Industry Training Review
Proposal to improve the performance of the Government’s
investment in industry training
Consultation Document
Executive summary
This consultation document seeks views on a proposal to make changes to the policy
settings for industry training following a review that commenced in 2011.
It is intended that the changes will create an environment that will better support trainee
achievement and progression through vocational education and training, by ensuring that
employers and trainees are well served by industry training organisations (ITOs) with
appropriate incentives.
The proposal was considered within the context of the wider vocational education and
training settings, and needs to be considered alongside ongoing operational policy changes.
The key proposed changes to industry training policy that the Ministry of Education are
seeking feedback on are as follows:

ITOs will focus on two key functions – arranging training and skill setting for industry.

Greater simplicity, accountability and clarity of the ITOs’ functions and roles.

Higher expectations for qualification completions and programme completions for ITOs.

Industry will have responsibility for communicating skill needs directly to Government to
create closer links between education, employment and industry.

Amalgamating all apprenticeships into the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, making the
same level of support available for all apprentices, regardless of age.

Raising the current 10% restriction on industry training at levels 5 and 6.

Either the Modern Apprenticeship co-ordination fee should be incorporated into the
Modern Apprenticeship training rate or kept as a separate rate.

Adjust to a more sustainable funding regime that increases the subsidy rate for
traineeships (programmes of 40 credits or greater) and introduces a new, higher subsidy
rate for apprenticeships (currently Modern Apprenticeships are 100 credits or greater). A
higher rate per trainee is being considered as part of the expectations for improved
performance.

Remove disincentives for allowing trainees to progress into employment and
apprenticeships from a provider, and for transferring into a provider to complete a
qualification if their employment situation changes.

Review quality assurance mechanisms to include management of the processes for
assuring consistency of graduate outcomes as a role of the qualification developer.

