Consultation outcome

Foundation Certificates

Updated 10 September 2026

Qualification purpose (question 25)

What Ofqual proposed

We proposed to put in place the following purposes for Foundation Certificates, on which awarding organisations should base their own qualification-specific purposes.

A. To provide Learners with nationally agreed knowledge, understanding and skills in relation to a broad vocational area, to prepare them for level 3 study in a relevant subject area.

B. To provide Learners with the ability to apply knowledge, understanding and skills to practical work-related activities.

C. To motivate Learners to complete the qualification and to progress to further study at level 3.

D. To provide accurate and consistent information concerning Learners’ attainment in relation to the knowledge, understanding and skills assessed as part of the qualification.

E. To provide information about a Learner’s readiness to progress to level 3 study.

F. To provide a basis for schools and colleges to be held accountable for the performance of their Learners.

It was proposed that these purposes should all be met to the greatest extent possible, but where trade-offs are required, they should be prioritised in the order set out.

We also proposed to disapply General Conditions E1.1 and E1.2 (which require qualifications to have an objective), given that Foundation Certificates would instead have to meet the purposes set out by Ofqual.

 Consultation feedback

The majority of respondents supported the introduction of qualification purposes, although there were a range of views on the prioritisation and the wording of the purposes themselves.

Some respondents thought the prioritisation did not reflect the needs of the intended cohort, and overly prioritised the acquisition of knowledge and understanding above practical and applied learning.

It was suggested that the most critical function of a level 2 programme was to engage learners, build confidence and develop vocational competence, and that the purposes should reflect this.

Some respondents questioned the inclusion of accountability as a qualification purpose, suggesting that learner progression and educational outcomes should remain the primary focus.

Decision

We have decided to implement the purposes as consulted on. 

Given the role of these qualifications to support progression to further study rather than direct entry to employment, we consider it appropriate to prioritise preparation for level 3 study over the application of knowledge, skills and understanding to work-related activities.

Qualification size (question 27)

What Ofqual proposed

DfE intends that the size of Foundation Certificates should be between 240 and 300 Guided Learning hours.

To ensure this, we proposed to require awarding organisations to design their qualifications to meet the size specified by DfE. We also proposed to disapply Ofqual’s existing General Condition relating to qualification size (E7 – Total Qualification Time).

Consultation feedback

Overall, respondents agreed with this proposal. As the overall size of the qualifications is outside of Ofqual’s remit, this question only sought views on whether respondents agreed with the approach.

Decision

We have decided to implement this proposal as consulted on.

This means awarding organisations will be required to design Foundation Certificates in line with the size specified by DfE.

Qualification content (question 28)

What Ofqual proposed

Foundation Certificates will be based on content set by DfE, linked to occupational standards. We proposed to require awarding organisations to comply with the requirements set out in DfE’s content document, and to explain how they have done so as part of their assessment strategy. 

We also proposed that awarding organisations must comply with any requirements and have regard to any guidance published by Ofqual relating to the interpretation of that content.

Consultation feedback

There was broad support across respondents for the proposal to require awarding organisations to comply with the requirements set out in DfE’s content document, and to explain how they have done so as part of their assessment strategy.

Respondents considered the proposal important for promoting consistency and for providing assurance that learners were being assessed against nationally recognised expectations.

Some respondents queried the extent to which awarding organisations would be able to add to the prescribed content, and thought there should be clearer guidance on this, to avoid inconsistency across awarding organisations.

Decision

Given the support for this proposal, and the importance of ensuring consistent and comparable approaches between qualifications, we have decided to implement this approach as consulted on.

This means that awarding organisations will be required to comply with the requirements set out in DfE’s content document and any related requirements for each Foundation Certificate, and to explain how they have done so as part of their assessment strategy.

They must also comply with any requirements and have regard to any guidance published by Ofqual relating to the interpretation of that content. 

We have clarified that awarding organisations can elaborate on the subject content for the purpose of designing their qualification, as long as this does not compromise comparability or size. They will not be permitted to add to or remove content specified by DfE. The detail of the content itself is a matter for DfE.

Grading scale (questions 29, 30)

What Ofqual proposed

The Secretary of State for Education set the expectation that Foundation Certificates should have a single grading scale, ensuring consistency between awarding organisations for qualifications that are designed against the same content and must meet the same assessment requirements.

This is intended to help students, employers, schools, colleges, further and higher education institutions and the public to understand and interpret the results of qualification and assessments.

We proposed a 3-point grading scale: pass, merit, and distinction  (P/M/D), with the addition of an unclassified option (U).

