IT Professionals submission on Vocational Education consultation

The Minister for Tertiary Education Hon Penny Simmonds commenced a consultation process on the re-reform of vocational education in 2024. IT Professionals members provided input into this process. Our submission was made following the submission format and is below (sorry it is very long so also in PDF format here). And yes I put key words in bold so the analysts reading this don’t get bored.

Proposal 1:  Creating a healthy ITP network that responds to regional needs

Do you agree with the consultation document’s statements on the importance of ITPs?

We agree with the importance of ITPs, especially for the digital technologies sector. ITPs are critical delivery partners for our industry, providing regionally accessible education that is responsive to local and national workforce needs. However, digital technologies must be explicitly recognised as an industry in its own right, alongside traditional trades like hairdressing and automotive. This recognition is vital for the sector to meet its growing workforce demands and its significant contribution to New Zealand’s GDP, wage growth, and innovation.

Our sector’s demand for a skilled workforce will increase, making vocational education, particularly through ITPs, more important. The polytechnic model must create "earn while you learn" pathways, such as cadetships and apprenticeships, to provide learners with practical, hands-on experience. These are especially valuable in our sector, where hands-on learning is required for many digital technology roles that cannot be delivered entirely online.​

 Additionally, we believe that the convergence of digital technologies and the creative sectors must be recognized in the new model. This convergence requires flexibility and innovation in qualifications, enabling learners to move fluidly between these two fast-evolving industries.

What do you consider to be the main benefits and risks of reconfiguring the ITP sector?

Benefits:

• The reconfiguration of the ITP sector can lead to greater financial sustainability and more responsiveness to regional and national workforce needs. The hub-and-spoke model offers the potential for ITPs to deliver consistent outcomes across the country while catering to the unique needs of different regions.

• ITPs can offer hands-on learning for digital technologies, which is crucial in areas like cybersecurity, networking, and software development, where theoretical knowledge must be paired with practical application

Risks:

• We are concerned that the re-separation of polytechnics could lead to a fragmented and confusing landscape for learners. There is a risk that learners may struggle to navigate inconsistent pathways across regions. We recommend a coordinating framework to ensure that fragmentation does not occur and that polytechnics are aligned across the country

• The digital technologies sector did not have a dedicated ITO under the previous model and was underserved in terms of workforce training. While the WDC model has improved engagement, any reconfiguration must not reduce support for our rapidly evolving industry.

Do you support creating a federation model for some ITPs?

Agree, While a federation model may provide stability for struggling ITPs, the effectiveness of the proposed federation model to maintain critical elements of the network of provision and its ability to achieve financial sustainability is still unclear and will depend greatly on final design decisions.

Further, it is crucial that digital technologies receive dedicated attention within any vocational education structure. As stated above we see it is important to not introduce fragmentation, that delivery models retain hands on learning opportunities and that pathways into the workforce are developed for digital tech. We are also concerned that the federation model does not create two classes of ITPs and learners do not suffer from poor education outcomes created by administrative overhead burdens.

What are the minimum programmes and roles that need to be delivered by the new ITP sector for your region?

For digital technologies, the minimum programs should include core IT skills such as cybersecurity, software development, and cloud technologies.

The ITP sector plays a vital role in providing skilled digital technology professionals to meet the growing demands of New Zealand's economy. To ensure continued relevance and effectiveness, the sector must maintain a strong alignment with industry needs and offer programs that equip graduates with the skills required for success.

To remain relevant and effective, the sector must adapt to the rapidly evolving digital landscape and prioritize the following:

·       Industry Alignment: Maintain strong partnerships with industry to ensure programs meet current and emerging demands.

·       Continuous Learning: Foster a culture of lifelong learning through flexible and modular programs, including micro-credentials to recognise specific skills and competencies.

·       Emerging Technologies: Incorporate emerging technologies like AI, machine learning, and cybersecurity into curricula.

·       Work-Integrated Learning: Expand opportunities for practical experience through internships, apprenticeships, and work-based projects.

·       SFIA Integration: Utilise the Skills Framework for Information Technology (SFIA) to ensure graduates possess the essential competencies required for success in the digital workforce.

