Hmm, this post was supposed to go on my subscription site, ED Insider, but I posted it here by mistake. Oh well, there’s a first time for everything – I hope ED Blog readers enjoy it

This Parliament Report covers the week ending 19 November. TEC has released new plan summary requirements for TEOs. ESITO and Tranzqual have been granted re-recognition (latter provisional).

Relevance: Medium relevance to all TEOs for plan summary requirements. Low relevance for those dealing with ESITO, Tranzqual, Psychologist Board and Council of Legal Education.

The Facts

• The Education and Science Committee met last week to consider the State Sector Management Bill. This week they will look at the MOE and NZ Teachers Council financial reviews and consider two petitions on medical radiation technologists and medical imaging (about Unitec’s placement of a course and whether they should go to the university sector).
• Oral Questions None relevant.
• Written Questions (answers in brackets if available).
• Labour MPs have asked a series of new questions, as follows.
  • Iain Lees-Galloway asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Manawatu, Whanganui and Taranaki regions in the Jun 10 quarter.
  • Chris Hipkins asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Wairarapa region in the Jun10 quarter.
  • Chris Hipkins asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Hutt Valley region in the Sep 10 quarter.
  • Mita Ririnui asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Bay of Plenty, Waiariki and Tairawhiti regions in the Jun 10 quarter (not all questions asked).
  • Mita Ririnui  asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Gisborne, Hawkes Bay and Central Plateau regions in the Jun 10 quarter (not all questions asked).
  • Grant Robertson asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Institute of Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Mana region in the Jun 10 quarter.
  • Grant Robertson asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Institute of Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Otaki region in the Jun 10 quarter.
  • Grant Robertson asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Institute of Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Wellington region in the Jun 10 quarter.
  • Clare Curran asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Southern region in the Sep 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
  • Jacinda Ardern asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP in the Auckland region in the Sep 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
  • Clayton Cosgrove asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Marlborough region in the Sep 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
  • Clayton Cosgrove asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Kaikoura region in the Sep 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
  • Chris Hipkins asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Hutt Valley region in the Oct 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
  • Chris Hipkins asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Wairarapa region in the Oct 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
  • Iain Lees-Galloway asked how many people were enrolled in industry training, a Modern Apprenticeship or an ITP (“broken down by Technology or Polytechnic”) in the Manawatu, Whanganui and Taranaki regions in the Sep 10 quarter (Data not yet available).
• Brendon Burns (Labour) asked, in relation to groundwater research, about funding over the last six years (adds to about $12m), whether the funding cycle has been cut from six to three years (no, but is complex) and whether there has been a 28% decline in funding (probably not).
• Gazette.
  • Derek Nolan, Philip Thomson and Jamie Eng have all been appointed for 3 years to the NZ Council of Legal Education by the Attorney-General.
  • Dr Frederick Seymour and Dr Lois Surgenor have been reappointed for 5 months to the Psychologists Board.
  • The Electricity Supply ITO has been granted recognition for a further five years, from 16 Oct 2010. Industry coverage remains the same.
  • Tranzqual has been granted provisional recognition for two years, from 16 October 2010. Industry coverage remains the same.
  • TEC has released new plan summary requirements, replacing a 2008 version. Plan summaries must be made publicly available. The key changes are noted below.
    • The context section must now include: mission, role and functions; how educational performance will improve (replacing ”organisational capability development”); more specific detail on stakeholders (Maori, Pacific, under 25, and industry/employees); any key initiatives related to outcomes sought; and background info on the organisation and operating environment. TEIs must include a full forecast statement of service performance.
    • The summary of activity must now include a brief description of non-funded activities.
    • Performance commitments must be provided in more detail, including: how stakeholders’ needs will be met (Maori, Pacific, under 25, and industry/employees); how educational performance will be improved for SAC/ITF; and any key initiatives.
    • Information may be withheld if it is a trade secret, or would prejudice the commercial position/activities of the organisation (was just OIA in 2008).

Our Take

• The new TEC plan summary requirements have considerable changes, but none of them should be very problematic. The broader brush by which TEOs (especially non-public ITOs and PTEs) can withhold data will be welcomed by TEOs. Others may be upset, but we’re not aware of a large demand for plan summaries…
• We will find out why Tranzqual has provisional recognition.
• Labour continues with their questions, but many have already been turned back because data is not yet available. Congrats to Grant Robertson for fixing his questions so that they make sense RE ITP breakdown.

