What has schools policy got to do with higher education?
The Westminster government has published Becky Francis’s Curriculum and Assessment Review, unveiling what Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson calls “landmark reforms” to the national curriculum.
Interestingly, the revitalised curriculum is to be a “core part” of how the government will deliver the Prime Minister’s target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning by age 25.
The review treats higher education as an explicit destination, not a distant afterthought.
When it invents a new “third pathway” at level 3, it insists those V Levels must carry higher education credibility and be built so that young people can progress to degree-level study as well as work – hence Ofqual regulation and sector-standard-linked content. In other words, this isn’t a dead-end vocational cul-de-sac – it is designed to be read and trusted by admissions tutors.
On T Levels, the panel recognises reality on the ground – many universities do already accept T Level learners – but says the acceptance landscape is messy, confusing and poorly signposted. Its answer is that government should keep working with providers and HEIs to promote understanding across the HE sector so applicants know which courses take T Levels and on what terms. The implication for universities is making recognition statements clearer, and aligning them with national guidance as it emerges.
Why the anxiety about clarity? Because the authors kept bumping into learners who don’t grasp how subject and qualification choices at 16–19 play out later for university admission. That includes confusion introduced by new badge-sets like AAQs and TOQs. It turns out that if you design a landscape that looks like alphabet soup, you shouldn’t be surprised when applicants misread the signposts.
Bacc to the future
The EBacc gets a particular dressing-down. It’s true that taking an academic portfolio at GCSE correlates with applying to – and attending – university. But the review finds that EBacc combinations do not boost the chance of getting into the Russell Group, (although the only source for this is a paper from 2018, which doesn’t really come down conclusively against it), and that EBacc’s accountability pull has constrained subject choice in ways that squeeze arts and applied options. For HE, that means any lingering myth that EBacc equals elite-entry advantage gets killed off.
There’s a financial edge to all this that the review politely doesn’t mention. When the previous government tried to defund BTECs, analysis showed the policy could strip £700 million in tuition fee income from the sector, with catastrophic effects for subjects like nursing, sport science, and computing – some facing 20 per cent recruitment losses. Those shortfalls would land heaviest on lower-tariff universities already wrestling with flat domestic recruitment and collapsing international numbers.
The stakes for getting pathway reform right are existential for parts of the sector. If V Levels don’t recruit at scale, if T Level recognition remains patchy, and if the “simplification” just creates new barriers for disadvantaged students rather than removing old ones, some universities and programmes will struggle to recruit. The review’s optimism about legibility needs to meet reality – student choice is sticky, established qualifications have brand recognition, and centrally-planned qualification reform has a patchy track record. T Levels attracted just 6,750 students after £482 million of investment.
As well as all of that, the panel seems super keen to stress the continuing strength of A levels as a pipeline, noting that in 2022/23 some eighty-two per cent of A level learners progressed to higher education by age 19. Whatever else changes, the academic route remains a robust feeder – and universities should expect the report’s other reforms to orbit around, not replace, that core.
Crucially, the review refuses the tired binary that “vocational” equals “non-HE.” It records evidence that large applied or technical programmes can carry real weight with HE providers – precisely because they demonstrate breadth and depth in a way that can be benchmarked consistently across learners. If you run foundation years or applied degree routes, you are being invited to read these programmes seriously.
It also acknowledges the contested evidence on outcomes for legacy qualifications like unreformed BTECs while still affirming their role in widening participation. The nuance matters – some qualifications have varied quality and mixed university performance data, yet for those who succeed in HE, BTECs and other AGQs have often been the bridge in. A credible vocational pathway that keeps that bridge open – while simplifying the current maze – is the intended fix.
Are universities actually ready to make good on these promises? The sector has spent years documenting how BTEC students – despite “equivalent” tariff points – have systematically worse outcomes than A-level students. Arguably, the problem in some providers isn’t the qualification – it’s that first-year curricula and pedagogy remain stubbornly designed around A-level assumptions. Group projects, applied assessment, practical skills – the things BTEC students excel at – routinely get squeezed out in favour of essays and exams that privilege academic writing developed through A-levels.
So when the review insists V Levels must “carry higher education credibility” and enable progression to degrees, the translation work required isn’t just clearer admissions statements – it’s a more fundamental rethink of how universities teach first-year students, assess them, and support their transition.