Consultation feedback

The majority of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal for a 3-point grading scale and with the proposal for that scale to be labelled pass/ merit/ distinction.

The primary reason respondents supported a 3-point scale was that it is clear and easy to understand. Respondents thought it struck the right balance between recognising differences in achievement and being straightforward to interpret.

Respondents also said that it aligns with other grading scales used in existing vocational qualifications.

Some respondents commented that the inclusion of merit and distinction grades above a pass would support learner engagement and motivation.

Other respondents felt that it was important for other groups of students, such as those at risk of becoming not in education, employment or training (NEET), that a pass grade was still recognised as a positive achievement even though the lowest grade.

Several respondents emphasised the importance of ensuring that the meaning of each grade is clearly articulated, particularly in relation to what constitutes readiness for progression to level 3. It was suggested by some respondents that public confidence in Foundation Certificates could be undermined if the meaning of each grade in terms of attainment is not sufficiently clear.

Although in the minority, some awarding organisations disagreed with the proposal for a 3-point grading scale. These respondents thought a 3-point scale would not provide sufficient differentiation of learner attainment. Some of these respondents suggested a 4-point scale (pass/ merit/ distinction/ distinction*) as this would still be easily understood by stakeholders, whilst also improving the accuracy of learner outcomes to support progression decisions. 

Decision

We have decided to implement the pass/ merit/ distinction grading scale as consulted on.

While it would allow greater differentiation, we do not think it necessary to introduce an additional distinction* grade in these qualifications given their given their applied and practical nature. Our view is that the proposed grading scale will allow for appropriate differentiation between learners and will provide clear information to users to support selection decisions relating to the progression of students.

Assessment methods (questions 31, 33)

What Ofqual proposed

We proposed to put in place requirements relating to the methods of assessment to be used in Foundation Certificates, covering both timetabled and other forms of assessment.  

We proposed that the balance of assessment methods for all Foundation Certificates should be:

• timetabled assessments, which contribute 40%  to the overall qualification grade
• other forms of assessment, which contribute 60% to the overall qualification grade

Synoptic assessment

We proposed to require awarding organisations to include synoptic assessment in both timetabled and other forms of assessment. That is, to ensure that students would have opportunities to:  

• demonstrate the ability to draw together different areas of knowledge, understanding and/or skills from across the full course of study
• develop responses which allow a Learner to construct and develop a sustained line of reasoning – or an equivalent logical sequence, depending on the nature of the task – which is coherent, relevant and effectively structured, and
• demonstrate knowledge, understanding and skills in response to authentic, vocationally-related contexts and scenarios.

Consultation feedback

Many respondents supported the proposal to require a mixed assessment model and to specify the balance of assessment methods. They said this would support consistency and comparability across awarding organisations, and provide clear expectations for centres and learners.

Respondents valued the inclusion of a substantial proportion of assessment methods that would enable learners to demonstrate practical skills and apply knowledge, building confidence and readiness for further study.

Respondents also agreed that timetabled assessment would help to prepare learners for level 3 qualifications, including V Levels.

Some respondents however thought the proportion of timetabled assessment was too rigid and potentially misaligned with the needs of learners likely to take the qualification, who often have lower prior attainment, SEND, disrupted education or previous negative experiences of formal examinations.

Some respondents suggested that there should be some flexibility on a subject-by-subject basis.

There were concerns about the manageability of delivering timetabled assessments. Schools, colleges and awarding organisations highlighted operational and financial impacts, including the potential for reduced teaching time, pressure on examination infrastructure and timetabling, and the risk of increased costs for registration, administration, invigilation and access arrangements.

Some awarding organisations sought clearer guidance on how the 40% and 60% proportions should be calculated and evidenced, including whether compliance should be based on marks, component weightings, grade contribution or another standardised method, especially in mixed assessment models that combine numerical marking and direct grading.

Synoptic assessment

Many respondents supported the proposed approach to synoptic assessment for Foundation Certificates. These respondents thought that this would help prepare learners for level 3 study and support more meaningful assessment outcomes.

Some respondents expressed concern that developed responses would be narrowly interpreted as requiring long written answers, suggesting that this would assess writing ability rather than vocational understanding. They thought this may create barriers to completion, progression or engagement. There were suggestions that learners should be able to demonstrate coherent thinking through annotated diagrams, oral responses, calculations, structured records, presentations, digital evidence or applied problem-solving.