Digital Technology Across All Industries

 Digital technology is no longer confined to the IT sector. It is a pervasive force that impacts virtually every industry. From manufacturing and agriculture to healthcare and education, organisations increasingly rely on digital solutions to improve efficiency, productivity, and innovation.

For example, the automotive industry requires highly skilled technology professionals to maintain and repair modern vehicles, which are becoming increasingly reliant on complex digital systems. Similarly, the healthcare sector needs skilled IT professionals to manage electronic health records, implement telemedicine solutions, and ensure data security.

By integrating digital technology into all industry programs, the ITP sector can equip graduates with the versatile skills needed to succeed in a wide range of careers. This will not only benefit individuals but also contribute to the overall competitiveness and innovation of the New Zealand economy.

What are the critical factors needed (including functions and governance arrangements) to best support a federation model?

The limited information included in the consultation document makes it challenging to answer this question in detail. At a high level the areas of focus design of a federation model must incorporate:

• clear governance structures,

• a coordinating framework for collaboration,

• industry engagement,

• centralised support for innovation,

• and a focus on financial sustainability to ensure that all regions and industries

Proposal 2: Establishing an industry-led system for standards-setting and industry training

Which option do you prefer overall?

• Option B replace WDCs with industry-specific standard-setting bodies

As an industry we found the WDC model to be a successful step forward, noting we previously had no ITO or direct relationships with NZQA. WDCs have been effective in providing clear engagement pathways and driving innovation in workforce development. In an ideal world we would like to see their scope expanded to include tertiary education – to help align vocational and tertiary education more effectively

We prefer Option B, which establishes specialised, industry-specific standards-setting bodies. We also note that in the digital technologies sector, adopting the SFIA (Skills Framework for the Information Age) framework is crucial. SFIA provides a global standard for digital skills, ensuring that qualifications align with evolving industry needs.

We also note in an industry led standards setting environment digital technologies and creative industries must be recognised as distinct industries with their own standards-setting bodies. Toi Mai has provided valuable industry insights and workforce development plans, and this engagement must continue to ensure qualifications are relevant and aligned with the rapidly changing needs of our sector.

Note – Digital Technologies must be recognised as a sector in our own right for this to be successful.

What are the main features and functions that Industry Training Boards (Option A) need to be successful? - We do not support Option A

Under Option A, how important is it that Industry Training Boards and non-Industry Training Boards be able to arrange industry training? - We do not support Option A

What are the main features and functions that industry standards-setters (Option B) need to be successful?

Industry standards-setters should:

• Include broad representation from across the country and ensure that professionals in digital technologies are well-represented. These sectors are global, fast-moving, and require qualifications that can adapt quickly to changing industry trends

• Incorporate the SFIA framework to align qualifications to align with global standards for digital skills

• Be equipped to handle workforce forecasting for the digital technologies and creative sectors, ensuring that qualifications reflect real-world demands

Are there any key features of the Workforce Development Councils that need to be retained in the new system?

If it was an option, we would support retaining the Workforce Development Councils (WDCs) in the new vocational education system and believe all of their functions are essential to ensure that workforce qualifications are aligned with industry needs. The most critical feature of WDCs is their strong industry engagement, which allows for a direct and meaningful relationship between industry stakeholders and the education sector. This engagement ensures that the qualifications and training pathways developed within the vocational education system are responsive to the rapidly changing demands of sectors like digital technologies.

WDCs have been instrumental in providing data-driven workforce development plans and fostering collaboration between education providers and industries. This alignment is crucial in our sector, where technological advancements and skill demands evolve quickly, making it necessary to have an agile system that can continuously update qualifications.

We are concerned that other parts of the government may not be as innovative or dynamic as the WDCs, especially when addressing the needs of future-focused industries like ours. Retaining WDCs' ability to innovate and their industry responsiveness is critical for sectors like digital technologies, which rely on continuous engagement to stay competitive in the global market.

In summary, the WDCs’ industry engagement, alignment of qualifications, and agility in addressing sector needs must be retained and expanded within the new system. Without these features, our industry risks falling behind in workforce development.

