CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT
TRAINING SCHEMES: PROPOSED RULES AND EXEMPTIONS
August 2012
__________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
NZQA conducted two rounds of consultation on the rules for training scheme approval: 3-28
October 2011 and 15-30 March 2012. The consultation period for the exemptions was 29
June-10 August1. The training scheme rules and exemptions could therefore be finalised in
one inter-related decision.
Definition of training schemes
Training schemes were introduced in Education Amendment Act 2011. The legal definition
of a training scheme is:
study or training that —
(a)
leads to an award; but
(b)
does not, of itself, lead to an award of a qualification listed on the
Qualifications Framework. (section 159 Education Act 1989).
First Rules Consultation
The October 2011 consultation document explained:
 NZQA has the power to set rules for training scheme approval under the new section 253
of the Education Act 1989
 Universities New Zealand would approve university training schemes
 training schemes apply to providers in the international student market
 training schemes do not duplicate qualifications, but are available to international
students as a quality-assured alternative to qualifications
 training schemes would normally be short courses with fewer than 40 credits
 providers need programme or training scheme approval to accompany consent/s to
assess
 situations where providers would need to apply for training scheme approval.
Responses to the first consultation
The first round of consultation elicited 55 responses, which are listed in Appendix 1.
Some positive responses
Some respondents noted it was fair that training scheme approval should apply to the
international student market. Institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) commented
1
The consultation documents are available at http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/legislation/nzqarules/nzqa-rules-work-programme/nzqa-rules-progress-report/
1
that training schemes were a modification of quality assurance already in place for their short
courses, and that training schemes were an acceptable, mandated structure for providers
unable to deliver a programme leading to a qualification listed on the New Zealand
Qualifications Framework (NZQF).
Scope and Definition
Many respondents requested more information on the scope and definition of training
schemes:
 some did not like the term ‘training scheme’
 a request was made to define a training scheme in the rules, to let providers know what
they can do not just what they cannot
 a misunderstanding was evident that training schemes must be comprised of unit
standards. This was not stated in the consultation document
 respondents asked for examples of training schemes – Universities and English New
Zealand asked whether courses shorter than 12 weeks were training schemes. ITPs
asked if non-funded short courses and industry training organisation (ITO) block courses
were in the category
 some ITOs commented that only they should be allowed to design training schemes, not
providers.
Universities New Zealand response
Universities New Zealand asked NZQA to exercise its discretion under section 253 (4) of the
amended Act and exclude the universities from training scheme approval because, in the
Universities New Zealand view, training schemes were designed to address problems in the
non-university sector.
Link to TEC funding
Some respondents (13) commented that the consultation document did not provide
information on links to Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) funding. More information was
requested and ITPs asked NZQA to work with the TEC on funding ‘short awards’.
Use it within 12 months or lose it
Many respondents (17) commented that the legislative requirement that a training scheme
approval would lapse unless used within a continuous 12 months was too harsh, and would
prove difficult for providers and NZQA to manage when courses are offered infrequently.
Link to Consent to Assess
A number of respondents (14) were unhappy with the new statutory requirement that they
must apply for either training scheme or programme approval, to accompany their consents
to assess. Providers delivering flexible, unit standard-based, short courses considered that
training scheme [and presumably programme] approval added a layer of compliance that
was not warranted.
Compliance and flexibility
Around half of the respondents, including Universities New Zealand and the Metro Group of
ITPs, stated that the requirement for so many types of educational delivery to become a
training scheme, and the applications for approval that would result, would lead to excessive
compliance costs and delays in processing approvals. Some respondents (14) commented
that the proposed rules would over-regulate short courses, and that the approach was
compliance-heavy. ITPs and universities suggested that internal approval by their Academic
2
Boards should suffice. A number of providers (16) commented that the training schemes
proposal would impact negatively on their ability to respond flexibly to the needs of learners
and industry.
A response to a few instances of poor quality
Some providers (6) commented that the introduction of training schemes was a response to
poor quality from only a few providers in specific areas. Universities New Zealand
considered that quality problems were evident in other sectors, but not in universities.
