Consultation outcome

V Levels

Updated 10 September 2026

Qualification purpose (question 3)

What Ofqual proposed

The purpose of a qualification sets out what it is for, and informs design decisions taken by awarding organisations.

We proposed to put in place the following purposes for V Levels, on which awarding organisations should base their own qualification-specific purposes:

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

B. To provide information about attainment that can be used in decisions about the selection of Learners for higher study, higher technical training or apprenticeships.

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

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

E. To provide Learners with nationally agreed knowledge, understanding and skills in relation to a broad vocational area, in order to prepare them for higher technical training and apprenticeships in a relevant subject area.

F. To motivate Learners to complete the qualification and to progress to higher study, higher technical training or apprenticeships.

G. 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 V Levels would instead have to meet the purposes set out by Ofqual.

Consultation feedback

The majority of respondents agreed with the proposal. A number of respondents indicating support for the proposal also provided further comments.

One of the main areas of feedback related to the order in which the purposes were prioritised. Some thought that purposes relating to the practical application of knowledge, skills and understanding should have a higher priority, although there was no overall consensus on this. Respondents also commented on the role of V Levels in student progression, with some prioritising progression to employment and others to higher education. Some respondents also viewed motivating learners as a key purpose of the qualification.

A number of respondents also said that the purpose of V Levels should be clearly differentiated from A Levels and T Levels. They said that greater emphasis on applied learning, practical skills and occupational relevance would help to establish a clearer distinction between qualification types and to articulate the unique role of V Levels within the qualifications landscape.

Some respondents thought that focusing on the information provided by the assessments risks an emphasis on terminal timetabled assessments or summative assessment approaches rather than more practical approaches.

Decision

We have decided to implement the V Level purposes with an amendment to general purposes D and E. We have decided to combine these purposes to give equal prioritisation to preparing students for higher study, higher technical training, or apprenticeships. The new purpose D will therefore be:

D. To provide Learners with nationally agreed knowledge, understanding and skills in relation to a broad vocational area, in order to prepare them for higher study, higher technical training and apprenticeships in a relevant subject area.

Combining these purposes will mean there are now 6 purposes for V Levels.

We have decided not to amend the prioritisation of any of the other purposes as we consider them to be clear about the importance of students’ attainment of the knowledge, skills and understanding being assessed, and the practical application of this. We have however decided to make an amendment to the proposed assessment objectives to address these comments, which we explain later in this document.

As a result of putting in place these purposes, we have decided to disapply General Conditions E1.1 and E1.2 in respect of V Levels, as consulted on, given that V Levels would instead have to meet the purposes set out by Ofqual.

Qualification size (question 4)

What Ofqual proposed

DfE intends that the size of V Levels should be 360 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 (Condition E7 – Total Qualification Time).

Consultation feedback

The majority of respondents agreed with the 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, and did not seek comments beyond this.

Decision

We have decided to implement this proposal as consulted on. This means that awarding organisations will be required to design V Levels in line with the size specified by DfE.

Qualification content (question 5)

What Ofqual proposed

V Levels 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 for each V Level, 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

The majority of respondents who answered this question supported the proposed approach. Respondents said that common content could support consistency and help to establish clear expectations regarding the knowledge and skills that learners should develop through V Levels.

Respondents commented on the importance of flexibility for awarding organisations to add to or adapt the specified content. This was considered essential to ensure awarding organisations could respond to developments in sectors. Respondents also felt it important that schools and colleges had flexibility to respond to employer demand, learner needs and local circumstances.

Some respondents said it would not be possible to judge the effectiveness of the approach until the DfE-set content was finalised. Respondents also noted the importance of alignment between the content and the proposed assessment approach.

While not directly within scope of the question, some respondents commented on the size of the qualifications, potential variations between sectors and occupations and deliverability within the available teaching time.

Decision

Given 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 must comply with the requirements set out in DfE’s content document for each V Level, and 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.

