I am grateful to Susanna Rustin for her trenchant analysis of government failure to tackle the post-16 academic/vocational divide (T-levels are a disaster – and young people are suffering because ministers won’t admit it, 17 March).

While I agree that there is little evidence that T-levels are signalling the end of the “second-class status” of vocational education, the problem is only partly the fact that T-levels are too hard (overreliant on outmoded written examinations) and too narrow (how many of us can honestly look back to being 16 and knowing which career we wished to pursue?).

Equally significant is the underresourcing of further education as a Cinderella in the education system (how many ministers support their own children on to vocational qualifications?).

As a governor of a large FE college, I know teaching staff and leaders are working hard to ensure that all students enrolled on T-levels thrive. However, they are simultaneously charged with solving the problem of those not in education, employment or training, and shoring up community adult education. The problem (specific to England) remains the outdated binary divide, with academic routes and qualifications occupying the privileged position and hampering efforts to offer student-centred accessible pathways.

Way back in 1990, the Institute for Public Policy Research proposed a radical, all-encompassing British baccalaureate (not the half-arsed Rishi Sunak proposal of the same name). This was a modular single qualification, a replacement across the ability range for academic and vocational pathways.

Its intention was to shatter the hermetically sealed inflexible systems that prevented “academic” students from pursuing vocational interests, and vocational students from exploring academic areas of interest (beyond the thin gruel of GCSE English and maths retakes). It encouraged opportunities to mix academic and vocational modules in a common framework.

I fear that if T-levels are the answer, we are still asking the wrong question.
John Butcher
Professor emeritus, Open University

T-level bashing does not help recruitment. Some T-levels might not be working in some subject areas, but this is not true for all of them. For example, students on the T-level in digital production, design and development, where I teach, are well prepared for a wide range of careers in the digital sector. The problem we have is getting students interested in pursuing careers in digital. Sending the message that T-levels are a waste of time is not doing the sector any favours.

This particular T-level course is better than the outdated BTec course it replaced. The content is more up to date and direct industry links are more visible.

The approaches to teaching in vocational education make the course suitable for students who gain 4s and 5s at GCSE. All my students have gained 4s and 5s, some of them even 3s in GCSE English. All of them are navigating the T-level course with the support they require to achieve good grades. Universities are accepting this qualification as a route into many different computing-related courses.

In some subject areas, T-levels might not fit the bill, but in others they are flourishing. Or at least they would be if the cloud of negativity was not being continually forced upon them.
Karen Ahmed
Lecturer in computing and IT, Southport College