Review quality assurance systems for unit standards, with the view that, over time, new
versions will be flexible enough to be able to be delivered in a range of delivery settings.
The proposal focusses on changes to the policy for industry training. It is anticipated
legislative changes to the Industry Training Act 1992 and integrating aspects of the Modern
Apprenticeship Training Act 2000 will be needed to implement changes from 2014. Any
operational changes will be implemented progressively over 2013 and 2014.
A working party of sector and industry representatives, as well as government officials, will
work through the implementation issues once final policy decisions have been made.
Feedback can be submitted to tertiary.strategy@minedu.govt.nz. The deadline for providing
feedback is 12 September 2012.
2
Introduction
Purpose of this document
This consultation document seeks views on a proposal to change New Zealand’s industry
training system to improve its effectiveness for employers, trainees and the Government. The
proposal aims to address the problems identified through the review of industry training while
meeting the training needs of employers and employees, improving the clarity of training
pathways, and delivering better value for Government’s investment.
The proposal will be refined following the consultation process. We would like to hear your
views on the benefits and risks of this proposal for employers and trainees in your industry.
How to provide feedback
You can provide feedback by emailing: tertiary.strategy@minedu.govt.nz. The deadline for
providing feedback is Wednesday, 12 September 2012.
We are happy to receive feedback in an email, or you could use the feedback form at the end
of this document.
Process from here
The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment will consider feedback on this
proposal when making final decisions on changes to industry training. The Minister expects
to announce final decisions in November this year with the view that the new policy settings
will come into effect progressively during 2013 and 2014.
This proposal will require changes to the Industry Training Act 1992. It will also involve
integrating aspects of the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act 2000 into new industry training
legislation.
A working party, comprising sector and industry representatives as well as government
officials, will work through the implementation issues once final policy decisions have been
made.
3
Background to the proposal
What is industry training?
Industry training is systematic work-based training that leads to national qualifications. New
Zealand’s industry training system encompasses initial vocational training (apprenticeships),
foundation education, and continuing vocational education for employees.
Most industry training funding is for qualifications at levels 1 to 4 on the New Zealand
Qualifications Framework (NZQF). Government funding is focussed on the lower end of the
qualifications framework to incentivise employers to invest in training lower-skilled employees
towards full qualifications. Lower-skilled employees generally attract less investment from
employers than higher-skilled employees.
Industry training organisations (ITOs) are industry-owned bodies that support industry
training in New Zealand. ITOs currently have three main roles under the Industry Training Act
1992: setting skills standards for their industries, arranging training towards those skill
standards, and providing leadership within their industries on matters relating to skills and
training.
The Modern Apprenticeships scheme provides additional support to young people in long
industry training programmes at levels 3 and 4 of the NZQF. The additional support is
provided by Modern Apprenticeships Co-ordinators (MACs), who may be an ITO, a tertiary
provider, a group training scheme or an independent organisation.
There are currently 31 ITOs across a range of industries. In 2011, there were approximately
148,000 trainees enrolled.
Why does Government invest in industry training?
Government subsidises industry training to encourage employers to invest in training to upskill employees with broad and transferable skills that result in industry-recognised
qualifications. It is not intended as a straight subsidy for employers towards business-asusual activities.
Government’s investment in industry training is substantial – the 2012/13 baseline for
industry training (including Modern Apprenticeships) is $207.4 million. Industry training is cofunded with industry: Government provides approximately 70% of the cash cost of training,
while employers are expected to fund 30%. This recognises that industry training benefits
the employer as well as the individual and the wider economy.
Why is Government reviewing industry training?
New Zealand’s industry training system was reformed in 1991. It has been nearly 20 years
since the Industry Training Act 1992 was enacted, and 10 years since it was revised and the
Modern Apprenticeship Training Act 2000 enacted.
Compared to the previous apprenticeship system, the flexibility of industry training has
proven successful in responding to different employer needs and engaging new industries.
Structured industry training has been extended to many new industries and to individuals
who have not successfully undertaken education in the past.
4
However, there have been concerns about the performance of industry training. Less than a
third of trainees achieve a qualification five years after starting their industry training
programme. Between 2000 and 2010, an average of 53% of industry trainees and 36% of
modern apprentices achieved no credits even though they attracted a government subsidy.
In 2009, half of the credits trainees were enrolled in were achieved.
Beginning in 2010, the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) has undertaken a series of
compliance reviews of ITOs. These reviews identified that some ITOs were claiming funding
for ineligible trainees, including where there was no evidence of employment or that a valid
training agreement was in place. This has resulted in the TEC recovering $4.3 million in
funding from ITOs.
In response to performance issues and evidence of low-value provision, the TEC also made
a number of changes to operational policy settings. These changes include only funding
trainees who are appropriately progressing through their programmes and requiring evidence
of credit achievement.
The recent compliance and operational policy reviews have addressed some important
aspects of performance and the effective use of public funds, and performance of the ITO
sector has significantly improved, as figure one below shows. In 2010, following the TEC’s
operational changes, programme completions have increased to 65% and preliminary 2011
data indicates they have reached 70%.
A number of other policy changes were also agreed during 2010 to improve the link between
funding and performance, and to focus funding upon training with wider economic benefits.
The changes included the introduction of performance-linked funding; placing greater
emphasis on the rate of industry cash contribution for the purposes of recognising
organisations as ITOs; requiring literacy and numeracy as part of all level 1 and 2 training;
and removing funding for training primarily designed to fulfil regulatory compliance or health
and safety requirements.
In parallel with the TEC’s operational changes, the Minister asked for a wider policy review to
be undertaken to ensure that the policy principles of industry training support further
improvement of ITO performance, and are conducive to a better-performing vocational
education and training sector generally.
5
Figure 1: Participation and performance of industry trainees, 2006 – 2011
250,000
80
200,000
60
50
150,000
40
100,000
Percentage
Number of trainees/Modern apprentices
70
30
20
50,000
10
0
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
Industry trainees (LH axis)
Modern Apprentices (LH axis)
Credit weighted programme completion rate (%) (RH axis)
Credit achivement rate (%) (RH axis)
* 2011 results are preliminary.
Process of the review
The Ministry of Education commenced a policy review of industry training in 2011 to assess
whether the current model is still fit-for-purpose.
The Ministry looked at the history of industry training, made international comparisons,
consulted on a discussion paper of industry training systems, and used interviews and
surveys to gather feedback. Six papers produced during the course of the review can be
found at www.minedu.govt.nz using the quicklink on the right-hand side of the homepage.
Findings of the industry training review
The key themes that emerged through the review were:

ITOs vary in terms of the level of service they provide to employers and trainees, their
performance, and their connection with industry.

The industry training funding rate does not adequately support the level of theory learning
required in traditional apprenticeships (qualifications of 200 credits or greater at NZQF
levels 3 and 4 that provide entry into an occupation or trade).

Tensions between ITOs and tertiary providers have contributed to the proliferation of
qualifications and hindered easy transitions between sectors for learners.

The Modern Apprenticeships scheme, which provides additional support to young people
in specific industry training programmes, lacks accountability.

Transferring to a different part of the tertiary sector part-way through a qualification, for
example, changing from a polytechnic programme to employment and an apprenticeship,
can be difficult, and vice versa.
6
Proposal for consultation
While this proposal is focussed on industry training, the review has been conscious of the
impacts that changes to industry training will have upon the wider vocational education and
training sector.
You are welcome to provide feedback on all aspects of the proposal.
The table on page 11 provides the elements of the proposal, how it changes from the status
quo, rationale for each element and feedback questions for consideration.
Summary of proposal
ITO functions and role
1. The first key focus for ITOs is to provide excellent support and service to employers and
trainees, resulting in the successful achievement of qualifications.
2. The second key focus for ITOs is to undertake the standard-setting function for their
respective industries.
3. The Government would have higher expectations of qualification and programme
completions for ITOs.
4. Industry will have responsibility for communicating skill needs directly to Government,
with support by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the
TEC, to create closer links to education, employment and industry.
5. A more sustainable funding regime would be put in place that increases the subsidy rate
for traineeships and introduces a new, higher subsidy rate for apprenticeships. A higher
rate per trainee is being considered as part of the expectations for improved
performance.
6. All apprenticeships will be amalgamated into the Modern Apprenticeships scheme,
making the same level of support available to all apprentices regardless of age. The
definition of an apprenticeship will be clarified.
7. Feedback is sought on whether the Modern Apprenticeships coordination fee should be
incorporated into the training rate for apprentices, or whether it should be kept as a
separate fee.
8. The current 10% restriction on training at levels 5 and 6 will be raised.
Transferability across tertiary sectors
9. To encourage greater transferability of learning between ITOs and providers, the TEC will
remove disincentives from transferring between industry training and provider courses by
recognising continuation of a qualification across sub-sectors as a positive outcome.
7
Quality assurance
10. Feedback is sought on how moderation and consistency of graduate outcomes should be
managed and funded in future. Possible options are:

for external moderation, only applying to standards relating to skills critical to an
occupation as identified by industry

removing the credit rebate for external moderation and funding the qualification developer
to manage consistency of graduate outcomes using this funding

