Designing to a level, not to a topic
Most training content is written around a topic. Accredited provision has to be written around a level. Those are different disciplines, and the gap between them is where most first submissions fail.
A level descriptor makes claims about the depth of understanding, the autonomy and the complexity a learner demonstrates. Your learning outcomes have to make those claims explicitly and your assessment has to actually test them. Content that is genuinely excellent as training can still sit at the wrong level, or claim a level it does not evidence, and a reviewer will find that quickly.
What we produce
- Programme and module structure with credit values that add up correctly at the level claimed.
- Learning outcomes written to the level descriptor of the applicable framework, not to a topic list.
- An assessment strategy that actually evidences the outcomes, with assessment instruments and marking criteria.
- The supporting evidence a body expects, including staffing, resources and delivery arrangements.
- A mapping document showing an assessor exactly where each criterion is met.
Everything is written against the published criteria of the body it is going to, in the version in force when we write it, and we record which version that was.
Rebuilding what already exists
Most engagements are not blank sheets. You have a course that sells, and it now has to become something a regulator will accredit.
Sometimes the content is sound and only the outcomes, assessment and evidence need building. Sometimes it is pitched two levels below where you want to claim, and the choice is to lower the claim or raise the content. We tell you which it is before you decide.
Assessment and equality
Assessment design carries equality risk that is easy to miss. An assessment that measures something other than the stated learning outcome, for example reading speed or cultural familiarity, disadvantages a learner group unfairly and weakens the qualification.
We design assessment against the stated outcome, build reasonable adjustment in from the outset rather than bolting it on, and flag material that would exclude a learner group without good reason.
Topic-led against level-led design
This is the distinction that decides most first submissions. It is worth seeing the two side by side, because good training built the first way can still be refused, and it is rarely obvious why until a reviewer says so.
| Topic-led design | Level-led design | |
|---|---|---|
| Organised around | Subject matter and modules | A framework level descriptor |
| Learning outcomes | Describe what is covered | Claim depth, autonomy and complexity |
| Assessment | Checks recall of the content | Evidences the stated outcome |
| What a reviewer sees | Good training, unclear level | A level claim they can trace |
| At accreditation | Often refused or re-levelled | Holds up |
How we build a curriculum
Read and level-check
An honest read of what already exists, or of the brief, against the level you want to claim, so the target is agreed before design starts.
Structure and credits
Programme and module structure with credit values that add up correctly at the level, not a topic list dressed as a syllabus.
Outcomes to the descriptor
Learning outcomes written to the framework's level descriptor, making the claims about depth and autonomy the level requires.
Assessment and mapping
An assessment strategy that evidences each outcome, with instruments, marking criteria and a mapping document an assessor can follow line by line.
Who this is for
New programmes
Providers designing a programme from scratch that has to be accreditable from the first draft, not retrofitted later.
A selling course going up
Owners of a course that already works commercially and now has to become something a regulator will accredit.
Cross-nation providers
Providers taking one programme across more than one framework, who need the design to read correctly against each.
Why level design is the hard part
Writing good content is a skill many teams already have. Writing it so a regulator can read the level off the page is a different skill, and it is usually the one missing. A level is a set of claims, and most content is not written as claims. Three disciplines close that gap.
The level is a set of claims
Descriptors talk about depth of understanding, autonomy and complexity. Your outcomes have to make those claims explicitly and your assessment has to test them. Teach a topic well but pitch it a level low, and a reviewer re-levels or refuses it. Either way you pay again.
The credit has to add up
Credit measures the notional learning hours a typical learner needs, and the values across a programme must total correctly at the level claimed. Content that grew organically often has hours and level telling two different stories. We reconcile them out loud, before a reviewer sees them.
The assessment has to be valid
An assessment is valid only if it measures the stated outcome and nothing else. The moment it also measures reading speed or cultural familiarity it disadvantages a group and weakens the qualification. We design to the outcome and build reasonable adjustment in from the start.