Assessment objectives (question 6)

What Ofqual proposed

Assessment objectives are one way of ensuring that the assessments made available by different awarding organisations are designed in a comparable way for a given subject. We proposed to specify assessment objectives for each V Level subject, the weightings that should be allocated to each assessment objective, and to publish subject-specific guidance on how assessment objectives should be interpreted. For the first tranche of V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education, we proposed the following assessment objectives and weightings:

• AO1: demonstrate knowledge and understanding of concepts, principles, requirements and contextual factors relevant to the subject area (30-35%)
• AO2: apply knowledge and understanding to plan, carry out tasks, produce outputs, and use information appropriately (35-40%)
• AO3: analyse and evaluate information, situations and evidence to make judgements, draw conclusions and make recommendations (25-30%)

Consultation feedback

Respondents agreed with the overall approach, and some provided additional comments. Some respondents commented that assessment objectives are an important mechanism for ensuring consistency and comparability across qualifications. They commented that clearly defined assessment objectives would provide greater transparency regarding the knowledge, understanding and skills that learners should demonstrate, which could  ensure standards and improve public confidence in the qualifications.

A number of respondents commented on the balance of the weightings of the assessment objectives, and on whether there was sufficient emphasis on application, practical skills, and demonstration of competence. They argued that vocational qualifications should assess learners’ ability to apply knowledge in realistic contexts rather than focusing on the recall and application of theoretical knowledge. Respondents generally felt that greater emphasis should be given to the weighting of AO2 over AO1.

Respondents commented on the importance of alignment between the assessment objectives and the qualification purpose. Some felt that the current assessment objectives could encourage assessment approaches that place greater weight on written examinations than on practical demonstration of competence, which they said is not the intended purpose of these qualifications.

Decision

We have decided to put in place assessment objectives for V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education.  

In doing so, we have made some minor changes to reflect the feedback received and to ensure the practical and applied nature of aspects of the content is appropriately reflected. These changes are:

• amending the weightings of AO1 and AO2 to reflect feedback about the need for greater emphasis on application. We have reduced the weighting for AO1 by 5% and increased the weighting for AO2 by 5%
• amending the AO2 wording to support this greater clarity and amending the wording in AO1 to remove perceived duplication with AO2. The assessment objectives and weightings will therefore be:
  • AO1: demonstrate knowledge and understanding of concepts, principles, requirements and approaches relevant to the subject area (25-30%)
  • AO2: apply knowledge and understanding of concepts, principles, requirements and approaches and to plan, carry out tasks, produce outputs, and use information appropriately (40-45%)
  • AO3: analyse and evaluate information, situations and evidence to make judgements, draw conclusions and make recommendations (25-30%)
• clarifying that the assessment objectives and their weightings must be met through both timetabled and other forms of assessment
• defining some additional terms in the assessment objective guidance to provide greater clarity for awarding organisations and support consistent interpretation and application of our requirements

The full wording of the assessment objective requirements and guidance can be seen in the respective subject level Conditions, requirements and guidance for V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education, published alongside these decisions.

We will consult on assessment objectives for other subjects as content for these is developed by DfE, as part of our consultation on subject level Conditions for each subject.

Grading scale (questions 7, 8 & 9)

What Ofqual proposed

The Secretary of State for Education set the expectation that V Levels 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 designed to help students, employers, schools, colleges, further and higher education institutions and the public understand the results of qualifications and assessments.

We proposed a 7-point grading scale: A* to E plus N, with the addition of an unclassified option (U).

The N grade was intended to recognise achievement at a level below the A*-E scale. We sought views on the length of the grading scale, the labelling of the grades, and the use of the label N for the additional grade below E.

Consultation feedback

There were a large number of responses across the 3 questions on the grading scale and views were mixed. Respondents generally supported the use of an alphabetic grading scale for V Levels, but there was less support for the use of an additional grade below E, and strong disagreement with the use of the label N to denote that grade.

Where respondents agreed with the proposal, they felt that mirroring the A Level grade scale brings with it familiarity, clarity and consistency for users of the qualification. They said that it supports parity for students when taking academic and/or vocational qualifications. They thought an A* to E approach would be the clearest for students, schools and colleges, employers and higher education providers.