introducing a small levy to enable the qualification developer to manage consistency of
graduate outcomes.
11. The NZQA intends to review its rules and guidelines for setting unit standards. Over-time,
as unit standards are redeveloped, new versions will be flexible enough to be
contextualised to a range of settings rather than developing new standards for each
setting. NZQA will be consulting later in the year on rules for recognition of prior learning.
What will the proposal mean for employers, trainees and industry?
Employers
Employers should see a more consistent level of service and support from ITOs. Employers
should expect a greater degree of mentoring to assist in training employees, more support
for trainees and apprentices to keep them on track, and a greater level of assessment
services being provided by ITOs or organisations contracted by ITOs.
ITOs will be expected to communicate with employers more clearly and in a timely manner
about progress of trainees and apprentices towards qualifications.
The consolidation of the ITO sector should reduce the compliance costs for employers
currently dealing with multiple ITOs and reduce duplication of effort.
Employers will be expected to support trainees and apprentices towards completion of
qualifications.
Trainees and apprentices
Trainees and apprentices should see a higher level of support for their learning from ITOs or
organisations contracted by ITOs. Trainees and apprentices who need a higher level of
assistance should see a higher level of contact and pastoral care.
A higher subsidy for apprenticeships is anticipated to result in higher quality theory and offjob learning for apprentices.
Students should see better pathways to transfer between ITOs and tertiary providers, and
vice versa.
Industry
Industry groups will have a clearer and more direct way to communicate their skill needs to
Government and to influence government funding of tertiary education.
8
Industry should see a greater return on its investment in industry training, as a greater
proportion of trainees will be upgrading their skills. The proposal is likely to result in fewer
enrolled trainees than would have been the case under the old settings, but many more of
these trainees will be earning credits and completing qualifications.
It is anticipated that there will be a greater proportion of younger trainees overall in industry
training, because young people are more likely to complete full qualifications.
Industry should see larger and more competent ITOs developing fit-for-purpose standards
and qualifications.
9
Outline of the proposal
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
1. ITOs focus on
providing excellent
service and support
to employers and
trainees.
ITOs arrange training and are prohibited
from delivering training. The boundary
between arranging and delivery is blurred.
ITOs will continue to support training in the workplace
through:
ITOs will be able to undertake the
activities employers most value –
providing support for on-job training.
ITOs vary in the type and level of support
they provide to employers and trainees.