Some respondents asked for clearer guidance on whether the three elements of synoptic assessment needed to be demonstrated in the same question or task, or could be demonstrated across different tasks or forms of assessment.

Decision

We have decided to implement the approach to the balance of assessment methods for Foundation Certificates as consulted on. This means that they will be required to include:

• timetabled assessments, which contribute 40% towards the overall qualification grade
• other forms of assessment, which contribute 60% towards the overall qualification grade

Our view remains that these weightings are appropriate for these qualifications, based on the subject content we have seen for tranche 1. They are in line with approaches currently taken in some existing level 2 qualifications, in which timetabled assessment is used alongside other methods of assessment. We will not specify the timing of these assessments, so there will be flexibility for awarding organisations to consider the manageability of the delivery of assessments for schools and colleges when scheduling assessments.

Timetabled assessments do not have to take the form of a written, theoretical examination, and should also include more applied and practical assessments. They must be designed to be taken at the same time, and be set and marked by awarding organisations, but our requirements will allow scope for innovation and will not prevent the use of forms of assessment that meet these requirements.

The balance of assessment methods still allows for a significant amount of assessment in each qualification to be through forms of assessment such as projects, performances or demonstrations of skills, reflecting the applied and practical nature of aspects of the content.

Synoptic assessment

We have decided to set requirements relating to synoptic assessment, but will make changes to the drafting of these to make sure they are clear.

We have decided to amend our proposed definition to be:

In designing and setting the assessments for a Foundation Certificate qualification which it makes available, or proposes to make available, an awarding organisation must ensure that, taken together, those assessments include questions or tasks which allow Learners to –

 (a) demonstrate the ability to draw together different areas of knowledge, understanding and/or skills from across the full course of study, and

(b) construct and develop an extended line of reasoning which is relevant, coherent and effectively structured

In this updated definition, we have removed the requirement for an assessment to require students to “demonstrate knowledge, understanding and skills in response to authentic, vocationally-related contexts and scenarios”. We have decided instead to include this expectation as part of our overall assessment requirements and guidance, as it is applicable to a broader range of assessments, not just to synoptic assessment.

We have also expanded our guidance on synoptic assessment to more clearly explain these expectations.

We have clarified that synoptic assessment in Foundation Certificates must occur across the assessments, but does not necessarily have to be included in both assessment methods. This means synoptic assessment could occur in timetabled and/or other forms of assessment.

We have provided a more detailed explanation of key terms in the definition and clarified that individual synoptic tasks or questions are not required to assess both a) and b) in the same task, nor is it necessary for every question or task within an assessment to be synoptic.

Assessment availability (questions 36, 37)

What Ofqual proposed

The Secretary of State for Education expects Foundation Certificates to have a modular assessment structure, so that assessment can take place at appropriate points during the course of study.

We proposed to put in place requirements relating to the availability of assessments, balancing the intention for there to be a modular approach with controls that would help secure the setting and maintenance of standards.

We proposed that there should be:

• one or two assessment series each academic year for timetabled assessments

• one or two submission windows each academic year for centre marks or grades for other forms of assessments to be submitted to awarding organisations for Moderation

We did not propose to specify when these assessment series should take place.

We proposed that students be allowed to retake Foundation Certificate assessments in any series in which they are offered, and to submit new or amended work when retaking other forms of assessment.

Consultation feedback

Assessment series 

The majority of respondents agreed with the proposed approach.

Respondents broadly agreed that one or two assessment series and one or two submission windows per year could offer a workable balance between flexibility, manageability and standard setting. This was also seen as important for engagement and motivation, while avoiding the disruption and administrative burden associated with frequent or on-demand assessment opportunities.

Some respondents felt that there should be more flexibility in the number of assessment opportunities for both methods of assessment. This was felt to be the case particularly for those with SEND, those with social, emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs and disadvantaged learners who may be at risk of becoming NEET if not able to retake assessments when ready.

Some respondents warned that one or two fixed assessment windows for either method of assessment could create high‑stakes pressure points, restrict timely reassessment, and undermine confidence and progression, particularly for learners rebuilding confidence after GCSEs  or balancing English and maths resits.

Manageability and operational burden were recurring themes, with school and college respondents highlighting that timetabled assessment series risked increasing pressure on exam infrastructure, rooming and invigilation. This was particularly the case when considered alongside assessments for GCSEs, A Levels and other level 2 and 3 qualifications, with concerns about he impact of assessments being scheduled to take place at the same time.  

