Training Opportunities: Statistical Profile 1999 to 2007

5. Participation by provider, course-related and other factors

5.1. Learner placements by training provider type

Training Opportunities training is provided by a range of tertiary education organisations (TEOs). These providers are distinguished by their ownership and governance structures, and range from private training establishments (PTEs) who are mostly privately owned, for-profit entities; through incorporated societies and charitable, non–profit independent bodies, to publicly-owned institutions like schools; universities and polytechnics and institutes of technology (ITPs).

There has been a change in the number of providers of each type offering Training Opportunities programmes: the numbers of providers in all categories have declined in number, but some at faster rates than others, while some have increased as a proportion of the overall numbers. For example, Charitable Trusts represented 17 percent of providers and 18 percent of learners in 1999 and 15 percent of providers and 13 percent of learners in 2007, while for PTEs, these figures are 53 percent of providers and 65 percent of learners in 1999 and 66 percent of providers and 75 percent of learners in 2007.

Table 22 shows that the majority of participants learn at PTEs, followed (not closely) by Charitable Trusts. The proportion of participants at PTEs has increased by approximately 10 percentage points from 1999 to 2007; to the detriment of all other provider types, but most particularly Charitable Trusts, which recorded a drop of 6 percentage points.

Table 23 shows the number of active training providers by type in each year.  The number of active training providers  has declined over the period by 38 percent while the number of participants fell by 30 percent (see Table 1). The number of active Charitable Trust providers has fallen by 45 percent while the number of PTEs providing Training Opportunities learning has fallen by 23 percent. Incorporated Societies fell by 46 percent and the number of ITPs offering Training Opportunities programmes declined by 53 percent over the period.

Declines in involvement by provider types may be due to a number of reasons: providers may go out of business; they may be declined further funding by the TEC; or they may decide they no longer wish to provide this form of training. Some may amalgamate or take over other providers. The TEC has recently reviewed the relevance of provision by PTEs and some may have consequently exited Training Opportunities and/or ceased to trade.

5.2. Placements by programme ‘major’ field of study

Training Opportunities training is often classified as generic or ‘mixed field’ learning under classification systems such as the New Zealand Standard Classification of Education (NZSCED) when compared to other types of tertiary education.  This is because emphasis in Training Opportunities lies in attainment of work–related, ‘generic’ skills, rather than those required particularly for any specific industry, field or occupation.

NZSCED is a subject–based classification system for courses and qualifications at universities, polytechnics, colleges of education, wānanga and private training establishments in receipt of Government funding. The classification system consists of three levels of detail (broad, narrow and detailed fields) defining each subject or field of study.

Training Opportunities courses are linked to the NQF through unit standards: learners gain credits towards national qualifications. Each of these unit standards carries a sum of credits that are awarded if the standard is achieved. No credits are awarded if the standard is not achieved.

For the purposes of this study only, each course offered in Training Opportunities has been assigned a classification under NZSCED, based on the NZQA domain of NQF credits attainable in them. The ‘Major Field of Study’ variable shown in Table 21 is calculated in the following way:

• Unit Standard is identified as applicable to a course if at least one learner has attained credits from it in during placement in a course
• The total number of credits available in each course by the standard ‘field’ (attracted by presence of one instance of a distinct Unit Standard) is summed. 
• Standard field is aggregated to NZSCED.
  

Example:

Placed in course number 99999999; 1 learner attains credits from Unit Standard 1 (Field: A, worth 6 credits) and Unit Standard 7 (Field: B, worth 4 credits). Another learner gains credits from Unit Standard 1 and Unit Standard 9 (Field: C, worth 9 credits). 

The number of credits available in course 99999999, by Field, regardless of how many learners passed, failed or took the Unit Standard, is therefore calculated:

• A, 6 credits (32 percent)
• B, 4 credits (21 percent)
• C, 9 credits (47 percent)
• Total is 19 credits (100 percent)
  

In this case, the ‘Major Field of Study’ for course 99999999 is indicated as C, because 47 percent of the total number of credits available in the course lie in this field (and this is the largest single field).  In the case of a tie for the largest field the course is allocated to ‘Mixed Field Programmes’.

Table 24 shows the distribution of placements by learners between the different ‘Major Fields of Study’. The majority of learners are placed in courses consisting of fields: ‘Food, Hospitality and Personal Services’; ‘Society and Culture’, and ‘Mixed Field Programmes’.

Society and culture major field courses consist of 10 percentage points more placements in 2007 than in 1999 while mixed field programmes have declined in relative importance between 1999 and 2007 while food, hospitality and personal services major field courses have remained a consistent proportion of placements.
 

