The vocational education system has been the subject of substantial change and uncertainty over the past few years, as successive governments impose their own philosophical and ideological views on this training environment. By Alan Pollard, CEO, CCNZ.
The previous Labour Government set about disestablishing regional polytechs and industry training organisations and folding them into Te Pukenga, while separating out standard setting and qualification design into a series of Workforce Development Councils (WDCs), in our case, Waihanga Ara Rau.
In my view the WDC model was a success, with industry and WDCs working well together in the best interests of industry learners, and having a direct connection with the funder, the Tertiary Education Commission.
The incoming National Government campaigned on disestablishing WDCs and Te Pukenga. Since the Coalition was elected, the Vocational Education Minister Hon. Penny Simmonds has proceeded on a pathway to implementing this policy.
Prior to Christmas, CCNZ submitted on the Government’s proposals for vocational education and training. To be clear, our preferred option was to retain Waihanga Ara Rau for the reasons stated above. Of concern to us and other similar industries was that the initial consultation proposal was heavily focused on classroom-based training, and the resurrection of regional polytechs as a critical part of training delivery (despite their historically poor financial performance).
We submitted that the documentation largely ignored the critical role of work-based training which our industry relies on, and the leadership role for polytechs could not be relied upon given the instability and uncertainty that will continue to surround that sector for the next few years.
To her credit, the Minister acknowledged this shortcoming in the consultation documentation and reopened a second round of consultation specifically for work-based learning.
A second consultation document was presented with two options. The first option (which, in the face of having to choose, we preferred in the first consultation round) pulls apart the Workforce Development Councils and reconstitutes them as Industry Skills Boards (ISBs).
The role of the ISBs would be to develop industry qualifications and standards, moderate assessments and ensure programme consistency, conduct workforce analysis and planning, provide investment advice to TEC, and not be directly involved with employers and their learners. This is pretty much what the WDCs did.
The second option being considered is called a ‘collaborative work-based learning model’, where regional polytechs play a greater role and where there are multiple points of contact for trainees and employers. It is a complex option, it duplicates tasks, and it will be expensive to administer. Of concern, polytechs would take a greater role in learner pastoral care. To be frank, polytechs have traditionally only been concerned with “bums on seats” and are used to dealing with learners whose sole focus is the classroom.
For our learners, their training experience is happening while they have a full-time job and often have other community responsibilities. The polytechs are simply not geared up to, nor qualified to, provide pastoral care for our learners. Equally, they do not have the industry-experienced and qualified staff available to support the learning outcomes our sector needs.
Previous attempts by polytechs to deliver infrastructure-specific training to trainees in work have been poor, failed to meet learner needs and created disengagement.
Either way, under both options government funding support will be significantly reduced. This makes little sense at a time when the government should be increasing its training investment to support our next generation of workers who will deliver the productivity and economic growth that the Government is targeting.
CCNZ has led an initiative to bring together what we are referring to as the Infrastructure sector – civil construction, water, electricity/energy, and extractives, to make a joint and united submission on the proposals. Rebecca Fox, our Workforce Development Manager, has done some outstanding work, alongside Water New Zealand, to pull the submission together.
Our collective submission supports the first option, with a caveat – we are promoting a specific infrastructure focused ISB (distinguishing infrastructure from vertical construction which is the current case).
Work-based learning must meet the needs of industry and trainees, and industry needs to have full oversight of this system. This model is referred to as integrated work-based learning. We further propose Connexis become our private training entity in whatever ownership structure is appropriate.
We do not support the second option. The risks associated with this option relate to the complexity of the proposal. A heavy reliance on polytechs to deliver for work-based training sectors just isn’t practical, especially when they are so unstable and likely to remain so for some time. In our view, the complexity is such that industry training may significantly reduce if that option is chosen as employers and trainees disengage with the model.
This level of disengagement has the potential to be high and, in our view, risks the collapse of the NZ Qualifications Framework, our national education standard. We could lose national training standards and revert to local, or employer-led standards of training. This inconsistency would not have favourable impacts for the sector.
We met with the Minister and TEC, with some other sectors present, on 3 February, and our Infrastructure group is meeting with the Minister again on 12 March.
Full submissions were due 21 February. We will make one submission signed by the CEOs of CCNZ, Water New Zealand, Electrical Engineers, Electricity Networks, Straterra, and AQA/Minex.
Ultimately, wherever we land, the system must deliver the best possible training outcomes for our learners, employers, and industry. It must be simple and easy to engage with and offer a cost-effective solution. Importantly, the ongoing uncertainty and constant changes in the vocational education and training sector must stop – employers are suffering from change fatigue, and those employed in the vocational education sector have had enough of being pawns in political chess games.
As the civil construction market starts to recover, hopefully later this year, businesses must be able to scale up quickly to recover the capacity lost in the restructuring that has taken place in the past year or so. Access to high quality, relevant, and affordable vocational education and training is a key ingredient.
Parting words from Jeremy Sole- a final column