Baroness Smith of Malvern, the Minister for Skills at Department for Education and Department of Work and Pensions
Jo Reynolds, our Director of Global Impact, is one of eight signatories of a letter sent to Skills Minister Baroness Smith of Malvern warning against making changes to applied general qualifications (AGQ) in science.
Representatives from the various learned bodies, education and science institutions believe proposed new V Levels "could limit student choice of routes into the sciences, and subsequently, impact our future science workforce."
While new health-related and ‘Applied research and technology’ V Levels are part of government proposals, questions remain as to whether any of these qualifications will contain a similar amount of core science learning as the outgoing AGQs. The signatories also raise the fact that there is no science-specific V Level planned that would "appropriately replace existing applied science AGQs."
The letter lays out the benefits of retaining AGQs and uses research produced by the various organisations – including the RSC – as well as government data to make the case.
Signing off, the signatories voiced their desire for a meeting with the peer to discuss the AGQ changes as they fear such moves could undermine the economic benefits science believes to the UK economy as well as affecting the futures of young people and industries that rely on a steady pipeline of emerging talent.
Meanwhile, Dr Reynolds and ProfessorJason Love, chair of Heads of Chemistry UK, raised the issue of V Levels in a letter published in The Times that similarly urges ministers to "ensure that post-16 qualification reforms preserve accessible routes for young people from all backgrounds to progress in chemistry and the wider scientific workforce."
The letters to Baroness Smith and The Times are both available to read in full below.
Read the joint letter to Baroness Smith
Dear Minister,
We, as a collective of science professional bodies1 and higher education academics, are writing to you to express our concern that your Department’s proposed health-related and ‘Applied research and technology’ V Levels are not a suitable alternative to applied general qualifications (AGQ) in science, which could limit student choice of routes into the sciences, and subsequently, impact our future science workforce. We would welcome a meeting on this.
We support the Government’s aim to make post-16 choices clearer. However, we believe that aim would be better served by ensuring students retain an accessible applied science route with sufficient breadth and recognised progression opportunities.
Supporting a skilled workforce
Accessible routes matter not just for individuals, but also for science and innovation and the skilled workforce that underpins them, which are at the heart of government’s industrial ambitions.
A total of 46% of chemistry-using professionals already work in Industrial Strategy priority sectors compared to 26% of the whole workforce, and this is projected to grow. RSC evidence shows that the chemical sciences workforce is projected to grow by 6.5%, higher than the wider labour market’s projected growth of 5%.3
Similarly, according to analysis by Skills England and the Office for Life Science4, employment demand in priority occupations in the life sciences sector is projected to increase by around 66,000 jobs (44%) between 2025 and 2035, one of the fastest growth rates among priority sectors. And physics skills already support nearly two million jobs and underpin productive industries in every part of the UK5.
The success of government's economic agenda therefore requires diverse, accessible routes into science-related careers.
Changes to vocational routes at post-16
Access to training and further education in STEM should be available to all, regardless of postcode or socioeconomic status. There are multiple post-16 routes into science further education: currently, A Levels, T Levels, and applied general qualifications (AGQs). Some students are better suited to practical, vocational routes into STEM, whereas others may be better suited to more academic routes.
Ultimately, students should have the option to choose a route which best supports them. However, these options are set to become more limited with AGQs - such as BTECs and Cambridge Technicals - being defunded and replaced with V Levels.6 The impact of this change has not gone unnoticed, with the Commons Education Committee report calling for a moratorium on the defunding of AGQs.7
We acknowledge the Government’s ambition to simplify the qualification landscape so that it is clear and understandable for young people to make choices about their next steps. However, applied science AGQs are a proven, popular route. For approximately 20,000 students who take a science AGQ,8 their removal risks preventing these young people from pursuing a science career. They will have limited options (either an A Level or the science T Level). However, only 283 students completed a science T Level last year, and A Levels may not be an option for all students.
We are concerned that there is currently no science-specific V Level planned that would appropriately replace existing applied science AGQs. Although there are health-related V levels planned, along with the ‘Applied research and technology’ V level, it is not clear whether any of these qualifications will contain a similar amount of core science learning to the outgoing AGQs.
Benefits of retaining applied science AGQs
AGQs provide an accessible progression opportunity for entry into the sciences and are a strong tool for social mobility. Students who progress to higher education from an applied science AGQ are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. Employers and higher education institutions recognise and respect AGQs, aware that they offer a level of specialisation and flexibility that other qualifications don’t offer.
Investing in broad, general vocational routes would support the ambition of this government to ensure opportunity is available to all young people. Our view is that removing a route that is chosen by tens of thousands of students each year by defunding AGQs risks undermining this ambition.
With this in mind, we are writing to request a meeting with you and your officials to discuss the proposed V Levels and how you expect them to replace the breadth, depth, access and progression opportunities currently available with AGQs. To arrange a meeting, please do not hesitate to get in touch through [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
- Jo Reynolds (Director, Global Impact, Royal Society of Chemistry)
- Arianne Matlin (Director of External Affairs, Royal Society of Biology)
- Louis Barston (Director of Science, Business and Education, Institute of Physics)
- Chris Jones (Policy Director, The Royal Society)
- Jason Love (Chairperson, Heads of Chemistry UK (HCUK)9)
- Professor Paul D. Topham (Director of Aston Institute for Membrane Excellence; Professor of Polymer Science, School of Engineering and Innovation, Aston University)
- James Walker (Director of Apprenticeships, Manchester Metropolitan University)
- Dr Diane Turner PhD CChem FRSC (Senior Consultant & Director, Anthias Consulting Limited; Visiting Fellow, The Open University; Professional Standards Board, Nominations Committee & Industry Representative, Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC); Co-chair of BEAM, Community for Analytical Measurement Science (CAMS))
Footnotes
1) Science Education Policy Alliance (SEPA) brings together the Association for Science Education, Institute of Physics, Royal Society, Royal Society of Biology and Royal Society of Chemistry. SEPA’s mission is to bring about systemic improvement, by influencing policy and therefore funding and practice so that all students experience a high-quality, inclusive, accessible and contemporary 5–19 education in the sciences that unlocks individual opportunity, supports economic growth and benefits our society.
2) Royal Society of Chemistry (2026), The contribution of chemistry, Available at: The contribution of chemistry: Understanding how chemistry capability translates into economic value across the UK
3) Royal Society of Chemistry (2024) Future Workforce and Educational Pathways. Available at: https://www.rsc.org/getContentAsset/fb6e3abb-e6dd-4035-ba53-a678c3730fad/f4c91d86-ac3e-4675-bdf3-f8325ded9710/rsc-future-workforce-ep-report.pdf?language=en&v=638811070141924929
5) IOP (2021) Unlocking the potential of physics skills in the UK and Ireland. Available at: https://www.iop.org/strategy/productivity-programme/workforce-skills-project
6) House of Commons Library (2026) V Levels. Available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10584/CBP-10584.pdf
7) House of Commons Education Committee (2023) The future of post-16 qualifications. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmeduc/55/report.html
8) Pearson (2025) BTEC Nationals (2016 –RQF) Results for Academic Year 2024/25. Available at: https://qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/BTEC-Nationals/general/btec-nationals-results-2025.pdf
9) Heads of Chemistry UK (HCUK) is an independent, active national body representing the collective leadership of chemistry in higher education across the UK and Ireland.
Read the letter published in The Times
