On the face of it, the imbalance makes little sense. Skilled tradespeople earn excellent money. Their skills are perennially in demand. Yet industry training continues to suffer from low status relative to university education.
Poor esteem for industry training is deeply embedded in the New Zealand mindset. That will not change quickly. But a high-quality, streamlined system for trades training would gradually improve the status of industry training.
Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds has announced changes to workplace-based industry training. If these changes are implemented well, it could be the start of an improvement in esteem for workplace-based training. Simmonds aims to move the system away from its domination by Te Pūkenga, the merged polytechnic system established under the Ardern government, towards direct industry leadership.
The intention behind the move is sound. Industry-led training would be more relevant to the needs of industry than training led by polytechnics. That is how the world’s best training systems operate.
The German ‘dual training’ apprenticeship system is, perhaps, the best in the world. Critically, the system is run by industry, for industry, through its Chambers of Commerce. The Chambers approve training programmes, organise the placement of trainees in companies and oversee assessment.
Until now, New Zealand’s version of Germany’s Chambers of Commerce has been Workforce Development Councils (WDCs). But while there is superficial similarity between German Chambers and New Zealand’s WDCs, there are critical differences.
WDCs have much more limited scope than the German Chambers. Their main task is to set standards for industry training. But the most important difference is that WDCs are not accountable to industry. Their membership is determined by Ministers. Simmonds intends to change that.
From 2026, WDCs will be replaced by new organisations called Industry Skills Boards (ISBs). There is more to the change than simply replacing one three-letter acronym with another. The aim is to make ISBs more like the German Chambers.
ISBs will have a more expansive role than WDCs. They will develop qualifications, endorse training programmes, and moderate assessment. But the most important difference is that, rather than being appointed by ministers, most of their members will be industry representatives.
Accountability is essential to driving improvement in the quality of training, and having most ISB membership determined by industry will help to establish accountability. More direct accountability, however, could be established through mandatory reporting requirements.
ISBs should be required to report on the outcomes of all qualifications they develop and all programmes they endorse. This should include completion rates for programmes and qualifications. It should also include the proportions of graduates employed in relevant industries and the proportions still employed in those industries after five years.
Reporting would enable industry to see whether training programmes are meeting their needs. Prospective employers and trainees could see which programmes provide the most effective training. Then over time, market mechanisms would improve the quality of training.
ISBs should also be involved in secondary school vocational training pathways. This could be a game changer for industry training. Most schools lack capacity to deliver high-quality programmes leading to workplace-based training. That is a significant factor in the ongoing dominance of university education.
Schools do not usually have expertise in designing high-quality vocational education. Vocational programmes have quite different requirements than traditional academic programmes. That is especially so for programmes that include workplace-based components.
Schools must establish links with employers to provide workplace-based learning opportunities for students. Moreover, schools cannot usually offer all relevant aspects of training. That means some students will need enrolments with tertiary providers while still at school.
ISBs could assist schools to develop high quality vocational programmes. They could endorse programmes that achieve quality benchmarks, facilitate dual enrolment with tertiary providers and organise workplace-based learning opportunities for students.
Some questions will need to be addressed to provide confidence that ISBs will deliver the quality the Minister is aiming for. Te Pūkenga will be disestablished at the end of 2025. Its work-based learning divisions will be carved off and managed by ISBs until new providers are set up.
Yet ISBs are not intended to be training providers. As standard-setting and programme approval bodies, they should be at arms-length from providers. The transition arrangements are temporary – they are scheduled to expire at the end of 2027. However, it is unclear whether enough new providers will be established by then. It is to be hoped that, in the coming months, the government will develop a strategy to ensure that the transition arrangements don’t need to continue for longer than expected.
