In this article, Christine explores whether Level 1 reform in post-16 education is genuinely creating opportunity – or unintentionally reinforcing cycles of low progression. Drawing on sector insight, research evidence and system-level analysis, she examines how current approaches to access, readiness and progression risk widening gaps rather than closing them and what needs to shift to ensure Level 1 functions as a true stepping stone for all learners.
————————————————————————————————-
Foundation apprenticeships could be a breakthrough for access.
Or they could quietly reinforce the very barriers they’re meant to remove.
With the expansion of Level 1 pathways, shorter courses and modular delivery models, post-16 reform is clearly trying to widen participation. The intention is right.
But the question the sector is still grappling with is this:
Are we creating genuine progression, or building a system that keeps learners moving without actually moving them forward?
Conversations across the sector – including at the Apprenticeships and Training Conference (ATC) – suggest there isn’t a clear answer yet.
And that uncertainty matters.
What Level 1 Is Meant to Do
At its best, Level 1 plays a critical role in the system.
It is designed to:
– re-engage learners who have disengaged from education
– provide an accessible entry point into further learning
– build confidence and readiness for progression
Framed well, it acts as a stepping stone, a way back into education, employment and opportunity.
This aligns with wider policy thinking and sector commentary, including recent Summer InTuition reflections, which position Level 1 as intended infrastructure for inclusion.
Where Level 1 Reform Breaks Under Pressure
The challenge isn’t intent.
It’s what happens when this design meets real learners, classrooms and system pressures.
This is where the cracks begin to show.
Repetition instead of progression
For many learners, Level 1 is not a new starting point.
It is a repeat.
This isn’t progression. It’s repetition of a level already achieved without improving application.
Learners move sideways rather than forward, completing qualifications that do not meaningfully change their trajectory.
Readiness gaps are misdiagnosed as ability gaps
Evidence and practice both point to the same issue:
The barrier is rarely raw ability.
It is:
– lack of routine
– limited exposure to expectations
– weak connection to purpose
– underdeveloped learning behaviours
In other words:
The issue is not low ability. It is underdeveloped readiness, the same pattern seen across post-16 education where learner experience varies not because of intent, but because systems and staff capability are inconsistent (explored further in my article on SEND in post-16 education).
Without addressing this, Level 1 becomes a holding space – not a launchpad.
System throughput overtakes learner development
Under pressure to demonstrate participation, retention and completion, systems drift toward movement over meaning.
Learners progress through programmes – but not necessarily beyond them.
And that distinction is critical.
What the Evidence Tells Us
This isn’t just anecdotal.
Research reinforces the same pattern.
The Impetus Youth Jobs Gap report highlights the impact of compound disadvantage, where multiple barriers stack and reinforce each other.
Its findings are clear:
Qualifications reduce risk – but they do not remove it.
Similarly, work from the Youth Futures Foundation shows that transition points, not just participation, are where the system either works or fails.
Because:
Participation is not the same as progression and the system often confuses the two.
The Risk We’re Not Naming: A Two-Tier System
If this continues, the unintended consequence is clear.
We create two parallel experiences within the same system.
One group of learners:
– builds capability
– develops confidence
– progresses into meaningful next steps
Another group:
– repeats levels
– remains in low-expectation pathways
– cycles through provision without meaningful movement
This is where inclusion quietly fractures.
Because:
Access without support is not inclusion.
It is participation without progression.
And over time, that becomes a hidden pipeline into long-term disengagement.
Reform Is Raising the Stakes
The next phase of reform, including foundation apprenticeships and modular “units”, makes this even more important.
In theory, flexibility should help.
In practice, it raises a more difficult question:
Will modularisation strengthen progression – or slowly fragment it?
Because:
Flexibility without coherence creates fragmentation.
Without a clear design around capability and progression, the system risks becoming more navigable for providers – but not more effective for learners.
What Needs to Be Different
If Level 1 is to function as intended, the shift required is not small.
It is structural.
1. From access → to capability-building
Readiness must be developed explicitly:
– routines
– behaviours
– application
2. From qualification → to progression evidence
Success must be measured in movement:
– where learners go next
– not just what they complete
3. From programme → to system design
Transitions matter more than endpoints:
– how learners move through the system
– not just where they sit within it
A System Under Scrutiny
For the first time, providers are being asked to evidence not just what they plan to deliver, but whether they are realistically ready to deliver it.
That shifts the focus.
From curriculum plans…
to curriculum reality.
From intent…
to impact.
What this means for leaders
For leaders, this isn’t theoretical.
It shows up in:
– learners repeating levels without progressing
– inconsistent readiness across cohorts
– provision that meets requirements but doesn’t change outcomes
The question is not whether Level 1 exists.
It’s whether your current model is actually moving learners forward – or simply moving them through.
This is exactly the focus of my Leadership Pressure Test – a 90-minute diagnostic designed to identify where progression holds, where it breaks and what needs to shift to build real capability across the system.
If you’re reviewing Level 1 provision, progression pathways or inclusion strategy, this is a practical place to start.
So Where Does This Leave Level 1?
The question is no longer whether Level 1 exists.
Or even whether it expands.
The question is whether it works.
Whether it genuinely functions as a stepping stone…
Or whether it becomes a holding pattern the system has learned to accept.
Because if we get this wrong, we don’t just miss an opportunity.
We repeat a failure – more efficiently, and at greater scale.
And this time, we won’t be able to say we didn’t see it coming.