Put together, the narrative runs something like this. Design V Levels to be legible to universities, clean up T Level recognition so applicants aren’t left guessing, stop pretending EBacc is a golden ticket to elite admission, and keep A levels stable, but value applied depth where it’s rigorous.
And above all, help students understand how choices at 16–19 map to HE doors that open, or close, later.
What (or who) is coming?
There are some wider bits of note. The review has things to say about AI:
…generative artificial intelligence has further heightened concerns around the authenticity of some forms of non-exam assessment… It is right, therefore, that exams remain the principal form of assessment.
As such, it urges no expansion of written coursework and a subject-by-subject approach to non-exam assessment where it is the only valid way to assess what matters. It also tasks DfE and Ofqual to explore potential for innovation in on-screen assessment – particularly where this could further support accessibility for students with SEND – but cautions that evidence for wider rollout is thin and equity risks from the digital divide are real.
Digital capability stops being taken-for-granted. Computing becomes the spine for digital literacy across all key stages, explicitly incorporating AI – what it is, what it can and can’t do – and broadening the GCSE so it reflects the full curriculum rather than a narrow slice of computer science. Other subjects are expected to reference digital application coherently, but the foundations live in Computing. Online safety and the social-emotional ethics of tech use sit in RSHE, while the “is this real?” critical discernment is anchored in Citizenship.
The ambition is a cohort that can use technology safely and effectively, understands AI well enough to question it, and can interrogate digital content rather than drown in it.
More broadly, English is recast so students study “the nature and expression of language” – including spoken language – and analyse multi-modal and so-called “ephemeral” texts. That builds media-literate readers and writers who can spot persuasion, evaluate sources, and switch register across platforms, backed by a Year 8 diagnostic to catch gaps early. Drama regains status as a vehicle for performance, confidence and talk.
In parallel, an “oracy framework” is proposed to make speaking and listening progression explicit across primary and secondary – something schools say is currently fuzzy and inconsistently taught. The sector should expect clearer outcomes on expressing ideas, listening, turn-taking and audience awareness, with specific hooks in English and Citizenship.
Citizenship is made statutory at primary with a defined core – financial literacy, democracy and government, law and rights, media literacy, climate and sustainability – and tightened at secondary for purpose, progression and specificity. The point is to guarantee exposure, not leave it to chance. If implemented properly, you’d expect clearer outcomes on budgeting and borrowing, evaluating claims and campaigns, understanding institutions and rights, and participating respectfully in debate.
And climate education also steps out of the margins. Expect refreshed content in Geography and Science and an explicit sustainability lens in Design and Technology, with an eye on green skills and the realities of local, affordable fieldwork. The intent isn’t a new silo called “climate” – it’s to make the concepts visible, current and assessed where they logically belong.
What’s next?
If this all lands as intended – and that’s a big “if” given implementation timelines and school capacity – universities should expect a cohort that’s been taught to interrogate sources, question AI outputs, and articulate arguments aloud, not just on the page.
Whether all of this survives contact with reality should be the sector’s real concern. The review’s timeline assumes schools can execute sweeping curriculum reform, embed new pathways, and deliver enhanced oracy and media literacy by 2028 – all while navigating funding pressures, teacher shortages, and the usual chaos of system change. That’s ambitious even in favourable conditions.
And universities know from painful experience that when school reform stumbles, they inherit the mess. BTECs were supposed to be the accessible applied route, until differential outcomes data revealed the sector hadn’t actually adapted to teach those students effectively. The EBacc was positioned as the passport to elite universities, until evidence showed it just constrained subject choice without improving Russell Group entry. The Francis Review has laudable intentions – genuine pathways, informed choice, rigorous applied options – but intentions aren’t infrastructure.
If the 2028 cohort arrives at university having been promised that V Levels are “trusted by admissions tutors” but finds patchy recognition, or discovers their oracy training doesn’t translate because seminars still privilege A-level-style discourse, the sector will be cleaning up another policy gap between aspiration and delivery. The review knows this risk exists – hence the repeated insistence on clarity, signposting, and sector cooperation.
But cooperation requires capacity, and capacity requires resources neither schools nor universities currently have a box full of. Nevertheless, the intent is to send universities young people who can think critically, speak confidently, and navigate complexity.
