For decades, New Zealand’s industry training system has been a poor cousin to the university system. In recent years, only about 6% of school leavers have undertaken apprenticeships. Nearly a third enrol in degree-level study at university.

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.

To read the full article on The Post website, click here.