When a course is pitched below the level you want to claim, we tell you before you decide. The choice is to lower the claim or raise the content. Both are legitimate. Pretending the gap is not there is the one option that costs you a submission.
The evidence an assessor traces
A curriculum is judged less on what it teaches than on whether someone else can follow how it holds together. The real product of curriculum work is not the content, it is the traceability underneath it.
Take any single learning outcome, and show where it is taught, where it is practised, and where it is assessed. If that thread is clean for every outcome, the level is defensible. If it breaks anywhere, the whole claim wobbles.
So we build the thread deliberately:
- Outcomes written at the level claimed, in language that can be assessed rather than admired.
- Each outcome mapped across the programme, so the line from syllabus to assessment to mark scheme is unbroken.
- Credit values set to the level, because a mismatch between hours and level is one of the most common reasons a submission is sent back.
This is also what protects the course afterwards. When a body reviews you later, or you bring in a new tutor, the mapping keeps delivery consistent instead of drifting with whoever teaches it. It is the same document that lets you add a unit or take the programme to a higher level later without starting from nothing.
Common questions
Can you work with a course we have already built?
Yes, and most engagements are exactly that. We read what exists, tell you honestly whether the content supports the level you want to claim, and then either build the outcomes, assessment and evidence around it or advise you to change the level.
Which frameworks do you map to?
The Malta Qualifications Framework and the European Qualifications Framework, the Regulated Qualifications Framework used in England and Northern Ireland, the Credit and Qualifications Framework for Wales, and the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework.
Who owns the curriculum you write?
You do, once our fees for that work are paid. We retain ownership of our own methods, templates and frameworks, and you get a perpetual licence to use them for your own programmes.
What is the difference between designing to a topic and designing to a level?
A topic design organises content around subject matter. A level design makes explicit claims about depth of understanding, autonomy and complexity, and builds assessment that tests those claims. Accreditation requires the second.
How long does curriculum design take?
It depends on the scope, from a single module to a full programme with several modules and an assessment strategy. We agree a written scope, deliverables and timeline before any work starts, so you know what you are getting and when.
Can one programme map to more than one framework?
Often, yes. Where the levels align, we can design a programme so it reads correctly against more than one framework, for example the MQF and EQF alongside the RQF. We tell you where a single design works and where two separate submissions are the honest answer.
Do you write the assessment as well as the outcomes?
Yes. We design the assessment strategy, the assessment instruments and the marking criteria, and we produce a mapping document so an assessor can trace each outcome to where it is evidenced.
Can you map an existing course to a level without rebuilding it?
Sometimes. We read what exists first and tell you honestly whether the content supports the level you want to claim. If it does, we build the outcomes, assessment and evidence around it. If it does not, we tell you before you decide.
What is a credit value, and why does it matter?
A credit value measures the notional learning hours a typical learner needs. The values across a programme have to add up correctly at the level claimed, and a mismatch between the hours and the level is a common reason a submission is questioned.
How involved does our team need to be?
Enough to make the content right, and no more than that. We need your subject knowledge and access to the existing material, and we work with a subject expert from your side or ours. From there we do the design work, the outcomes, the assessment, the mapping and the evidence, and bring it back to you to check rather than asking you to write it. Your people supply the expertise and we turn it into something a regulator will accredit.
FreeCourse diagnostic
Send us one course. We'll tell you what it needs, free.
Share one course or programme you already run, or the slides and notes behind it. After a short first call, we review it at no charge and send you a written note on what it needs and which package fits, within a few working days.
- One course or programme, reviewed by a named person
- A written note on what it needs
- The package that fits, so you know where to start
- No charge and no obligation
Get in touch
Tell us what you want recognised.
Send a short note on what you are trying to get recognised, who it is for and any deadline. We will come back with the route, the standards that apply and what the work involves.
Prefer to write instead?
Send an enquiry
Takes about a minute. It reaches us directly.
We use what you send here only to answer your enquiry. See the privacy notice.
We design curricula in line with the principles of ISO 21001 (educational organisations) and ISO 29993 (learning services). See how we apply each standard.