on-screen and online are more likely to result in assessment approaches which are authentic and relevant to today’s workplace and everyday life.

We have seen through the technical evaluation process for Essential Digital Skills Qualifications that in most cases awarding organisations were able to design their assessments to be delivered on-screen and online and that this has supported the development of authentic and innovative approaches to the assessment of practical digital skills.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has driven an expansion of digital and online delivery of teaching, learning and the assessment for many qualifications. Some of the concerns expressed by centres and awarding organisations about the capacity of centres to run assessments online are now less likely to apply. However, we accept that some centres may still have limited IT infrastructure.

Accordingly, we considered whether, alongside on-screen and online assessments, there is any need to require awarding organisations to make assessment materials available in paper-based formats. To clarify, in the context of Digital FSQs, assessment materials that are made available in paper-based formats will still require students to use digital devices to complete the questions and tasks in the assessment, for example, using a computer or a phone. We think, however, that requiring awarding organisations to make assessment materials additionally available in paper-based formats would be overly burdensome and might increase risks to comparability and standards setting.

Our conclusion is that it would be more proportionate to take a different regulatory approach. Instead, we propose to permit awarding organisations to make paper-based assessment materials available where they consider this is necessary for some settings. Settings might include in some adult and community learning settings where internet access may not be sufficient to run assessments online. Paper-based assessment materials will also be permitted as part of reasonable adjustments or the application of special consideration.

As such, we now propose to set out in guidance our expectation that assessments are delivered on-screen and online and that we would not expect paper-based assessment materials to be generally available. Although awarding organisations must pay regard to the guidance on assessment, as explained above, they would be able to put forward, by exception, alternative approaches if they can justify them. We will however keep this under review and will monitor the number of exceptions requested.

We will expect awarding organisations to have assurance processes in place to ensure that centres who wish to use paper-based assessment materials can justify their request. We propose to require awarding organisations to set out in their assessment strategy how they will do this.

We recognise that there are additional risks arising from the use of paper-based assessment materials made available on demand. Therefore, where awarding organisations do offer paper-based, on-demand assessment materials, we propose to require them to explain how they will manage any risks in their assessment strategy.

To support the development of consistent approaches across awarding organisations, we are proposing to define on-screen and online, using the definitions we have included in the Vocational and Technical Qualifications Contingency Regulatory Framework (VCRF).

On-screen assessment describes where a learner reads and answers the questions of an assessment on-screen, either by typing or clicking the correct response or by assembling digital evidence of achievement.

Online assessment describes where the assessment materials for an on-screen assessment are delivered to the centre, and where a learner’s responses to that assessment are returned to the awarding organisation, via the internet.

We propose to require awarding organisations to explain in their assessment strategy how they have balanced the need for access to the internet to complete some assessment tasks with the security of the assessment overall. We don’t propose to set any rules around this as the approach taken by awarding organisations will be informed by their assessment platform and their approach to design and delivery.

Question 4

a) To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to issue guidance that assessment tasks are authentic and relevant to the workplace and everyday life and require the use of digital devices?

b) To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to expect that assessments are delivered on-screen and online, but to allow paper-based assessments materials to be made available as an exception, where this can be justified?

c) To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal to set out in guidance that we would expect awarding organisations to ensure that any of their centres who wish to offer assessment materials in a paper-based format can justify that there is a need for them to do so and explain to us in their assessment strategy how they will be so assured?

d) To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals to require awarding organisations to explain how they will manage any risks relating to where paper-based assessment materials are made available on-demand in their assessment strategy?

e) Do you have any comments on the proposed definitions for on-screen and online?

Number of components and assessments

Background

In our previous consultation, we proposed that we should set rules around the number of components and assessments for Digital FSQs to support comparability between awarding organisations. We said that we could not however set these rules until the subject content had been finalised.

The majority of respondents to that consultation agreed or strongly agreed that we should set rules around the number of components and assessments in Digital FSQs to support comparability between awarding organisations and to support user and employer confidence in the qualifications. We did however have some feedback that decisions about the number of components and assessments should be left to individual awarding organisations, to be developed in line with their overall assessment approach.

Proposal

We recognise that setting rules around the number of components and assessments limits flexibility in the design of qualifications, but we believe this higher level of control is necessary to support comparability between awarding organisations. It is also consistent with the approach we have taken with the reformed FSQs in English and maths.

Now that the Department has published the final version of the subject content, we are able to propose rules around the number of components and assessments.

We are still of the view that, because of the interrelated nature of the skills statements and the size of the qualifications (55 hours of guided learning ), the number of components should be limited.