There is a long way to go before New Zealand’s workplace-based training system is world-class. But if ISBs can gain the confidence of the industries they represent, they could become the glue that holds a world-class system together.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
Vocational Education Minister Penny Simmonds has announced changes to workplace-based industry training. If these changes are implemented well, it could be the start of an improvement in esteem for workplace-based training. Simmonds aims to move the system away from its domination by Te Pūkenga, the merged polytechnic system established under the Ardern government, towards direct industry leadership.
The intention behind the move is sound. Industry-led training would be more relevant to the needs of industry than training led by polytechnics. That is how the world’s best training systems operate.
The German ‘dual training’ apprenticeship system is, perhaps, the best in the world. Critically, the system is run by industry, for industry, through its Chambers of Commerce. The Chambers approve training programmes, organise the placement of trainees in companies and oversee assessment.
Until now, New Zealand’s version of Germany’s Chambers of Commerce has been Workforce Development Councils (WDCs). But while there is superficial similarity between German Chambers and New Zealand’s WDCs, there are critical differences.
WDCs have much more limited scope than the German Chambers. Their main task is to set standards for industry training. But the most important difference is that WDCs are not accountable to industry. Their membership is determined by Ministers. Simmonds intends to change that.
From 2026, WDCs will be replaced by new organisations called Industry Skills Boards (ISBs). There is more to the change than simply replacing one three-letter acronym with another. The aim is to make ISBs more like the German Chambers.
ISBs will have a more expansive role than WDCs. They will develop qualifications, endorse training programmes, and moderate assessment. But the most important difference is that, rather than being appointed by ministers, most of their members will be industry representatives.
Accountability is essential to driving improvement in the quality of training, and having most ISB membership determined by industry will help to establish accountability. More direct accountability, however, could be established through mandatory reporting requirements.
ISBs should be required to report on the outcomes of all qualifications they develop and all programmes they endorse. This should include completion rates for programmes and qualifications. It should also include the proportions of graduates employed in relevant industries and the proportions still employed in those industries after five years.
Reporting would enable industry to see whether training programmes are meeting their needs. Prospective employers and trainees could see which programmes provide the most effective training. Then over time, market mechanisms would improve the quality of training.
ISBs should also be involved in secondary school vocational training pathways. This could be a game changer for industry training. Most schools lack capacity to deliver high-quality programmes leading to workplace-based training. That is a significant factor in the ongoing dominance of university education.
Schools do not usually have expertise in designing high-quality vocational education. Vocational programmes have quite different requirements than traditional academic programmes. That is especially so for programmes that include workplace-based components.
Schools must establish links with employers to provide workplace-based learning opportunities for students. Moreover, schools cannot usually offer all relevant aspects of training. That means some students will need enrolments with tertiary providers while still at school.
ISBs could assist schools to develop high quality vocational programmes. They could endorse programmes that achieve quality benchmarks, facilitate dual enrolment with tertiary providers and organise workplace-based learning opportunities for students.
Some questions will need to be addressed to provide confidence that ISBs will deliver the quality the Minister is aiming for. Te Pūkenga will be disestablished at the end of 2025. Its work-based learning divisions will be carved off and managed by ISBs until new providers are set up.
Yet ISBs are not intended to be training providers. As standard-setting and programme approval bodies, they should be at arms-length from providers. The transition arrangements are temporary – they are scheduled to expire at the end of 2027. However, it is unclear whether enough new providers will be established by then. It is to be hoped that, in the coming months, the government will develop a strategy to ensure that the transition arrangements don’t need to continue for longer than expected.
There is a long way to go before New Zealand’s workplace-based training system is world-class. But if ISBs can gain the confidence of the industries they represent, they could become the glue that holds a world-class system together.
Dr Michael Johnston is a Senior Fellow at the New Zealand Initiative. This article was first published HERE
7 comments:
Why do surprised? 18 year olds don't want to bust their butts off. They, like many parents, want cushy public sector 930-430 jobs, with morning and afternoon teas and long lunches, jobs in which they go to lots of pointless meetings and write reports that go nowhere....