developing learning materials
training and mentoring workplace trainers
supporting the learning of trainees
providing assessment services
contracting tertiary providers to deliver the
theory, or off-job, learning.
Clarifying expectations about the level of
support provides transparency for
employers and addresses variability in
ITO support for training.
Through the investment plan guidance, government will
set clear expectations around the support employers
and trainees should expect from ITOs.
ITOs will be able to focus on support for
on-job training and explore innovative
ways of meeting industry demand for
training.
ITOs will be expected to assist in planning how a
qualification can be achieved within a company to
assess learner needs to ensure they are enrolled in an
appropriate programme with the right kind of support,
and to provide timely and regular feedback to employers
and trainees on their progress through programmes.
Clearly articulating what constitutes
arranging training removes uncertainty
about the boundary between arranging
and delivery of training.
Feedback question: In your view, what are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of retaining the arranging training role of ITOs
and clarifying expectations of service to employers and trainees?
10
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
2. ITOs focus on the
standard-setting
function for their
respective industries.
ITOs collaborate with industry on the
development of skill standards.
ITOs will continue to collaborate with industry on the
development of skill standards and qualifications.
Many standards are very small and relate
to discrete tasks rather than skills.
Industry skill standards are a public good. ITOs will no
longer be able to require other organisations to adopt
their learning and assessment materials.
Significant change to the standard-setting
function has not been proposed as
feedback noted that employers highly
valued it.
Some ITOs require that other
organisations adapt their learning and
assessment material if they offer the ITOdeveloped standard, which disincentivises the adoption of common
standards across the tertiary sector.
The qualification development process remains the
same as it is now, including the implementation of the
Targeted Review of Qualifications.
Allowing tertiary providers and other ITOs
to contextualise learning and assessment
for their delivery settings removes a
barrier to the adoption of common
standards across the vocational education
system. This will help learners to
transition between sectors.
ITOs set standards both through the
individual standards and through
qualification development of National
Certificates.
Feedback question: In your view, what are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of retaining ITOs’ standard-setting function and
allowing tertiary providers and other ITOs to use ITO-developed standards more freely?
11
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
3. Higher
expectations of
qualification and
programme
completions for ITOs.
Current performance expectations for
ITOs are reasonably low – the only
expectation in the investment plans with
clear consequences is that each trainee is
expected to achieve at least one credit
per year. ITOs are also subject to
potential loss of up to 5% of government
funding through performance-linked
funding.
The Government would expect higher qualification and
programme completion rates in industry training. The
TEC would shift funding over time away from
programmes with very low completion rates. There
would also be higher expectations of progression from
level 2 qualifications to levels 3 and 4 qualifications,
which provide greater career benefits to trainees.
Higher expectations of qualification
completions will be needed to meet the
Better Public Services target of 55% of 25to 34-year-olds having a qualification at
level 4 or above in 2017.
Feedback question: What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of increasing the expectations for ITOs of qualification and
programme completions?
12
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
4. Industry will be
responsible for
communicating skill
needs to
Government, with
support from MBIE
and the TEC.
ITOs have a skills leadership role in the
Industry Training Act 1992, but it is not
clearly defined.
The statutory skills leadership role would be removed.
Industry groups would work directly with MBIE and the
TEC to communicate industry’s skill needs.
Remove duplication of effort between
ITOs and industry groups relating to skills
planning.
ITOs will still be able to contribute to skills leadership by
industries, alongside other stakeholders.
Focus ITOs on the roles that industry
values most – standard setting and
arranging training.
Industry groups will communicate more
directly with government agencies about
their training and skill needs.
Feedback question: What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of transferring the skills leadership function to industry?
13
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
5. A more
sustainable funding
regime that
increases the
subsidy rate for
traineeships and
introduces a new,
higher subsidy rate
for apprenticeships.
ITOs are funded according to how many
trainees they arrange training for and the
size and length of the training
programmes those trainees are
undertaking. ITOs have flexibility on how
they use their funding across their roles.
The standard training measures rate for
2012 is $2,919 with a maximum of $1,702
able to be claimed for the maximum 70
credits to be achieved per year.
It is proposed that there will be two funding rates for
industry training – a lower rate for traineeships
(programmes of 40 credits or greater at NZQF levels 1
to 4) and a higher rate for apprenticeships (currently
Modern Apprenticeships are 100 credits or greater).
Provide a sustainable funding regime. In
the past, some ITOs have relied on both
active and inactive trainees to sustain their
operations. This is no longer possible.
Note, proposal 7 requests feedback on whether the
MAC fee should be built into the apprenticeship training
rate.
ITOs are invited to provide costings for training to inform