Corporate training providers, that do not receive government funding, considered quality
issues lay with funded providers or in the international education sector. ITPs considered
that any quality issues lay in the PTE sector.
Duplication and confusion with NZQF qualifications
In the consultation questionnaire, NZQA asked how duplication and confusion between
training schemes and NZQF qualifications might be avoided. Suggestions included:
 the proposed rule that there must be ‘substantial difference’ between a training scheme
and a qualification was too vague and subjective
 keep the terms for qualification titles separate and not allow the words ’diploma’,
‘certificate’ and ‘graduate’ in training scheme titles. Respondents asked whether a
training scheme could contain the word ‘certificate’
 use the term ‘short course’ in the title
 do not allow training schemes of more than 40 credits
 acknowledge that training schemes can be more than 40 credits
 provide more clarity about whether training schemes can lead to qualifications and the
difference to programmes
 training schemes should not be listed on the NZQA website.
Commercial names in titles
NZQA proposed that the names of products or commercial organisations are not allowed in
the title of a training scheme. Two-thirds of the 23 respondents to this question argued that
names of organisations, including the provider or specific commercial organisations like
Microsoft, could be useful information for learners.
Threshold for demonstrating need
NZQA had proposed a lower threshold for demonstrating industry or learner need for a
training scheme, than for an approved programme. The majority responding to this question
agreed that a lower threshold was appropriate. However, one university and two ITOs
thought the standard should be no lower than for a qualification.
Additional rules needed?
NZQA asked whether additional rules were needed besides those proposed. Suggestions
included:
 rules for partnerships between ITOs and providers in the design of a training scheme
 a list of unit standards in the training scheme (Rule 4.1)
 how the NZQF level is determined
 the degree of electivity for selecting unit standards in a training scheme
 social benefits of training schemes
 how the scheme relates to other training schemes
 rules about how a training scheme can lead to a qualification.
3
Second Rules Consultation
The second round of consultation elicited 6 responses, which are listed in Appendix 2.
The second consultation addressed issues evident in responses to the first consultation,
following consultation with sector peak bodies in the intervening period. The main changes
to the proposed rules were:
 significantly lighter record-keeping requirements for moderation of assessment
 reduced requirements for information that is needed in the application for training scheme
approval from a Category 1 provider
 placing the approval criteria in the first part of the rules instead of an appendix. and
defining training schemes in the rules.
Along with the revised rules, NZQA provided a scope statement that clarified when a provider
must apply for training scheme approval and when they need not apply. The statement also
clarified that a provider could use its consents to assess without needing a training scheme
or programme approval.
Responses to the second consultation
NZQA received 6 responses to the second round of consultation. By and large, the
responses endorsed the amended rules, but there were still the issues outlined below.
Exemptions
The Committee for University Academic Programmes (CUAP) responded that they wished to
be exempted from the proposed rules on the information requirements for an application –
these include basic data such as credit, title and purpose, and a description of how the
institution meets the approval criteria.
An ITP responded that it was still unsure about which short courses would need training
scheme approval. A PTE requested an exemption for employer-driven, work-related
professional short courses for international students.
Use of the term ‘certificate’
An ITO commented that the ability to use the term ‘certificate’ in the title of an approved
training scheme would undermine qualifications listed on the NZQF.
PTEs needing at least one approved training scheme or programme
Some PTEs indicated they did not understand the reason for and/or disagreed with the new
requirement for PTEs to have at least one approved programme or one approved training
scheme.
Exemptions Consultation
NZQA consulted on exemptions to training scheme approval in June-August 2012 so that the
rules and exemptions could be finalised in one, inter-related decision.
The Education Act allows NZQA to make statutory exemptions from approval for some types
of training schemes that are less than three months in duration. In the consultation
document, NZQA proposed three exemptions from training scheme approval for: recreational
courses; corporate training; and study or training shorter than 100 hours.
4
Training schemes with a regulatory outcome would not be included in the exemptions, nor
would the exemptions apply where a PTE needed a training scheme approval to maintain its
registration as a PTE.
Responses to the exemptions consultation
NZQA received 26 responses to the exemptions consultation; these are listed in Appendix 3.
