Comparing Modern Apprenticeships and industry training

4.1. Model 2 specifications

The second model was used to test for differences between ITO coordination and non-ITO coordination within Modern Apprenticeships.

The same regression model was used as before, with only one major difference: the fund category variable was limited to Modern Apprenticeships. A new variable, coordinator type denotes whether the coordination services were delivered by an ITO or by a non-ITO organisation.

An additional industry variable is available for use within the Modern Apprenticeship coordinator data collection, and replaces the industry training organisation variable used in model 1 (this variable is not collected for industry training so could not be used for the comparison between it and Modern Apprenticeships).

The reference category chosen for the model is specified below: 

• Coordinator type = ITO as coordinator
• Industry = Motor engineering
• Prioritised ethnic group = ‘European / Pakeha’
• Programme level = level 3 
• Gender = Male
• Age at start = 15 to 17 years
• Programme credits = 121 to 160 credits
• STM rate = 0.6
• Previous qualification = NCEA level 1 (or equivalent)
• Territorial local authority region: Auckland

The predicted probability of each variable value, that is the likelihood of completion adjusted for the other variables within the regression model, is shown in the following graphs.  Predicted probabilities estimates produced by the second model are shown only where they differ considerably from those attained in model 1.

4.2. Model 2 Results

Table 2 shows the hierarchy of significant factors in the model. There are some small changes in the model strength and the order of the strength of the variables. The R Square statistic was 0.19 (0.15 for model 1). See appendix for the regression output.

Controlling for the other variables within the model, the type of coordinator (ITO or non-ITO coordinator) was not a significant predictor of whether a learner attained at least one programme completion in Modern Apprenticeships. It could be argued that the selection of learners between provider types is a consequence of who offers coordination in each industry – so this might represent an additional industry-provider effect. This study attempted to control for this by limiting observations to only those industries where both types of coordination were on offer. 

The observed effect that non-ITO coordination is associated with better outcomes could be a consequence of the brokerage function of non-ITO coordinators: we know that there is a difference between the type of people who are selected to participate between ITO and non-ITO coordination (see appendix tables 5-7). Non-ITO coordinators may have different selection criteria for who they choose to put forward for each apprenticeship. This could explain the difference in prior qualifications between non-ITO and ITO coordinated apprentices at entry. When the effects of industry, age and previous qualification of the learner, and programme factors also included within the model are taken into account, any difference between non-ITO and ITO coordination disappears.

The relationships between the reference category and the other variables were similar to those shown for model 1, but the predicted probabilities for the unique industry variable are shown below.

4.3. Industry

Figure 9 shows that the predicted probability of attaining a programme completion within Modern Apprenticeships differed by industry within the cohort.

The results for each industry are fairly similar to the results shown in figure 1 for each industry training organisation, with some exceptions. Differences occur due to the ITO variable capturing a number of industries in some instances, while the industry variable available for use in Modern Apprenticeships is in effect a disaggregation of it and hence is more precise.

Other differences may be due to the absence of industry training learners from the second regression model, and the change of reference group from ‘industry training’ in model 1 to ‘non-ITO coordinator’ in model 2.

Figure 9 – Predicted probability of programme completion by cohort Modern Apprenticeships industry

Note: ** shows statistical significance at the 5 % level and * shows significance at the 10 % level