Some respondents supported both the use of an A* to E grading scale and there being an additional grade below E. Others supported the grading scale but didn’t agree with the additional 7th grade.

Respondents thought it helpful that the grading scale was different to many other vocational qualifications, to help differentiate V Levels. Respondents who supported the approach said an additional grade below E would help recognise achievement across a wider range than may be typical for A Levels, which is appropriate for these qualifications and the intended cohort.

Those who agreed with the use of the label N for a grade below E said that it could avoid negative connotations that may be caused if it were labelled F, which some may think of as a fail. But it was noted that even using N would require significant communications activity to ensure it is understood.

Those who disagreed thought the use of the label N could cause confusion as it would not be clear to users what it signifies. They interpreted N as a non-passing grade, and felt that if that were the case, anything below E should be ungraded.  It was also questioned what value higher education or employers would place on an N grade.

Despite there being clear agreement amongst respondents on not using a label N for an additional grade below E for V Levels, there was some sympathy for the idea of recognising partial achievement of the qualification and of using a grading scale that avoided using the language of failure.

Some respondents questioned the need for an additional grade below E at all, suggesting it would be unlikely to be recognised by users as a pass and may introduce unnecessary complexity. They preferred an approach that exactly mirrored the A Level approach.

Other respondents were concerned about the risk of inaccurate comparisons being made between grades across qualifications, for example between V Levels and A Levels. They thought that an entirely different grading scale such as pass/ merit/ distinction would be more appropriate and better understood in vocational qualifications, while limiting comparisons with A Levels.

Decision

We have decided to implement the grading scale for V Levels as consulted on, with a change to the labelling of the ‘N’ grade, which we have decided should instead be referred to as ‘P’. This means the grading scale for V Levels will be:

• A* to E, P and U (unclassified)

Our view remains that given the expected cohort for V Levels, a 7-point grading scale is necessary, and that given the support overall for an alphabetic scale, the proposed approach remains appropriate.

We recognise the concerns about the risk of confusion relating to the N grade and have therefore decided to relabel this as ‘P’ or pass, which will represent the lowest grade for a level 3 pass. We will keep the 7th (P) grade under review and take a decision about its longer-term use once cohorts are stable and the extent to which it is necessary is clearer.

Assessment methods (questions 10, 11, 12)

What Ofqual proposed

We proposed to put in place requirements relating to the methods of assessment to be used in V Levels.

These covered both timetabled assessments - which are set and marked by awarding organisations, and taken at the same time by all students under specified conditions - and other forms of assessment, which are set by awarding organisations, can be marked by awarding organisations or centres, but are not necessarily taken simultaneously.

We proposed that the balance of assessment methods for V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education should be:

• timetabled assessments, contributing 40% of marks for the overall qualification
• other forms of assessment, contributing 60% of marks for the overall qualification

This was intended to ensure that the balance of assessment methods is appropriate for the purposes of these qualifications and their vocational subject content. We sought views on our proposal to specify these proportions, on the risks and benefits associated with the different assessment methods, and on how any risks could be mitigated.

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 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 made general comments about the risks and benefits of each method of assessment.

In relation to timetabled assessment, respondents thought this could provide rigour and confidence in the qualifications, support parity with A Levels, and support progression to further study. There were though concerns about the manageability of simultaneous assessment, particularly for practical assessments, due to the equipment and staff needed to deliver these simultaneously. Respondents thought that an effective mitigation to this could be to allow short assessment windows rather than require simultaneous assessment.

In relation to other forms of assessment, respondents said that centre-marked assessments would allow for a more authentic assessment of skills, although they also noted that centre-marking may be less reliable and less consistent than awarding organisation marking.

Respondents also said that such assessments could be burdensome on centres to deliver and mark, and there were concerns that differences in centres’ capacity to deliver practical assessments could risk unfairness for learners.

Respondents raised concerns about authentication of student work and the potential for malpractice and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in centre-marked assessments. They suggested that supervised controlled conditions and assessment designs that minimise risk may be needed. Others suggested assessment could be designed to allow controlled use of AI, rather than seeking to prevent its use entirely.