In light of our earlier proposals to introduce a minimum weighting for the marks allocated to the assessment of practical digital skills, and to move away from distinguishing between formal and on-programme assessment, we think that a single component is appropriate for Digital FSQs at both levels. This reflects the size of the qualification and the inter-related nature of the skills areas. It would also rule out having a separate knowledge component which might be a barrier to achievement for some students who may perform better when demonstrating practical digital skills.

We have considered setting a requirement for a single assessment which prevents the development of separate knowledge tests, that could assess knowledge in isolation from the demonstration of practical skills. However, the approach awarding organisations take to the delivery of assessments in some centres may mean that it is necessary. We propose therefore to permit a maximum of 2 assessments at each qualification level.

Question 5

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals to:

a) require awarding organisations to design qualifications at both qualification levels with a single component?

b) permit a maximum of 2 assessments within a component, at both qualification levels?

Assessment time

Background

In our first consultation, we did not propose to specify minimum and maximum overall assessment times for Digital FSQ assessments. We took the view that the skills in the digital subject content were not time dependent, and that there was not the need to specify assessment times in the way that we do for some GCSE subjects to help promote comparability. Nor did we think that there was likely to be the same level of competition around assessment times as we see in certain other qualifications, which form part of accountability measures.

The majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with our proposal not to specify minimum and maximum overall assessment times, saying that differences in the length of assessment between awarding organisations would influence centre choice, and a shorter assessment time may suggest that the assessment is easier to pass. Others said that we should be consistent with other reformed FSQs and the current FSQs in ICT, which specify minimum and maximum overall assessment times.

Proposal

Having considered this feedback, we recognise that there is the risk that competition on assessment length might drive poor assessment design as well as lead to inconsistency between awarding organisations.

We have therefore decided to mitigate these risks by setting a requirement for the overall assessment time for Digital FSQs.

In the current FSQs in ICT, the minimum and maximum assessment times are: Entry level – 60 to 120 minutes and Level 1 – 120 to 180 minutes. In view of the similar amount of subject content at Entry level 3 and Level 1 in Digital FSQs, we don’t think there is a need for a difference in the assessment times between the levels.

We are now proposing to require a minimum and maximum overall assessment time of 90 to 120 minutes, at both qualification levels. We will expect awarding organisations to justify their approach to assessment time, in the context of their overall approach to assessment design, in their assessment strategy.

We think that setting a minimum and a maximum overall assessment time strikes the right balance between promoting comparability between awarding organisations, and allowing awarding organisations to determine the length of individual assessments in light of their decisions about assessment design.

As set out above, in the section ‘Assessment design’, we are permitting the use of paper-based assessment materials in exceptional circumstances, for example, where technical facilities are limited. We are therefore interested to understand whether the use of paper-based assessment materials could mean that additional time is necessary beyond the range we are proposing.

Question 6

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals:

a) to set a requirement on the minimum and maximum overall assessment time?

b) for minimum and maximum overall assessment time to be set at 90 to 120 minutes, at both qualification levels? Please also provide any comments on whether using paper-based assessment materials could mean that additional time is necessary.

Transitional arrangements

Background

As set out in the letter from the then Minister of State for Skills and Apprenticeships, Digital FSQs will be new qualifications that replace the existing FSQs in ICT.

We therefore proposed to set a maximum transition period of 12 months during which both current FSQs in ICT and Digital FSQs would be available alongside each other.

The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with our proposal and so we decided to implement our proposal.

This means that once the subject-level Conditions for Digital FSQs have been introduced, awarding organisations will only be able to award Digital FSQs at Level 1 and Entry level 3.

Proposal

As Digital FSQs are not replacing FSQs in ICT, the new qualifications will not automatically replace FSQs in ICT on our Register of Regulated qualifications. This means there is a risk that awarding organisations continue to make FSQs in ICT available which would have implications for the FSQ brand and the qualification type.

As such, we are proposing to introduce a Functional Skills Qualification Level Condition.

This Condition would mean that an awarding organisation must not make available an FSQ in a subject for which Ofqual has not set and published any FSQ Subject-Level Conditions.

By taking this approach we would ensure that awarding organisations will not be able to make FSQs in ICT at any level available after the 12-month transitional period. To clarify, the introduction of this Condition will not have any implications for FSQs in English in maths.

Question 7

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposals to introduce a qualification level condition to ensure that awarding organisations will not be able to make FSQs in ICT at any level available after the 12-month transitional period?

Part 2: Our proposed qualification-level and subject-level rules

Alongside this consultation, we are publishing 3 draft regulatory documents that set out the:

qualification-level Condition for Functional Skills qualifications
subject-level Conditions and requirements for Digital FSQs
guidance for Digital FSQs

The following shows how these draft Conditions, requirements and guidance give effect to the decisions we have already made for Digital FSQs (as set out in the May 2019 consultation decisions section within the Introduction) and would give effect to policy proposals we are consulting on, if they are implemented.