Some awarding organisations and sector bodies raised specific concerns about practical, workshop‑based and seasonal subjects, arguing that assessments taking place at fixed points in the year could undermine validity where practical skills can only be demonstrated safely or realistically at particular times of year. They said that more flexible assessment windows or staged submission points would be needed to reflect equipment, staffing and environmental constraints.

Retakes

There was strong support for the proposal not to limit retakes, with respondents describing this flexibility as essential for a diverse cohort that often needs multiple opportunities to demonstrate progress, recover from underperformance or absence, and build confidence before progressing to level 3. Respondents highlighted in particular the importance of flexible retakes for learners with SEND, learners with SEMH needs, and for disadvantaged learners at risk of becoming NEET.

Respondents said it was important learners could carry forward marks or results, as this reduces unnecessary repetition and enables learners to focus on the specific components where improvement is needed.

However, there was strong concern that the limited number of assessment series and submission windows proposed for Foundation Certificates will in practice restrict retake opportunities, creating long waits between windows. Respondents warned that this could delay progression to level 3, stall educational momentum and demotivate students.

Respondents also recognised that permitting retakes would have workload, logistical and timetabling implications for centres and awarding bodies.

Colleges and awarding organisations highlighted the burden of supporting retakes and resubmissions, including extra marking, feedback and authentication, and the challenge of scheduling retakes alongside those for GCSEs, A Levels and other qualifications.

Decision

Assessment series 

We have decided to implement our proposed approach.

This means that assessments in Foundation Certificates will be available as follows:

• timetabled assessments: one or two assessment series each academic year, with timing determined by awarding organisations
• other assessments: one or two windows for centre marks or grades for other forms of assessment to be submitted to awarding organisations for Moderation, with timing determined by awarding organisations

This strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring standards, minimising the impact on teaching and learning of frequent assessments, and allowing flexibility for awarding organisations and centres in the design and delivery of assessments.

While we recognise that some schools and colleges would like more frequent assessment opportunities, our view is that this could distract from teaching and learning, particularly in one-year courses. It could also increase the burden on awarding organisations, schools and colleges of delivering frequent assessments.

Awarding organisations will have flexibility to decide on the timing of their assessment series and we will not require all subjects to use the same series or windows. This will enable awarding organisations to take account of subject-specific factors, for example seasonality, where this is relevant to a particular subject.

Retakes

We have decided to implement the approach to retakes as consulted on. This means that awarding organisations may permit students to retake timetabled and other forms of assessments in any series in which they are available.

Where students retake other forms of assessment, we will permit awarding organisations to allow students to submit new assessment evidence or revised evidence from tasks they have already completed.

Combined with the availability of assessments described above, we believe that this will provide sufficient flexibility for students to retake assessments where required.

Assessment setting and marking (questions 34, 35, 38, 39, 40)

What Ofqual proposed

Setting assessments

To ensure robust oversight of assessments, we proposed that awarding organisations should set all timetabled assessment.

We also proposed that awarding organisations should set all other forms of assessment. Recognising that schools and colleges operate in a variety of different contexts, we proposed that awarding organisations would be able to allow centres to adapt aspects of these, such as the context of the questions or tasks, provided this does not change the level of demand of the assessment or its reliability.

Marking assessments

We proposed that all timetabled assessments should be marked by awarding organisations.

We proposed that awarding organisations be permitted to allow centres to mark other forms of assessment, or to mark them themselves, or to use a combination of these approaches.

Where awarding organisations permit centres to mark assessments, we proposed that centre-marking must be subject to awarding organisation Moderation, meaning that centre-marking is checked, and where necessary adjusted, before results are issued.   

We proposed to allow awarding organisations to use either numerical mark-based approaches, directly graded approaches, or a combination of these in the marking of Foundation Certificates.

Consultation feedback

Setting assessments

Most respondents supported the proposal for all assessments to be set by awarding organisations.

Respondents viewed this as a reasonable way to protect consistency, comparability and public confidence in new qualifications. They thought awarding organisations were well-placed to set controlled practical tasks, projects, assignments, scenarios and evidence requirements, and that these could be delivered by centres using their own facilities and resources within defined parameters. This was seen as a way of retaining strong central control over the level of demand of assessment tasks, coverage and grading, while preserving the kind of practical and vocational authenticity that makes assessment meaningful at level 2.

Most respondents supported permitting a limited degree of centre adaptation for centre-marked assessments, subject to clear limits and safeguards. Some of the support for the proposal that awarding organisations set all assessments was conditional on the basis that some centre adaptation would also be permitted.

Respondents asked for clear, practical guidance on what adaptations would be permitted.