Dave Guerin’s recent blog on ITOs hitting a rough patch is largely fair comment.

We all know that well over a decade ago the then government embarked on a journey to “get more people into tertiary education.”  That strategy was all about quantity and in an uncapped funding system fuelled by a buoyant economy the entire education system lapped up the resulting bums-on-seats taxpayer funded largesse.  There was a massive proliferation of qualifications, programs and new entities (not all with quality education as their primary focus I might add!).  Many sprang up in relatively short order like a desert blooming after rains.  Dave rightly points out some poor behaviour from both old and new players.

The unfortunate side effect of a strategy focussed on quantity was the commensurate decline in average quality across the system.  This is my first role in the Education system and frankly I was somewhat appalled at the quality of much of what I saw.  The relatively recent shift to a quality focus is very welcome and really came through for the first time in TEC’s 2007 Investment Round which had effect basically from 1 January 2008.  With the benefit of hindsight the country should have made this change about five years earlier.

It’s probably also fair to say that a reasonable chunk of resources in the governments two key monitoring agencies, NZQA and TEC, was being deployed through this period on managing the volume growth across the system.  Dave talks about the “sector’s maturation” and I think that also applies to NZQA and TEC in their monitoring role who are now coming of age in this area with a strong focus on issues of quality – a very good thing.

In respect to TEC I suspect there is little disagreement in principle from across ITOs around their recent sharper focus on performance including their intention to in effect publish league tables of ITO performance.  As National Training Standard Setting Bodies for vocational training I suspect that will lead in turn to ITOs making information available around the quality of training provision in the marketplace to better inform company managers - something our industries are hungry for.  That’s information a number of us already use in making decisions around which providers to partner with.

In practise TEC’s recent swag of operational policies are a mixed bag but that’s OK.  What’s pragmatic and works will come out in the wash soon enough.    Again Dave is right in that ITO policy has been overseen for too long by the same people that from a distance appear (and here I accept I may be doing them a disservice but it’s a valid perception) to be unable to think past an education system divided up like a pie simply along institutional lines.  In my view a modest (and I mean modest) chunk of Vote Education spend should help drive the country’s economic agenda somewhat more directly and better than it does now.

The role of industry in the Education System, and here I don’t mean ITOs, is currently poorly served in my view.  Education policy really needs the injection of someone who has a solid understanding of the corporate sector and what actually drives productivity and profitability within a company preferably having been there and done that themselves.  A couple of on the ground examples.  We all know the issue of completions and actual versus nominal program durations are hot at the moment.

At the vocational end of the spectrum from TEC’s perspective simply looking at completions across ITOs, ITPs, PTEs and Wananga makes for an easy comparison but in order to do a good monitoring job they may need to go down another layer. In a company a full qualification is at best a medium term human resource up skilling strategy and then at best an uncertain one as newly qualified people make themselves available to the job market.  There is no magic lift in either productivity or company profitability at the point of completion.  However modules of training that lead to a full qualification are more manageable within the company with each module (if well designed with genuine industry input) delivering a series of lifts in productivity.  Companies need the ability to blend that short term requirement with the medium term.

In respect to nominal versus actual duration the current economic climate makes this topical.  A program with a perfect nominal to actual duration match in late 2007 would almost certainly not have that match today as companies adjust their priorities including training to the economic conditions.  An industry specific example for us is some ports and stevedoring programs which require specific types of ships to be in port (and for the shipping schedules to be known) in order for trainees to be able to complete their training.  The timing of such training is completely unknown at the time of trainee signup and impossible to predict and factor into durations.

 Do TEC’s operational policies reflect these sorts of industry realities?  Not yet, they have started with a heavy focus on some of the problem areas Dave has quite rightly listed and while some will be due to poor behaviour I suspect others may well be due to the overall focus (or lack of) of the system prior to 2008.  I’m really interested in seeing the emergence of some solid analysis from TEC as to just how widespread and prevalent these issues are balanced with some views as to why.  Some of the data type issues he has bulleted for example may simply be a reflection of the tiny size of many ITOs operating with a heavy reliance on antiquated IT systems overcome by the volume growth outlined above.

That sort of balanced and well rounded picture is critical to the maturation of the sector and will be well supported I suspect by the vast bulk of ITOs and their Boards.