Universities should be exempt from training schemes
Universities New Zealand reiterated their view that university short courses should be exempt
from training scheme approval.
However, if this were not legally possible, they
recommended that rules should clarify that Universities New Zealand is responsible for the
requirements relating to training scheme approval for universities.
Regulatory training schemes are not exempt
Most respondents agreed that regulatory training schemes should not be exempt, but some
(3) argued that other checks should suffice, for example, moderation of unit standards or the
Liquor Licensing Authority, or Code Signatory status to protect international students.
Exempting ‘recreational’ training schemes is risky
NZQA proposed to apply an existing exemption for recreational programmes to training
schemes. A concern was raised that some international schools evade PTE registration by
packaging their courses as ‘recreational’; respondents saw this as anti-competitive and
posing risks to New Zealand’s international reputation.
Corporate training for more than one employer should be exempt
NZQA proposed to exempt corporate training to allow ‘just in time’, flexible courses to be
developed without requiring approval. Respondents agreed but a number (including
Universities New Zealand) asked for exemptions for ‘corporate training for one or more
workplaces’ (as the current wording implies corporate training designed for a single
employer).
There are risks in exempting short courses
NZQA proposed to exempt all providers from training scheme approval for courses shorter
than 100 hours. Many agreed, but some respondents believed this would allow unregistered
international schools to offer a greater variety and length of education courses. This is,
however, not legally possible; section 232A of the Education Act 1989 means that a PTE
must be registered as a PTE and a Code signatory to enrol an international student or permit
a international student to begin to undertake a programme or a training scheme, even if the
programme or training scheme is exempt.
The exemption should be longer - 100 hours is too short
Universities New Zealand recommended that the exemption should sit at 250 hours or three
months, whichever is longer. Prior to Education Amendment Act 2011, public institutions
were not required to have approvals for programmes shorter than three months.
The time-based exemption should be for a credit value
Some respondents wanted clarity on credit value rather than hours, suggesting there could
be problems identifying the actual length of training schemes in terms of total learning time.
5
NZQA responses to issues and concerns identified in the consultation
The final Rules for Training Schemes 2012 and the final NZQA Gazette Notice covering
training scheme exemptions are available on the NZQA Rules page
In finalising the rules and exemptions, NZQA has incorporated suggestions from respondents
and considered a response to important issues identified through the consultation.
Scope and definition. Since the first consultation, NZQA has worked with the sector to clarify
the scope and definition of training schemes. The term ‘training scheme’ is set in the
Education Act, but providers have the flexibility to use a variety of titles for their training
schemes. NZQA guidelines to training scheme approval will include possible examples of
training schemes, and the definition of a training scheme has been included in the rules.
NZQA has clarified that training scheme approval is not linked to retaining consents to
assess standards. It is also clear that components of existing approved programmes are not
training schemes, for example block courses delivered on contract to ITOs or university
Certificates of Proficiency.
Links to TEC funding. It is likely that most training schemes will be designed for international
students and therefore not funded by the TEC. However, NZQA and the TEC are aligned in
their approach; the TEC has confirmed to NZQA that providers seeking funding for short
courses must also seek training scheme approval.
Compliance concerns. NZQA has kept its compliance requirements appropriate to the nature
of training schemes. As noted above, the second iteration of the rules made significantly
lighter record-keeping requirements for moderation of assessment, and reduced
requirements for information needed in the application for training scheme approval from a
Category 1 provider.
Duplication with qualifications. NZQA will ensure that training schemes are not allowed to
duplicate qualifications listed on the NZQF. Training schemes can still legally be longer than
the minimum 40 credits required for a qualification, but developers must provide a good
reason for this (examples might be that the training scheme is especially designed for an
offshore context and not for New Zealand’s strategic needs) NZQA anticipates that the
distinction between qualifications and training schemes will become clearer as students and
providers become familiar with the concept of training schemes.
Titles of qualifications. NZQA has not weakened its initial proposal stopping commercial
names in training scheme titles, which is still allowed for a good reason (for example a
commercial name could be useful information for prospective students, or the branding may
be particularly important e.g. Microsoft). The term ‘certificate’ is also still allowed for training
schemes, as it would be unfair to stop providers using the term when unregistered training
businesses are allowed to do so under the Education Act 1989.