modelling of changes to the funding rate.
Provide a higher subsidy for
apprenticeships to recognise the higher
level of theory learning required as part of
these programmes, and incentivise
greater uptake of apprenticeships, which
has the highest rate of return for trainees,
employers and Government.
Any funding changes will be met from within baselines
and incorporated into Budget 2013.
The principle of co-funding by industry will continue and
employers will be expected to contribute 30% of the
cash cost of training.
Feedback question: What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of introducing a higher subsidy rate for apprenticeship
training?
14
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
6. Amalgamating all
apprenticeships into
the Modern
Apprenticeships
scheme, making the
same level of support
available for all
apprentices,
regardless of age.
Apprenticeships are currently
differentiated between Modern
Apprenticeships for those aged 16 to 21
and others undertaking apprenticeship
programmes.
Apprenticeship support would be extended to all
apprentices regardless of age.
Those undertaking apprenticeship
programmes should receive adequate
support and service, regardless of age.
Modern Apprenticeships are currently
qualifications of 100 credits or more, at
NZQF levels 3 or 4.
The definition of an apprenticeship, including credit
values and duration, will be clarified.
Apprenticeships would still be targeted to young people,
but not mandated.
Industry training can be an effective way
of engaging in education, particularly for
those who have not been in employment,
education or training, of which a significant
proportion are aged 20 to 24 years.
A standard definition of an apprenticeship
will provide greater clarity to ITOs and
employers.
Feedback question: What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of extending apprenticeship support to all apprentices,
regardless of age?
15
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
7. Either incorporate
the MAC fee into the
training rate for
apprentices, or keep
it as a separate fee.
MACs receive a fee for every learner who
qualifies for the Modern Apprenticeships
scheme. The fee does not vary according
to the size of the programme the modern
apprentice is undertaking.
Two options are proposed for feedback:
Combining the co-ordination fee simplifies
funding for apprenticeships.
ITOs, tertiary providers, and independent
organisations can be MACs. ITO MACs
receive $1,777 (GST excl) per modern
apprentice, while non-ITO MACs receive
$1,956 (GST excl) per modern apprentice.
MACs visit modern apprentices four times
a year, they provide advice to employers
and modern apprentices, and may work
with schools to transition students into
apprenticeships. MACs are not
accountable for modern apprentice
qualification completions.
1. the co-ordination fee is incorporated into the
apprenticeship rate
2. the co-ordination fee is not incorporated into the
apprenticeship rate, and ITOs are given
responsibility for managing apprenticeship coordination contracts.
Both options shift responsibility to ITOs,
which are the organisations responsible
for qualification completions.
If apprenticeship support remains separate, payments
may be staggered according to recruitment, retention
and completion.
The funding baseline will remain the same.
Feedback question: Which of these two options is more likely to result in better service to employers and apprentices and why?
16
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
8. Raising the current
10% restriction on
training at levels 5
and 6.
ITOs have a cap of 10% of their total
allocation for arranging training above
level 4.
The 10% cap will be raised to 15% to 20% for training at
levels 5 and 6.
Industry training can be an effective and
efficient way to deliver higher levels of
training.
Supporting higher levels of training
through industry training will likely
contribute to increases in productivity and
greater returns for both the firm and the
learner.
Increasing the amount of high-level
industry training will contribute to the
Government’s Better Public Services
target to increase the number of 25- to 34year-olds with a level 4 qualification or
greater.
Feedback question: What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of allowing a greater volume of industry training at levels 5
and 6?
17
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
9. Remove
disincentives to
transferring between
industry training and
provider courses by
recognising
continuation of a
qualification across
sub-sectors as a
positive outcome.
Providers are measured on four
educational performance indicators (EPIs)
– retention, progression, course
completions and qualification completions.
ITOs are measured on credit achievement
and programme completions
(respectively).
For providers, employment and progression into an
apprenticeship will not be treated punitively. Only
course completions will be measured for those learners.
Employment and progression into an apprenticeship will
not count as an unsuccessful qualification completion.
Employment or continuation of education
is a positive outcome.
The EPIs are per institution and do not
recognise successful outcomes if learners
transfer between sub-sectors (i.e. a
polytechnic student progresses to
employment and apprenticeship, or an
employee loses their job and wants to
complete their qualification at a provider).
For ITOs, credit achievements will be measured for
trainees who may leave employment but re-engage in
education through a provider. This will not count as an
unsuccessful programme completion.
Feedback question: What are the benefits and risks of this approach for learners who transfer between tertiary sectors?
18
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
10. Lead qualification
developers will
manage the process
for assuring the
consistency of
graduate outcomes.
ITOs and tertiary providers internally
moderate their own assessments.
Qualification developers will manage the process for
assuring the consistency of graduate outcomes across
those qualifications they have developed.
A mechanism is needed to provide