Are there any key features of how the previous Industry Training Organisations worked that should be re-introduced in the new system?

Since digital technologies did not have a dedicated ITO under the previous system, our sector was underserved in terms of workforce training and alignment of qualifications with industry needs. This gap has been significantly addressed by the creation of the Workforce Development Councils (WDCs), which have greatly improved industry engagement and workforce development for our sector. The WDCs have brought the structure and focus needed for industries like digital technologies to ensure that training pathways and qualifications are aligned with rapidly evolving sector demands.

While we cannot speak from experience about the previous ITO system in digital technologies, we believe the model of industry engagement, workforce alignment, and flexibility seen in the WDCs is critical and should be continued. Reintroducing any features from the ITO system must be done in a way that retains and expands the industry responsiveness that the WDCs have achieved.

In conclusion, for our industry, it’s more important to build on the progress made by WDCs rather than reintroduce elements from a system that did not adequately serve our needs.

What are the possible benefits and risks of having a short moratorium on new industry training providers while the new system is set up?

For the digital technologies sector, we are uncertain about the full implications of a moratorium on new industry training providers. The needs of our industry are unique, given the rapid pace of change and the continuous evolution of technology. As digital technologies did not have a dedicated Industry Training Organisation (ITO) in the previous system, it is difficult to predict how a moratorium might impact our sector.

Generally it would seem while a moratorium could provide stability during the system's transition, we are uncertain about its potential impact on the digital technologies sector. There is a risk that it could delay innovation and the introduction of new training solutions, which are essential for our rapidly evolving industry.

Proposal 3: A funding system that supports stronger vocational education

To what extent do you support the proposed funding shifts for 2026?

We agree – to a greater or lesser extent – with aspects of all three proposed funding changes in Proposal 3, which include restoring funding rates, incentivising ITP engagement with regional industries, and supporting standards-setting.

 However, targeted funding for digital technologies and diversity initiatives must continue. Our industry faces significant challenges in diversity, and recent targeted funding has helped improve inclusion by bringing more women, Māori, and Pacific workers into the learning system. Removing this funding would threaten this progress.

 Additionally, we strongly advocate for increased funding to develop and deliver work based learning and earn while you earn opportunities. We would like to see an increased allocation of funding for these pathways not a reduction.

 Further, digital technologies are critical to all industries, not just the IT sector. Targeted funding is essential to ensuring the adoption of digital skills across all industries. The funding model must support not only the growth of digital technologies but also the cross-sector adoption of these skills.

What benefits and risks need to be taken into account for these changes?

Potential Benefits:

• Alignment with Regional Needs: Restored funding rates and incentives for ITPs to engage with regional industries will ensure that programs meet local workforce demands, especially for digital technologies.

• Support for Standards-Setting: Funding for standards-setting will allow WDCs to continue aligning qualifications with rapidly evolving industry needs, ensuring relevant training for digital technologies

• Advancing Diversity: Continued targeted funding for digital technologies will help increase participation of women, Māori, and Pacific learners, addressing the sector’s diversity challenges

• Strengthening Work-Based Learning: Increased funding for work-based learning (cadetships/apprenticeships) will support the earn while you learn model, providing practical pathways into the workforce.

Potential Risks:

• Reduction in Diversity Funding: There is a risk that targeted funding for diversity in digital technologies may be reduced, threatening progress in workforce inclusion

• Underfunding of Work-Based Learning: Insufficient increases in funding for work-based learning pathways could limit the expansion of essential programs like apprenticeships and cadetships

• Delayed Cross-Sector Digital Skills Adoption: If funding for digital technologies does not prioritise cross-sector adoption, industries outside IT may struggle to develop necessary digital skills.

How should standards-setting be funded to ensure a viable and high-quality system?

Any reduction in funding for standards-setting would jeopardize the ability of the vocational education system to adapt to changing industry requirements, particularly in a fast-moving sector like digital technologies. We urge that funding be maintained or increased to support this vital function.

We are happy to participate in further discussions on this once more information is available.