Application to universities. New wording has been agreed to describe how the rules apply to
universities, clearly acknowledging the statutory responsibility of Universities New Zealand
for training scheme approval.
Exemptions.
proposed:
NZQA has made minor modifications to the exemptions that were initially
6



the corporate training exemption will include training for more than one employer
the exemption for short courses will be for ‘fewer than 10 credits’, rather than for ‘100
hours’, to clarify that the course is defined in terms of total learning time irrespective of
format
the ‘recreational’ definition has been further simplified.
No other changes have been made to the exemptions as they were proposed.
NZQA has not agreed to exempt longer courses (such as 250 hours) because the intention of
the legislation was to regulate short courses for international students. The cut-off point
needs to sit below 40 credits, but at a reasonable level to cover significant investments by
international students.
It is worth noting that NZQA does, from time-to-time, investigate whether unregistered
providers are enrolling international students and using the exemptions regime as an excuse
for not registering. While there has not been a prosecution for such an offence, NZQA takes
this responsibility very seriously. In addition, NZQA is satisfied that robust Department of
Labour regulations and guidelines apply to recreational tourism activities run by education
providers and/or unregistered businesses.
7
Appendix 1
List of Consultation respondents to NZQA October 2011 Training Schemes Proposal
Name
1. NZ Defence
2. Graham Muir CPIT individual
3. NZIM Inc
4. Careerforce
5. EMQUAL
6. ETITO
7. FITEC
8. Bay of Plenty Polytechnic
9. CPIT
10. Eastern Institute of Technology
11. Manukau Institute of Technology
12. NMIT
13. Open Polytechnic
14. Tai Poutini Polytechnic
15. UCOL
16. Unitec
17. Waiariki
18. Wellington Institute of Technology
19. Whitireia
20. WITT
21. Metro Group of ITPs
22. New Zealand Association for Training and Development
23. NZIM
24. Above and Beyond Training
25. Agribusiness Training
26. AIS
27. Bedford Ave
28. Community Colleges NZ
29. Cornell
30. EMTC
31. International Travel College of NZ
32. Learn Plus
33. Marketable Skills. (David Craig Ltd)
34. NTTA.
35. NZSE
36. Promed
37. QED Associates
38. Quality Training and Assessment Ltd
Type
GTE
individual
individual
ITO
ITO
ITO
ITO
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP
ITP Peak body
Professional Body
Professional Body
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
8
39. Queens Academic Group
40. SARINZ
41. Solutions in Seafood
42. Strategi
43. Strive Limited
44. Taranaki Educare
45. Techtorium
46. Trade Education
47. Valley Education and Training Enterprises
48. Vertical Horizonz Group VGH
49. English NZ
50. NZAPEP
51. AUT
52. Lincoln University
53. Massey University
54. University of Auckland
55. Universities New Zealand
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE peak body
PTE peak body
University
University
University
University
Statutory body
Appendix 2
List of respondents to NZQA’s March 2012 Training Schemes Proposal
Name
1. ATTO
2. Agribusiness Limited
3. Master Drive
4. Committee on University Academic Programmes
5. Unitec
6. Refugee and Migrant Services
Type
ITO
PTE
PTE
Statutory body
ITP
PTE
9
Appendix 3
List of respondents to NZQA’s June-August 2012 Training Schemes Exemptions Proposal
Name
Type
1. Agribusiness Training
2. Alpha Training limited
3. Triple One Care
4. City First Aid
5. Duke Institute of Studies
6. World Bible College
7. Firetech
8. Frontline Training Consultancy
9. Industry Training Solutions
10. Industry Training Works
11. Mount Maunganui Language School
12. Search and Rescue Institute of New Zealand
13. Taupo Language School
14. TOSHA Industrial Training
15. Whitireia Community Polytechnic
16. Unitec
17. Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec)
18. Workforce Development Limited
19. Universities New Zealand
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
PTE
ITP
ITP
ITP
PTE
Statutory Body
10