assurance that the outcomes achieved by
graduates awarded a New Zealand
qualification meet the graduate profile and
are comparable, regardless of the
programme undertaken. This will give
confidence to learners, employers and
industry in the qualification and the
programmes leading to it.
ITOs externally moderate the assessment
of standards that are offered by tertiary
providers and by other ITOs. They receive
a credit rebate to enable them to do this.
Qualifications are developed in a
collaborative way with a designated
qualification developer. The qualification
developer is responsible for co-ordinating
the process to manage consistency of the
outcomes of their qualifications. NZQA is
responsible for addressing concerns
about tertiary providers’ performance.
Managing consistency is not currently
funded.
We are seeking feedback on how external moderation
and managing consistency of graduate outcomes should
be conducted and funded in the future. Possible options
are:
1.
Applying external moderation only to standards
relating to skills critical to an occupation as
identified by industry (e.g. welding within an
engineering apprenticeship). The credit rebate
would only apply to these standards.
2.
Removing the credit rebate for external
moderation, with some of this funding used to
enable qualification developers to manage
consistency of graduate outcomes.
3.
Introducing a small levy to enable the qualification
developer to manage consistency of graduate
outcomes.
External moderation of assessment is
important for the core technical skills
within a qualification. Industry needs
assurance that assessments are fair and
valid and that learners with these
standards are consistently competent.
Feedback question: How should external moderation and managing consistency of graduate outcomes be conducted and funded to ensure learners are
consistently competent while minimising compliance costs and enhancing collaboration across tertiary sectors?
19
Proposal
Status quo
Detail on the proposal
Rationale for proposal
11. Review of unitstandard qualityassurance settings
will be undertaken
with the view that
unit standards will be
flexible and able to
be contextualised to
different settings.
There is currently a large number of unit
standards on the New Zealand
Qualifications Framework, some of which
cover the same skills but are specific to
certain settings (e.g. they have to be
delivered in a work environment).
NZQA will review its requirements for unit standards
with the view that, over time, as unit standards are
redeveloped, unit standards will be robust and flexible,
and be able to be assessed in a range of different
settings.
To incentivise the adoption of unit
standards, and implicitly, a common
currency for vocational education and
training that spans both the secondary
and tertiary sectors.
Government expects industry skill standards to be more
clearly focused on learning outcomes.
Unit standards will be more fit-for-purpose
and able to be contextualised to a range
of settings.
Some unit standards reflect transferable
skills that are individualised to particular
settings, causing a high level of
duplication and proliferation of unit
standards.
Industry skill standards are a public good. ITOs will no
longer be able to require other organisations to adopt
their learning and assessment materials.
Duplication and proliferation of unit
standards will reduce, creating a simpler
standards system, and greater clarification
for learners and employers.
A common currency of skill recognition will
assist in recognition of prior learning and
of school-to-tertiary transitions (particularly
the Vocational Pathways), and can be
recorded in a single place (the Record of
Achievement).
Feedback questions:
Will the proposal incentivise greater uptake of unit standards in providers?
What other issues disincentivise the adoption of unit standards?
Do you agree that vocational education and training should have a common currency for learning and skills?
20
Feedback form
Please email your feedback to tertiary.strategy@minedu.govt.nz by Wednesday, 12
September 2012. Please take as much space as you need to provide your feedback.
The questions are a guideline only – please feel free to comment on any aspect of
the proposal.
1. In your view, what are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in
your industry of retaining the arranging training role of ITOs and clarifying
expectations of service to employers and trainees?
2. In your view, what are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in
your industry of retaining ITOs’ standard-setting function and allowing tertiary
providers and other ITOs to use ITO-developed standards more freely?
3. What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of
increasing the expectations for ITOs of qualification and programme
completions?
4. What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of
transferring the skills leadership function to industry?
5. What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of
introducing a higher subsidy rate for apprenticeship training?
6. What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of
extending apprenticeship support to all apprentices, regardless of age?
7. Which of these two options for the apprenticeship co-ordination fee is more
likely to result in better service to employers and apprentices and why?
8. What are the benefits and risks for employers and trainees in your industry of
allowing a greater volume of industry training at levels 5 and 6?
9. What are the benefits and risks of recognising completions for learners who
transfer between tertiary sectors?
21
10. How should external moderation and managing consistency of graduate
outcomes be conducted and funded to ensure learners are consistently
competent while minimising compliance costs and enhancing collaboration
across tertiary sectors?
11. Will NZQA reviewing its quality assurance settings for unit standards
incentivise greater uptake of unit standards in providers? What other issues
disincentivise the adoption of unit standards? Do you agree that vocational
education and training should have a common currency for learning and
skills?
22