Sometimes it seems like the only constant in the world of qualifications is change. Currently, the government is pursuing a robust agenda to reform ‘technical’ qualifications at level 3 (sixth form equivalent). For music, this means that a range of non-A level qualifications – BTECs and qualifications offered by RSL and UAL – are up for removal and replacement.
Level 3 technical music qualifications are two-year vocational courses equivalent to 3 A levels when taken as an Extended Diploma. With a focus on music performance, production and technology, they are popular with FE colleges and specialist providers like the Brit School. Many ‘regular’ schools also offer them.
The last government was also interested in level 3 technical qualifications. Ministers spoke of there being too many qualifications in this space – and then they promptly created a new one: the T level. Retained by the current government, T levels offer an industry-focused alternative to A levels, with one T level being equivalent to three A levels. There is no Music T level – the closest option is the Media, Broadcast and Production T level. Generally, T levels have had a mixed reception, despite some fervent admirers, and relatively low uptake.
New V levels
In October 2025, the current government released a white paper outlining its proposals for level 3 technical qualifications. This includes the pledge that ‘V Levels [will be] the only pathway of vocational qualifications at level 3 for young people. These will sit alongside A levels and T Levels, providing simplicity and clarity as well as quality.’
In case you were wondering, V levels were first suggested by the government’s independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, which published its final report in November last year. The idea is that one V level will be the same size as one A level, making V levels quite a different proposition from T levels. The white paper explains that ‘after GCSEs, a student may choose to study a V Level in Finance and Accounting, alongside A levels in Environmental Science and Geography,’ for example. Apparently, this will ‘radically’ simplify the landscape.
The unanswered questions
There is arguably a case for simplifying the level 3 music line-up. With available options including A level, T level (sort of), BTEC and qualifications from UAL and RSL, it’s a lot to choose from. But will having only A, T and V levels – and getting rid of everything else – really lead to improvements?
As great as V levels might turn out to be, the removal of other valued qualifications could undermine successful programmes of education, weaken established progression routes, and potentially reduce access to careers.
The following are among the reasonable questions that could be put to the government about these reforms.
Avoiding duplication
Specialist awarding organisations such as RSL and UAL have already developed high-quality Alternative Academic Qualifications, including full three-A-Level-sized programmes, that are designed to meet the needs of learners, higher education and the music industry. Despite these qualifications being ready for delivery, under the government’s proposals they will be shelved and V levels will be developed instead. Isn’t that wasteful duplication?
Retaining progression routes and access
If the new V level is to be equivalent to the size of one A level, this would dismantle established two-year level 3 music programmes that are equivalent to three A levels. Could some learners therefore be left without a coherent programme of study under these proposals?
The question of whether T levels can ever work for creative subjects
If the V level cannot fill the gap of a three-A-level-sized music qualification, we are left with the T level. Music T level is not currently available, but could one be created? The problem is that T levels must include substantial industry work placements, and these are not always viable in creative roles, which are often freelance and portfolio in nature. What is the government’s proposed solution for this?
Implementation timeline
Introducing new qualifications from 2027, the proposed start date, is a tight turnaround given the scale of change required. Providers, employers and awarding organisations need certainty and time to develop high-quality provision. Wouldn’t a 2029 first-teaching date make more sense?
Interrogating the term ‘technical’
Finally, what do ‘technical’ and ‘vocational’ even mean? Sometimes they are used interchangeably, but under these proposals they seem to have different meanings: technical implies a door into industry, while vocational suggests a less ‘academic’ programme of study, like finance, but still study. Getting these definitions right will be essential.