In relation to the proportions of assessment proposed for V Levels, there was broad support for a balance of assessment methods, with the balance more towards other forms of assessment than timetabled assessment.

There was less agreement on the proportions proposed for the first tranche of V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education. While some welcomed the consistency, others thought the figures were inflexible and may be difficult to deliver.

Many thought the proportion of assessment methods should include a lower proportion of timetabled assessment and a higher proportion of other forms of assessment, to reflect the practical nature of the qualifications. There was however no consensus on what a more suitable alternative would be, although some suggested specifying proportions as ranges to allow flexibility in assessment design.

Synoptic assessment

There was overall support for the proposal to require synoptic assessment in V Levels. Respondents felt that it could support progression and validity, increase integrated/holistic understanding, and reflect the distinctive purpose of the qualification. Respondents welcomed the fact that the proportion of synoptic assessment was not specified, as this allows flexibility in assessment design.

Some respondents raised concerns about the potential complexity of complying with both synoptic assessment and terminal assessment requirements, as well as the proportions of assessment methods.

Respondents sought clarification on synoptic assessment, including whether all three limbs of the proposed definition must be covered within each synoptic question or across a range of questions. Several awarding organisations also sought greater clarity on some of the drafting in the definition.

Decision

We have decided to implement the approach to assessment methods for V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education as consulted on.

This means that they will be required to include:

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

Our view remains that these proportions are appropriate based on the content for these subjects. These requirements will ensure that there is a proportion of assessment that is set and marked by awarding organisations, which will be important for maintaining standards and ensuring comparability.

The regulatory framework has been purposefully designed to allow awarding organisations choice and flexibility in assessment methods, to support innovation. The proportions allow for a significant amount of assessment using forms of assessment such as projects, performances or demonstrations of skills, reflecting the applied and practical nature of aspects of the content. In addition, timetabled assessments do not have to take the form of a written exam and should also include more applied and practical assessments. They must be designed to be taken at the same time, and must be set and marked by awarding organisations, but our requirements will allow scope for innovation. 

We will consult on the proportions of timetabled and other methods of assessment in V Levels beyond the first tranche on a subject-by-subject basis as content is developed by DfE, as part of our consultation on subject level Conditions for each subject.

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 V Level which it makes available, or proposes to make available, an awarding organisation must ensure that both the Assessments by Examination and the Non-exam Assessments each 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 V Levels must occur in both timetabled and other assessments.

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 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

What Ofqual proposed

The Secretary of State for Education expects V Levels 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 assessment series each academic year, in May or June, for timetabled assessments
• one submission window each academic year for other assessments which are centre-marked  to be submitted to awarding organisations for Moderation

To support the setting and maintenance of standards, we also proposed to require awarding organisations to include terminal assessment, which is timetabled assessment, set and marked by awarding organisations and taken at the end of the 2-year course.  For V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education, we proposed that terminal assessment should contribute 40% of the overall marks for the qualification. As the total amount of timetabled assessment in these qualifications is also 40%, this means that all timetabled assessments in the first tranche of V Level subjects would be taken at the end of the 2-year course.

We proposed that students be allowed to retake V Level 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

Respondents said that the proposal would help to ensure consistency, and to maintain qualification standards. Awarding organisations commented on the role of restricted assessment availability in supporting public confidence, comparability and standards. Respondents also thought that limiting assessment availability would support teaching and learning by discouraging repeated assessment attempts.

Those who disagreed thought that the proposed approach did not reflect the flexibility commonly associated with modular vocational learning and would limit opportunities for reassessment, preventing learners from improving performance and demonstrating achievement over time. Some respondents felt that limiting assessment opportunities could delay learner progression to higher education, apprenticeships or employment.

Respondents, particularly centres and their representatives, highlighted practical and manageability concerns. They said that limiting assessment opportunities could place pressure on assessment delivery, particularly in large volume subjects.

There were concerns about the impact on some learners, including those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), who might have fewer opportunities to demonstrate their attainment or to recover if an assessment was missed.

