Consultation outcome

Impact assessments

Updated 10 September 2026

The potential equality impacts and regulatory impacts we identified in our consultation related to specific proposals, and a number of respondents chose to highlight such impacts as part of their responses to those questions, rather than specifically through the equality and regulatory impact sections of the consultation.

Where this is the case, we have reported on and considered these responses in the relevant sections of the consultation rather than repeating them here.

The impacts identified in this section are those that were raised specifically in response to our equality and regulatory impact assessments, and should be considered alongside those other impacts referred to elsewhere  in this document.  

Equality impact assessment (questions 48, 49)

Ofqual is subject to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. Our consultation Regulating post-16 vocational and technical qualifications at levels 2 and 3 set out our assessment of the potential equality impacts – positive and negative – arising from our proposals for the regulation of V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates, both for students who share particular protected characteristics and for those who may be affected due to other factors, such as socio-economic background.

We sought views on whether there were other impacts (positive or negative) that we had not identified, and how any negative impacts identified could be mitigated.

Consultation feedback

The majority of respondents focused on potential impacts on learners with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. A smaller number commented on the impacts on learners with other protected characteristics, including ethnicity, gender, pregnancy and age.

Some also commented on impacts on learners with English as an additional language (EAL) and potential geographical impacts. 

Several respondents agreed with Ofqual’s analysis that the proposals could have positive effects, particularly through greater consistency and comparability across qualifications and awarding organisations, leading to increased confidence in vocational and technical qualifications.

Some respondents said they had not identified any additional impacts beyond those already recognised by Ofqual.

Many respondents commented on the likely negative impact of the proposed proportions of timetabled assessment, terminal assessment, extended responses and synoptic assessment for neurodiverse learners and learners with SEND.

Some noted that extended-response assessments could disadvantage EAL learners where language skills are not central to the construct being assessed.

Just under half of respondents highlighted potential impacts on learners from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Concerns were raised around the impact of digital inequality in relation to proposals for on-screen assessment.

Respondents identified possible issues related to the resource demands of practical assessment, for example access to equipment, materials or a quiet study space.

There were concerns that limited assessment availability could disproportionately affect those who experience disrupted learning.

Respondents raised concerns that Occupational Certificates are designed as 2-year programmes with no opportunity for early certification or recognition of partial achievement, which could disadvantage learners who do not complete the programme. It was noted that level 2 learners are more likely to experience SEND and deprivation than those studying level 3 qualifications, and may therefore be more likely to leave the course early.

A small number of respondents identified potential geographical barriers arising from variation in access to resources such as specialist facilities, equipment and learning environments, particularly in rural areas. This could be a barrier to providers offering the qualifications, and to learners’ ability to demonstrate competence consistently.  

Some respondents raised concerns relating to gender, religious beliefs and adult learners, although these were generally outside Ofqual’s remit. They highlighted the potential impact of assessment methods on different gender groups, the need to consider religious beliefs in subject content, particularly in hospitality, and concerns about the implications of post-19 funding for adult learners.

The most frequently suggested mitigations for the concerns raised were to ensure that assessments were designed to be accessible to all learners, and that reasonable adjustments are made available, with clear guidance about their availability and use, where required. It was also suggested that monitoring of qualifications in delivery could help identify any previously unidentified impacts.

Several awarding organisations suggested a reduction in the volume of timetabled assessment for Occupational Certificates would be beneficial, as the volume proposed may not be appropriate for these qualifications and the students who take them, and could demotivate students.

Several respondents proposed the use of a wider range of assessment methods, such as practical and observation-based approaches.

Decision

We recognise the concerns raised by consultation respondents, including in relation to assessment structure and availability, and the importance of ensuring V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates are accessible for learners.

As set out in the consultation, our approach will introduce greater consistency and comparability across qualifications than currently exists within the post-16 system, which we believe will have a positive impact and ensure all learners have access to high-quality national qualifications that are designed and regulated to consistent standards.

Awarding organisations will be required to design their qualifications in a way that does not introduce unnecessary barriers for learners who share a particular protected characteristic, and to have regard to our guidance on designing accessible assessments.

We also require awarding organisations to put in place arrangements for reasonable adjustments to enable disabled learners to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and understanding.

We will consider the accessibility of assessments in the new qualifications, both through the accreditation process and through our ongoing monitoring of qualifications once in delivery. This will help to ensure qualifications meet our regulatory requirements, including those relating to equalities, on an ongoing basis.

Regarding the concern that the design of Occupational Certificates as 2-year programmes would mean there was no opportunity for recognition of partial achievement, Ofqual requires awarding organisations to issue results for all units and qualifications. Students will therefore receive a result for units they have completed.

Regulatory impact assessment (questions 50, 51, 52)

Ofqual has a duty under the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to avoid introducing or maintaining unnecessary regulatory burden.

In our consultation, we set out the potential impacts to stakeholders that may result from implementing the proposals.

We sought views on whether there were other regulatory impacts we had not identified and on the scale of any impacts. We sought suggestions for how to reduce or mitigate costs associated with our proposals.

Consultation feedback

Impacts on awarding organisations

Responses from awarding organisations focused on the cumulative impact of the proposals on workload, costs and regulatory requirements. While most supported the aims of the reforms and recognised potential benefits in terms of consistency, comparability and public confidence, they stressed the need for proportionate regulation and sufficient flexibility in relation to assessment structure, design and availability.