How should the funding system recognise and incentivise the role that ITPs play in engaging with industry, supporting regional development, and/or attracting more international students to regions?

The funding system should recognise the vital role ITPs play in engaging with local industries and supporting regional development by aligning educational programs with workforce needs, particularly in fast-evolving sectors like digital technologies. Incentivising ITPs to strengthen their industry partnerships will ensure that qualifications remain relevant and meet local and national skill demands.

The results of the Targeted Trades Apprenticeship Fund (TTAF) as it goes through the system is  illustrative of what happens when government targets certain areas and provides extra funding. In digital technologies we saw an increase in both women and Māori participation at Level 5 programmes, an increase in start of year EFTS and a material drop in numbers after TTAF ended. This demonstrates the importance of targeted funding models in Vocational education.

If the government wants to continue to benefit from the high wage, export GDP and productivity growth digital technologies brings – the funding system needs to reflect these overall economic goals.

What role should non-volume-based funding play, and how should this be allocated?

Non-volume-based funding plays an essential role in ensuring that important educational initiatives, such as industry engagement, program innovation, and regional development, are adequately supported, regardless of student numbers. In the context of sectors like digital technologies, where the pace of change requires constant updates to curricula and qualifications, non-volume-based funding should be allocated to support the development of new qualifications, workforce alignment initiatives, and research into emerging industry trends. 

This type of funding should also target high-priority areas such as diversity initiatives, ensuring that underrepresented groups, including women, Māori, and Pacific peoples, are encouraged to pursue education and careers in digital technologies. By ensuring that funding is not solely tied to student volume, the system can maintain quality, flexibility, and responsiveness to industry needs.

Concluding questions

Could there be benefits or drawbacks for different types of students (e.g. Māori, Pacific, rural, disabled, and students with additional learning support needs) under these proposals?

The focus on regional delivery and industry-specific training, particularly in digital technologies, will benefit students from underrepresented groups. Digital tech offers significant growth opportunities for Māori and Pacific learners. Ensuring that digital technologies are well-represented in the vocational education system will open pathways to high-value careers for these students.

Could there be benefits or drawbacks from these proposals for particular industries or types of businesses?

For industries like digital technologies, the current proposals does not fully address the pace of change in skills development or the need for innovative, flexible training models. Digital sectors such as AI, data science, and cybersecurity require cutting-edge qualifications that can evolve quickly with industry demands. If the vocational education system continues to prioritise traditional, legacy sectors, we risk being left behind, particularly in preparing the workforce for the impact of AI and other disruptive technologies.

Meanwhile, digital technology education must become more accessible to all students. We need to move away from the idea that these critical skills are the exclusive domain of tertiary education. Instead, vocational pathways must open up access to digital skills early, making them available to a broader range of learners, including those in secondary education studying with an ITP and new work-based learning environments. By doing so, we ensure that more New Zealanders can benefit from opportunities in high-growth, future-focused industries.

In summary, while traditional industries may benefit from the proposed changes, the vocational education system must prioritize future-ready industries like digital technologies and make these skills more widely accessible across different educational pathways, not just tertiary institutions.

Are there any other ideas, models, or decisions for redesigning the vocational education system that the Government should consider?

In addition to current reforms, we strongly recommend that the Government revisit higher education as a whole, particularly in terms of pathways into the workforce. It is crucial to map out the skills industries need at all levels of the higher education sector, with a clear focus on digital skills across every industry.

For digital tech, this should involve mapping qualifications and workforce pathways against the SFIA (Skills Framework for the Information Age), which provides an internationally recognised structure for digital skills. This would ensure that learners across different educational levels can develop the necessary skills to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving workforce.

While the challenges within Te Pūkenga and the vocational education system are significant, we urge the Government to avoid short-term fixes or band-aid solutions. Instead, we should take this opportunity to design a long-term, impactful solution that addresses the structural issues and builds a resilient education system. By focusing on long-term, positive change and incorporating future-proof frameworks like SFIA, we can ensure that the vocational education system is prepared to deliver relevant skills to meet the needs of both learners and industry for years to come.