Marking assessments

Most respondents supported the proposed approach to marking.

They generally agreed that awarding organisations should be responsible for marking timetabled assessments and that other forms of assessment could be marked by either the centre or the awarding organisation.

Several respondents stated that allowing flexibility in the marking of other forms of assessment would enable awarding organisations to adopt marking approaches that were appropriate to the nature of the assessment, while maintaining appropriate control over quality and consistency.

Additionally, most respondents supported allowing the use of either numerical mark-based approaches or directly graded approaches, or a combination of these. Respondents considered that this flexibility would allow for the fact that different marking approaches might be more appropriate for different types of content, skills and qualification purposes. Respondents thought directly graded approaches were better suited to practical, competency-focused assessment while mark-based approaches were often more appropriate for assessments targeting analytical skills.

Most respondents agreed that awarding organisations should conduct Moderation of all centre-marked assessments. Respondents said Moderation would ensure consistency and comparability, and secure public confidence that standards were being upheld. At the same time, respondents cautioned that this requirement could impose administrative and resource burden, and called for a proportionate approach.

Amongst respondents who disagreed with the proposal, awarding organisations felt that requiring Moderation was disproportionate for the level and purpose of these qualifications, and that the requirement could deter them from developing qualifications and centres from choosing to deliver them. They suggested that alternative approaches to Moderation may provide a more proportionate approach for directly-graded assessments.

Decision

Setting assessments

We have decided to implement the proposed approach to the setting and adaptation of assessments as consulted on. 

We will require awarding organisations to set all timetabled assessments.

We will also require awarding organisations to set all other forms of assessment, but will permit them to allow centres to adapt aspects of these.

Respondents welcomed the consistency that requiring awarding organisations to set assessments will bring about, and the flexibility that allowing some centre adaptation of centre-marked assessments will allow.

It is important that awarding organisations are consistent in relation to the extent of any adaptations they permit, and that making adaptations does not become burdensome for centres. We have decided therefore to expand our proposed guidance for awarding organisations about the approach to adapting assessments, to ensure that as far as possible, approaches are consistent.

Marking assessments

We have decided to implement the proposed approach in relation to marking assessments and Moderation of centre-marked assessments.

While there were concerns about the approach to Moderation of directly-graded centre-marked assessments, we consider it important that centre marking of all components is checked, and where necessary adjusted, before results are issued. We therefore think it is necessary to require these assessments to be subject to Moderation, and do not think it would be appropriate to allow approaches in which marking is not subject to checking before results are issued.

Setting and maintaining standards (question 41)

What Ofqual proposed

We proposed to put in place requirements covering how standards should be set and maintained, including how grade boundaries for key grades in mark-based assessments are set.  

We proposed to require awarding organisations to set standards in directly-graded assessments using grading criteria rather than a separate awarding process.  

We proposed that awarding organisations should design Foundation Certificates to use compensatory approaches at qualification level.

Consultation feedback

There was broad support for Ofqual’s proposed approach to setting and maintaining standards.

Respondents thought the approach would support comparability, consistency and reliability. However, they also highlighted the need for it to be clear what each grade is intended to indicate.  

Decision

We have decided to implement our proposal to put in place requirements covering the way in which standards should be set and maintained, including how grade  boundaries for key grades in mark-based assessments are set.  

Reviews of marking, reviews of Moderation and appeals (question 42)

What Ofqual proposed

We sought views on whether arrangements for reviews of marking, reviews of Moderation of centre-marked assessments, and appeals should be put in place for Foundation Certificates, and whether these arrangements should be similar to those that exist in GCSEs and A Levels.

We proposed that any such arrangements would be consulted on separately at a later date.

Consultation feedback

There was strong support for the introduction of reviews of marking, Moderation and appeals arrangements for Foundation Certificates, and respondents supported aligning the arrangements with those in place for GCSE and A Level students.

Respondents considered that consistency across qualification types would improve understanding amongst learners, centres and awarding organisations whilst reducing unnecessary complexity.

It was noted by respondents that it would be important for reviews to take place in sufficient time to support progression decisions.

Respondents noted the importance of establishing processes that accommodate the vocational and practical nature of the qualifications, rather than replicating processes designed for GCSEs and A Levels.  

Decision

We have decided to put in place arrangements for the review of marking, review of Moderation and appeals in Foundation Certificates.

We intend for these to ensure that students have the same opportunities to challenge results as those taking GCSEs and A Levels.

We will consult on the proposed approach to this, and the rules needed to implement it.