In terms of the timing, respondents generally agreed that there should be a summer assessment series, although there were mixed views about whether Ofqual should specify the timing of assessments and whether this should be as specific as requiring timetabled assessments to take place in May or June only. Some thought the approach should be more flexible than that proposed, to reflect the needs of the qualification, subject and learners, rather than requiring  a single model.

A large number of respondents, while supporting a summer assessment series, called for additional opportunities for timetabled assessments. Some suggested the addition of a January series. Respondents said that this could support more manageable delivery, reduce pressure on learners, support reassessment, and allow assessment to be more evenly distributed across the course.

Terminal assessment

In relation to terminal assessment, those who agreed with this proposal thought it would help to assess learning across the whole course and support the setting and maintenance of standards. Some linked this proposal to the fact that the terminal assessment would be required to be set and marked by the awarding organisation in the form of timetabled assessment. They thought that this would help to maintain public confidence, ensure consistency and support credibility in the qualifications. Some linked terminal assessment to the synoptic assessment proposals, saying it would help learners draw together knowledge and skills from across their study.

Concerns about this proposal often related to whether terminal assessment would have to be through timetabled assessment, and if so, if this was suitable for vocational qualifications. Awarding organisations in particular did not think terminal timetabled assessment would accurately reflect vocational validity and practical skills. Respondents also felt that reliance on a single terminal assessment would reduce opportunities for learners to demonstrate their achievement over time, and suggested that a more modular approach would be more appropriate.

Some respondents accepted the principle of terminal assessment but had concerns about its implementation. They called for greater flexibility in the way terminal assessment applies across subjects and assessments. Some commented that learners with SEND may be disadvantaged by having to take an assessment perceived to be high-stakes at the end of their course.

In relation to the proportion of terminal assessment, views were evenly split. Some felt that 40% was a meaningful and appropriate balance, allowing for assessments throughout courses as well as at the end. Others felt 40% placed too much weight on a single point of assessment, and reduced opportunities for learners to demonstrate achievement throughout the course. Some respondents also questioned whether a single figure would be appropriate across all subjects, and called for greater flexibility to reflect subject-specific requirements.

Retakes

Respondents supported the proposals in relation to retakes and allowing for previously achieved results to be carried forward. Retakes were seen as important to support learner progression.

The biggest area of concern was the availability of retakes, as respondents felt that the limit on the number and timing of assessment series would mean opportunities were limited in practice. This was also linked to the terminal assessment requirement, which would mean that learners would not have completed some of the assessment until the final series of their course, with retake opportunities not then available until the following summer. There were concerns that this may in turn limit progression opportunities for students.

Concerns were also raised in relation to disadvantaged learners, vulnerable learners and those who may be disproportionately affected by restrictions on practical retake opportunities.

Decision

Assessment series 

We have decided to implement the approach to the number of assessment series for V Levels as consulted on. We will however specify this at subject level rather than qualification level, which we explain below. This means awarding organisations must provide:

• one assessment series each academic year, in May or June, for timetabled assessments
• one submission window each academic year for marks for other assessments which are centre-marked to be submitted to awarding organisations for Moderation

Although there were calls for additional series for timetabled assessments, we think the proposed approach to permitting one series for timetabled assessments each academic year, and for this to take place at the same time across awarding organisations, is necessary to secure the setting and maintenance of standards. This approach aligns with the purposes of these qualifications, and the intention to ensure consistency and comparability across V Levels and the awarding organisations offering them.

Given that the extent to which timetabled assessments can be taken in different series is related to the overall amount of timetabled assessment in a qualification, and the amount of that assessment which is required to be terminal, we have decided to specify the approach to assessment availability at subject level, rather than qualification level. While we would not anticipate approaches varying between subjects, allowing for this provides flexibility to ensure that the approach to assessment availability aligns with the proportions of each assessment method and the amount of terminal assessment required.   