...which is why those jobs are going to be in increasingly short supply...a bit of remedial social engineering is long overdue.
Another "Initiative" report that is basically the same written some months ago postulating on the German training scheme . I said then and I will say it again NZ have excellent in house industry based assistance to learning on the job . BCITO for the construction industry and Motor group scheme for the automotive industry. Telford and similar for agriculture .
NZ does NOT need a German focus on everything from the Initiative.
It would be good if tertiary vocational institutions started really putting pressure on primary and secondary schools to start producing students who know basic subjects like arithmetic , reading , spelling and written work. These are subjects schools should be specializing in and are needed for academic and vocational training. Most in -training plumbers eg can do the practical but struggle with the maths.
Most adult students I had as a tutor were failing in trades courses because of lack of the basics including basic algebra and rearranging formulae. They managed the practical work well .
I was concerned to see trainee primary teachers are also struggling with the new maths requirements for entry into training colleges. The topics in maths they struggle with are proportional reasoning , involving fractions , finding percentages , place values and metric conversion. These are all upper primary and lower secondary arithmetic subjects. Not just academic for goodness sake.
I am annoyed the tests , the syllabuses etc for entry to training courses that exist or are being developed are not readily available to people outside educational institutions. This lack of education in the basic subjects is a fiasco in NZ and as many people as possible , like retired professional and trades people should be given free access to these tests etc. Current primary teachers in particular can be deficient in these topics and parents and others should be encouraged to help out , charitably or otherwise in building up students skills.
This is even more important than volunteering for sports or other youth activities. In contrast we are over endowed with these activities , I believe.
Many trades are somewhat relentlessly physical which is often taxing as age. Especially as now competing with Asians used to working endless hours. (Other emplyments and professions are less affected by immigrants as language limits them) But tradesmen can drop down to related retail jobs etc. And many become generally handy so can save on much home maintenance. The handiness often equips for hobbies which avoid tedium in retirement. My father did one year secondary in the 1920s. But could work his way reliably through arithmetic of fractions, volumes etc. In those enlightened days a moderate standard was required for matriculation without which did not advance to secondary. An incentive for all to try, and the failures repeated often with eventual success. Now pupils advance beyond their grasp and lose interest. There is no incentive as a generous benefit awaits all and with a girlfriend can get a flash modern state unit. Sadly the complexity of pay, tax, deductions, sick leave, leave, safety, documentation, break periods, insurance etc render small business, once the supplier of competitive work, too daunting for all but the very able, or nieve.
I think you mean the Proficiency exam Robert which was the exam taken by students at the last year of primary school and a pass meant you could proceed to secondary school. The standard of this exam was high- some say comparable even to the old 5th form School Cert. This meant students were prepared even as 13 year olds to join the work force . The proficiency exam was dropped because it was considered unjust to , too many students to exclude them from secondary education. Unfortunately allowing every student into secondary school meant dropping the academic standards . Now we have such low standards that even those going to tertiary institutions need remedial maths and English , can't read a text book nor do written work. Matriculation was the exam you passed to go to Uni.earlier last .century. That had a standard way higher than current NCEA . level 2 and 3.
I did an apprenticeship in an iron and steel works in UK in the 1950s . This was against my parents wishes as they wanted me to go to university. The apprenticeship was for 5 years with no time off for good behaviour etc. The training was brilliant with experience in so many different disciplines and having to attend technical college and night school once a week. This training gave me the basics for me to expand my work knowledge in so many ways.
In one of my previous jobs I had to interview candidates for technician cadets. Of the 118 applicants only about 5 presented decent CVs. In another job I interviewed 3 potential apprentices, these having already spent some time at technical college. Some of the practical machining examples they presented were poor quality. (When I was an apprentice these would have been thrown in the bin and I would have been told in no uncertain terms what the instructor thought of it).
I am long now retired but I despair at the teaching standards these young people are getting, even to setting out a readable CV.
Post a Comment