Respondents highlighted increased costs associated with qualification design, development and delivery, particularly Moderation. Although individual measures were generally viewed as having minor to moderate impacts, respondents considered the combined effect likely to be significant.

Suggested mitigations included early, clear and proportionate regulatory requirements, particularly in relation to assessment strategies, centre-marking controls, Moderation, grading and post-results processes.

Some respondents supported a more risk-based approach to quality assurance, with scrutiny of assessment evidence proportionate to the awarding organisation’s level of confidence in a centre, while others suggested allowing alternatives to Moderation for level 2 qualifications.

Impacts on schools and colleges

Concerns focused on the cumulative effect of the proposals, which were seen as creating delivery, capacity and manageability challenges, largely down to the volume of timetabled assessment and Moderation requirements for assessment evidence. Respondents suggested that a longer implementation period would support a successful roll-out of the new qualifications and improve workforce planning, staff wellbeing, recruitment and retention.

Some schools and colleges highlighted pressures arising from the concurrent introduction of reformed level 2 and 3 qualifications, the expansion of T Levels and the potential need to support on-screen assessment.

Additional costs relating to staff training, familiarisation and implementation were also identified. Some respondents anticipated ongoing increases in costs arising from assessment requirements, Moderation and qualification fees, particularly if awarding organisations sought to recover reform-related costs.

Several respondents suggested these impacts may fall disproportionately on providers delivering practical and specialist programmes that require particular facilities or equipment, such as hospitality. Some respondents expressed the view that centres may choose not to offer reformed qualifications as a result.

Impacts on students

The most commonly identified benefit for students was the potential for improved progression opportunities through greater confidence in the new qualifications among users. However, respondents also raised concerns about the characteristics of the likely learner cohort, and the risk that increased assessment demands could affect engagement and retention.

Negative impacts were most commonly linked to the proposals related to timetabled assessment, including proportions and terminal assessment requirements, and perceptions that qualifications could become overly exam-focused, particularly at level 2.

Respondents generally supported the objectives of the reforms but emphasised the importance of flexibility in assessment structure and recognition of practical achievement. Some suggested that less prescriptive assessment requirements could help mitigate these risks.

Impact of T Level proposals

One awarding organisation commented on the regulatory impact of the proposal relating to the retaking of Core Exams in Technical Qualifications within T Levels. The respondent argued that checking previous attempts would increase administrative complexity and burden. They suggested that delaying implementation of ‘Generation 2’ T Levels could reduce costs associated with changes to information technology systems.

Decision

We acknowledge that the introduction of V Levels, Foundation Certificates and Occupational Certificates will place new demands on awarding organisations, schools and colleges. However, our regulatory frameworks have been designed to be proportionate, allowing flexibility where appropriate while supporting the consistency and comparability necessary for high-quality national qualifications.

We recognise the short-term impact of the reform will increase workload and cost for awarding organisations.

To support qualification development and minimise regulatory burden, we have expanded and clarified our assessment guidance.

We have also strengthened the structure and content of our assessment strategy requirements to support the development of robust and compliant assessment approaches.

Together, these measures are intended to support awarding organisations in meeting the requirements of the new regulatory framework and the General Conditions of Recognition, while promoting a consistent approach to qualification design and assessment.

We acknowledge the impact on schools and colleges, including the cumulative effect that the reforms may have on planning and operational decision-making. However, we consider that our approach will increase confidence in the new qualifications and support improved progression opportunities for students.

While some respondents called for a longer implementation period, decisions relating to the timing of qualification reform fall outside Ofqual’s remit.

We have considered concerns about the cumulative impact of wider education reforms on awarding organisations, schools and colleges. Although this broader policy context extends beyond the scope of Ofqual’s remit, we will continue to work with DfE to support clear communication and effective implementation as the reforms progress.

Innovation (question 53)

Ofqual has a duty under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to have regard to the desirability of facilitating innovation relating to the provision of regulated qualifications.

We set out our assessment of the impact on innovation by awarding organisations of our proposals, and sought views on this.

Consultation feedback

While recognising the need for a degree of prescription, a common view among respondents was that too much may constrain opportunities for innovation and might encourage awarding organisations to take similar assessment approaches. Respondents called for greater scope for innovation within clear regulatory parameters to secure consistency and comparability.

The challenging development timescales were also felt to limit opportunities for innovation, with the risk that awarding organisations rely on established assessment methods rather than invest in more innovative approaches. Some suggested reviewing the impact of the regulations on the first tranche of qualifications before agreeing the approach to future subjects.

Digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and on-screen assessment, were seen as offering the greatest opportunities for innovation. At the same time, respondents noted that investment and infrastructure requirements may present challenges for some schools and colleges in realising these opportunities.

A small number of respondents said that the balance of assessment methods permitted in these qualifications was a potential enabler of innovation, supporting more authentic assessment of applied learning, practical skills and occupational competence.

Decision

We have introduced requirements only where necessary to secure Ofqual’s objectives and meet DfE’s policy intentions for these qualifications.

Within the Conditions, requirements and guidance, we have sought to balance opportunities for innovation with the need to ensure consistency, comparability and public confidence across qualifications offered by different awarding organisations.

Within these parameters, we welcome innovative approaches to assessment.

The use of digital technologies, AI and on-screen assessment were identified as potential areas for innovation. Our approach is intended to allow their use where appropriate, while ensuring that assessments remain valid, reliable and manageable for centres and learners.