We have decided to implement the approach in relation to other forms of assessment as consulted on, meaning awarding organisations will be required to provide one opportunity for the submission of marks for other forms of centre-marked assessments to awarding organisations for Moderation, each academic year. We think this approach balances flexibility in when assessments are taken by allowing for some assessment to be taken in year one and some in year 2 of a course, while ensuring that teaching and learning are not negatively affected by the assessment approach and that standards can be set and maintained appropriately.

Terminal assessment

We have decided to implement the approach to terminal assessment consulted on for V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education.

This means that awarding organisations will be required to design V Levels in digital systems and data, accounting and finance, and education to include 40% terminal assessment through timetabled assessment.

Our view remains that it is important for the maintenance of standards that there is a proportion of assessment that is set and marked by awarding organisations, taken simultaneously by students at the end of the course, and the terminal assessment requirement is the most effective way to achieve this.

As set out in our decision on assessment methods, timetabled assessment can take forms other than written exams and could include practical assessments which meet these requirements. The regulatory framework has been designed to allow awarding organisations choice and flexibility in assessment methods, to support innovation.

While terminal timetabled assessment will play an important role in ensuring the maintenance of standards, a significant proportion of the overall assessment for the qualification will be through other forms of assessment.

We will consult on the proportions of terminal assessment for other subjects as content for these is developed by DfE, as part of our consultation on subject level Conditions for each subject. This will be informed by the approach to the proportions of each type of assessment in these subjects.

Retakes

We have decided to implement the approach to retakes 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 13, 14, 20, 21, 22)

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 all other forms of assessment, to mark them themselves, or to use a combination of these approaches.

Where awarding organisations permit centres to mark other forms of assessment, 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.

To support the intended use of V Levels for progression to higher education and higher technical training, we proposed to require awarding organisations to use numerical marks, with a separate standard-setting process used to determine the number of marks required to achieve each grade. This was intended to support the greater level of differentiation allowed for in the proposed grading scale and to allow for compensatory approaches (that is, allowing better performance in one area of a qualification to compensate for lower performance in another).

Consultation feedback

Setting assessments

The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposal that awarding organisations should set all timetabled assessments. Respondents also supported the proposal that awarding organisations should set all other forms of assessment, but could permit centres to adapt aspects of these.

Respondents commented that this proposal would provide appropriate control to awarding organisations and help to ensure comparability and consistency. It was felt that it would also support validity, reliability and maintenance of standards and reduce risks of malpractice, which would support public confidence.

Respondents called for sufficient flexibility to balance these benefits with the ability to contextualise assessment so that it is relevant to the learner, applicable to the local context and labour market, and remains up to date with sector needs. They felt that this flexibility could help to ensure that assessments are vocationally relevant, authentic, practical, and reflect the nature of individual subjects. It could also help to ensure that assessments are manageable for centres to deliver and that they meet the individual needs of learners.

Respondents commented that where flexibility was permitted, this should be within clearly defined parameters with robust controls, to ensure standards are not negatively impacted.

Marking assessments

There was overall agreement with the proposal that timetabled assessments be marked by awarding organisations and to permit the use of awarding organisation or centre marking, with Moderation, for other forms of assessment.

Respondents thought the proposed approach would help to ensure reliability, comparability and consistency across awarding organisations, as well as boosting public confidence in V Levels.

Respondents welcomed the flexibility of allowing awarding organisations to permit centres to mark other forms of assessment, which they felt would ensure a more accurate and valid assessment of applied and practical skills.

Some did note though that centre-marked assessments could create a potential burden on teachers, schools and colleges.

It was noted that effective centre-marking would also be dependent on awarding organisations providing clear and consistent marking criteria, along with robust support, training, standardisation and Moderation, to ensure consistency across centres.

Respondents generally agreed that where centre-marking is used, it is appropriate to require awarding organisation Moderation of this marking.

Some were concerned though about the potential burden of uploading evidence to awarding organisations for Moderation. It was noted that Moderation approaches would need to be flexible and proportionate, given the varied nature of vocational assessments and the volume of evidence generated by students.

A small number of awarding organisations commented on the potential burden on them of requiring Moderation, compared with other approaches that could be used for the scrutiny of centre marking.