5.3. Placements by programme ‘major’ NQF level

Training Opportunities courses are commonly referred to as being located at Levels 1 to 3 on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). In the absence of a specific NQF Level variable in the Training Opportunities data collection and for the purposes of investigation of trends, an NQF Level variable has been created for each course using a similar method to that used above to identify a major field of study: an NQF level is assigned according to where the majority of credits available are positioned for Unit Standards taken in each course.

Example:

Placed in course number 99999999; 1 learner attains credits from Unit Standard 1 (positioned at Level: 1, worth 6 credits) and Unit Standard 7 (Level: 2, worth 4 credits). Another learner gains credits from Unit Standard 1 and Unit Standard 9 (Level: 3, worth 9 credits). 

The number of credits available in course 99999999, by NQF Level, regardless of how many learners passed, failed or took the Unit Standard, is therefore calculated:

• Level 1 – 6 credits (32 percent)
• Level 2 –  4 credits (21 percent)
• Level 3 –  9 credits (47 percent)
• Total is 19 credits (100 percent)
  

In this case, the NQF Level for course 99999999 is indicated as ‘Level 3’, because 47 percent of the total number of credits available in the course lie at this level (and this is proportionally the largest single level in this course).

Table 25 shows the distribution of placements of learners in courses by the variable ‘Major NQF Level’ between 1999 and 2007. Using this method, it appears that the majority of courses in Training Opportunities ‘major’ at Level 2 on the NQF, with only 11 percent at levels above.

The distribution of placements of learners between 1999 and 2007 by major NQF Level appears to be quite stable. A small, but significant, proportion of courses contain mixes of standards that place them at Levels 4, 5 and even 6 of the NQF using this method,  however.

5.4. Placements by number of placements in Training Opportunities by learners

As described in section 3.6 above, as long as they are assessed as eligible, learners may be referred to and subsequently enrol in Training Opportunities any number of times.

Table 26 shows the number of placements for each learner within the Training Opportunities programme by the rank of placement within Training Opportunities. It shows that overall, around 58 percent of learners at any one time are placed in their first placement within Training Opportunities. Placements in the ‘early days’ of Training Opportunities (1999) are more likely to be a learners’ first within Training Opportunities, for obvious reasons (participation in the pre-1999 incarnation of Training Opportunities is not included for the purpose of this table).

Notwithstanding this bias, placements from approximately 2003 onwards may better reflect the true situation: if this is so, it shows that first time Training Opportunities placements are possibly declining as a proportion of the total numbers of placements of learners.

Table 27 shows placements of learners in Training Opportunities in 2007, by ethnic group, by the ranking of this placement for each learner within the programme. Pasifika learners are the most likely out of all the other ethnic groups to be participating in their first placement within the programme. European and Māori learners are fairly evenly distributed through placement ranks, while Middle Eastern/Latin American learners placed in 2007 are more likely than other ethnic groups to be on their third or more placement.

Table 28 removes any within-programme bias by counting the number of placements in Training Opportunities 1999 to 2007 in the context of all placements by individuals within Targeted Training. This includes: Training Opportunities pre and post-1999; Youth Training post 1999; Skill Enhancement; Gateway and other assorted programmes.

It shows that Training Opportunities learners are more likely than not to have been previously placed within Training Opportunities or other Targeted Training programmes represented in the data collection: only 35 percent of learners placed in Training Opportunities at any one time have not been placed in that (or any other) Targeted Training programme at any stage between 1993 and 2007 (the total coverage period of the data collection).

Table 29 shows the split of placements by ethnic group. It shows that there are differences between ethnic groups in terms of rank of placement in targeted training programmes, for learners placed in Training Opportunities in 2007.

Asian learners placed in Training Opportunities in 2007 are most likely to be participating in a targeted training programme (including Training Opportunities) for the first time; while Māori and European learners are the least likely to be doing so. Pasifika and MELA learners are somewhere in the middle: they are less likely than Asian learners to be participating  for the first time, but more likely to be doing so than European and Māori learners.

Footnotes

17. Active is defined as enrolling learners.
18. See Ministry of Education, New Zealand Standard Classification of Education (NZSCED).
19. These values are fictitious, used for example purposes only.
    
20. ‘Mixed Field Programme’ has been assigned as a course major field if:
     - it makes up the major field of each course, as described above, or
     - there is a tie: two or more fields constitute the same highest proportion of credits available in a course.
21. It should be noted that this is not the method used by NZQA to assign NQF Levels to courses or programmes of study linked to the framework.
    
22. These values are fictitious, used for example purposes only. This is not the method used by NZQA to assign NQF Levels to programmes or courses.