Submission to the Ministry of Education: OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF WORK-BASED LEARNING

We welcome the opportunity for further engagement on proposed Vocational Education and Training (VET) reform. It is critical that further reform of the VET sector makes meaningful changes that set the system up to improve outcomes, and does not create further instability and uncertainty for employers and learners, after the past six years of ongoing reform. 

Which of the two models – Independent or Collaborative work-based learning – does your organisation prefer? 

BCTF’s preference is for the Independent Work-based Learning model, ideally with some further refinement. We do not support the Collaborative model. 

Why will your preferred model, the Independent Work-based Learning model, work best for employers and learners in work-based learning? 

It would bring significantly less disruption in the transition than under the Collaborative model (see below); it would be simpler and easier for learners and employers, especially those currently in the system. 

In particular, it maintains a single point of contact for learners and employers, i.e. with their respective training providers. Shifting responsibility for pastoral care to Industry Skills Boards (ISBs) under the Collaborative model adds an additional point of contact, which adds complexity and uncertainty for employers and learners, and may lead to their disengagement and attrition. 

From a common-sense perspective, responsibility for pastoral care much more naturally sits with training providers, who are closest to learners, than a third party like ISBs. 

The Independent model enables more choice in the training provision market by allowing for ITOs to ultimately become training providers (with support of their respective industries, and subject to eligibility for TEC funding). This would enable existing ITO capability to be retained and their role to be extended to include delivery of training that is truly industry-owned and led and can become a model for other training providers. This would mean industry is positioned to influence not only standards setting but also training delivery, which would move the dial on outcomes sought by further VET reform. By comparison, the Collaborative model would result in the disbanding of ITOs and the loss of their proven capability around work-based learning. 

The Independent model is essentially the same as the option known as 2B in the August 2024 consultation, which BCTF supported on the basis that it moves the model further in the direction of industry-led standards setting and assurance. However, as per our previous submission, we believe there are some further enhancements required to this model to enable it to move the dial on delivering outcomes. In particular, we continue to advocate for accountability for final sign-off on all standards to sit with respective industry peak bodies rather than with NZQA to ensure that standards-setting is truly industry-led, rather than government-facing.