Most respondents agreed with the proposal to require awarding organisations to use numerical marks for V Levels. They said this would provide a greater level of precision and granularity in the application of mark schemes and allow for sufficient differentiation between learners.   

Respondents thought numerical marks would support the proposed approach to standard-setting and help to promote consistency in approaches between awarding organisations, as well as aligning with approaches taken in qualifications such as GCSEs and A Levels.

There were a small number of concerns that numerical marking may not be appropriate for assessing practical skills, which they said may be better assessed by making direct judgements about a student’s performance.

Decision

Setting assessments

We have decided to implement the approach to setting assessments as consulted on. This is intended to ensure  robust oversight of assessments by awarding organisations.

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.

In response to requests for guidance on the extent to which centre adaptation of tasks would be permitted, we have decided to expand the proposed guidance to help to ensure consistent approaches. The full wording of our guidance can be seen in the qualification-level guidance published alongside these decisions. 

Marking assessments

We have decided to implement the consultation proposals in relation to marking assessments as consulted on.

This will mean that timetabled assessments must be marked by awarding organisations, and that other forms of assessment can either be marked by awarding organisations, centres, or a combination of these.

Where an awarding organisation permits centre marking, we have decided that this must be subject to awarding organisation Moderation before results are issued.

We have also decided, as consulted on, to require the use of numerical marks for all assessments in V Levels.

Awarding organisations, schools and colleges highlighted the need to ensure that Moderation is manageable and proportionate. 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. We do not think it would be appropriate to allow approaches in which centre marking is not subject to checking before results are issued.

Setting and maintaining standards (question 23)

What Ofqual proposed

We proposed to put in place requirements covering the way in which V Level standards should be set and maintained, including how grade boundaries for key grades are set.

This included requirements relating to the evidence to be used when setting and maintaining standards, and guidance on the use of that evidence.

We also proposed that awarding organisations should not be permitted to award qualifications in the first year they are made available, to support approaches to setting initial standards.

Consultation feedback

Overall, there was support for this proposal, with respondents saying that it should help support consistent and comparable V Level qualification outcomes across awarding organisations. There was also general support for requiring the use of a broad range of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

There were some specific comments about the exact evidence to be used to set grade boundaries in these qualifications. Some said the use of GCSE prior attainment data could risk higher grades being difficult to achieve, where GCSE data is not reflective of the cohort taking some V Level subjects.

There were also comments about the specific way in which the boundary between grade E and grade N would be set, and calls for clear communication about what these grades indicated.

Respondents identified the need for a mechanism to be established to share data between awarding organisations.

Overall, respondents supported the proposal to not permit the awarding of qualifications in the first year they were available, to support the initial setting of standards. A small number of respondents did however comment that this would result in a potential unfairness for students in the first cohort, who would not be able to achieve their qualification in less than 2 years.

Decision

We have decided to implement the approach to setting and maintaining standards in V Levels as consulted on. This means that awarding organisations will need to meet requirements set by Ofqual relating to the approach to setting and maintaining standards, and the evidence to be used.

We will work with awarding organisations as V Levels are developed on the specific processes and data exchange mechanisms to be used.

We have also decided not to allow awarding organisations to award V Levels in the first year in which a subject is made available, as consulted on. While we recognise concerns that there may be some students in the first cohort of a subject who may wish to take a V Level in one year, we think it is important to prohibit this in order to ensure that initial standards are set appropriately.

Reviews of marking, reviews of Moderation and appeals (question 24)

What Ofqual proposed

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

Respondents said that V Level students should have the same opportunities to request a review of their results as GCSE and A Level students.

It was noted by respondents that it would be important for reviews to take place in sufficient time to support progression decisions, and that timelines should align with those used in other qualifications.

It was noted that the manageability of the process should be considered to ensure that it does not create additional administrative burden for centres.

Respondents noted the importance of review and appeals processes accommodating the vocational and practical nature of the qualifications, and the need for these to reflect assessment methods beyond traditional written examinations, including practical assessments and other forms of evidence.

Decision

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

We intend for these to ensure that V Level 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.