Government plans for a new advanced British standard qualification will create a 鈥渂lunt choice鈥 between academic and vocational routes for pupils and add to uncertainty over post-16 options, leaders have warned. School leaders鈥 unions the NAHT and ASCL have published responses to the on proposals, as has the Sixth Form Colleges Association. The consultation closes today. DfE puts 40 staff on Advanced British Standard ‘vanity project’ Prime minister Rishi Sunak announced last year that the ABS will replace A-levels and T颅-levels in around 10 years, though an anticipated Labour election win means the policy is unlikely to ever come to fruition. The government initially announced it would create a single qualification for post-16 study. But the consultation, published last December, set out plans for two 鈥 the ABS and the ABS (occupational). Paul Whiteman, the NAHT’s general secretary, warned the “unimaginative qualification repackages A-levels and T-levels together but still forces students down one route or the other”. In the NAHT鈥檚 full response, head of policy Sarah Hannafin warned the proposals hold 鈥渢ightly to the traditional system in place now 鈥 a repackaging of the current A-level and T-level content, blunt choices for 16-year-olds, a focus on knowledge and assessment by examination鈥. The creation of two routes 鈥渦ndermines鈥 the parity of esteem between academic and technical education, she added. Hannafin said without “significant investment in the recruitment and retention of education staff these proposals are unworkable and undeliverable”. Menu of options ‘already exists’ ASCL post-16 specialist Kevin Gilmartin said the principle of a 鈥渉igh-quality menu鈥 of options for young people 鈥渁lready exists in the 16-19 landscape in the form of over 60,000 students who mix and match A-levels with applied general qualifications鈥. Gilmartin said it also 鈥渟eems clear that, under these proposals, a majority of students would continue to take three majors, with some additional English and maths鈥. Sarah Hannafin 鈥淭his does not, despite claims to the contrary, appear to represent a significant broadening of their curriculum.鈥 Under the government鈥檚 plans, pupils would study a set of subject majors and minors, and all would be required to study English and maths to 18. But unions warned against considering 16 to 19 reform in isolation. Hannafin said reform must be 鈥渃onsidered as a coherent whole, from early years to key stage 5, and not in isolated silos of key stages or year groups鈥. Gilmartin added the starting point for reform 鈥渟hould be a consultation on the underlying principles of what we want our students to study at the age of 16 to 19鈥. By not taking this approach first, and 鈥渢rying to make a clunky qualification 鈥榳rapper鈥 serve several purposes鈥, the government is 鈥減utting the cart before the horse鈥. ‘Driven by electoral considerations’ The SFCA warned the consultation 鈥渟eeks views on how to reach the government鈥檚 preferred destination, but not on the destination itself鈥. A “genuine consultation” would seek views on the “wisdom of scrapping A-levels (first sat in 1951) and T-levels (the government鈥檚 鈥済old standard鈥 technical qualifications, first sat in 2022) and replacing them with a single qualification framework”. 鈥淚nstead, we are presented with a detailed consultation that seeks views on the principles that should underpin the design of ABS, but not on the fundamental principle of sweeping away all existing qualifications to make way for 鈥榓 single menu of options鈥.鈥 They also warned the ABS was 鈥渨idely perceived to be driven by electoral rather than educational considerations and to have been imposed on the Department for Education by the prime minister鈥. The consultation鈥檚 proposal for two programmes 鈥渟uggests that ministers have already reversed the original plan set out in October to introduce a 鈥榮ingle qualification鈥. Successive U-turns on such fundamental issues do not inspire confidence”. T-level planning ‘has suffered’ The plan to replace T-levels, which have only recently been introduced and have been fraught with problems, has prompted widespread concern. The SFCA said schools and colleges had been pressed to sign up to the “once in a generation” reform of the qualifications system, but 鈥渘ow find T-levels will suffer the same fate as the BTEC qualifications they were supposed to replace鈥. 鈥淩ecruitment, morale and planning has suffered as a result,” they added. Hannafin said she also feared some young people 鈥渨ill be forced to make a choice which will have a lasting impact on their futures, and yet they may not be ready to make that choice鈥. It is not 鈥渃lear how much flexibility there will be in enabling young people who make the 鈥榳rong鈥 choice at 16 to be able to change their route鈥. The NAHT suggested creating a two-year programme 鈥渨hich students could 鈥榮tep off鈥 after one year and progress onto the L3 qualification, move into work or work based training if appropriate, or stay on to complete the ABS at L2 with a further year of studies鈥.