Youth Training - Statistical Profile 1999 to 2008

5. Participation by Provider, Course-related and other factors

5.1 Learner placements by training provider type

Youth 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) ¹⁷ 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 Youth Training programmes: the number of providers in all categories has declined, but some at faster rates than others, while some have increased as a proportion of the whole. For example, 22 percent of learners were placed in programmes with charitable trusts in 1999 and 14 percent of learners in 2008, while for PTEs, these figures are 61 percent of learners in 1999 and 78 percent of learners in 2008.

Table 25 shows that the majority of learners participate in Youth Training at PTEs, followed although not closely, by charitable trusts. The proportion of participants placed at PTEs has increased by approximately 15 percentage points from 1999 to 2007; to the detriment of all other provider types, but most particularly charitable trusts, which recorded a drop of 8 percentage points.

Table 26 shows the number of active training providers by type in each year.  The number of active training providers¹⁸ has declined over the period by 30 percent while the number of participants fell by 31 percent. The number of active charitable trust providers has fallen by 44 percent while the number of PTEs providing Youth Training learning has fallen by 15 percent. Incorporated societies fell by 53 percent and the number of ITPs offering Youth Training programmes declined by 54 percent over the period.

Declines in involvement by provider types may be due to a number of reasons: providers may cease trading; they may be declined further funding by the TEC (which may contribute to the former); or they may decide they no longer wish to provide training. Some may amalgamate with or take-over other providers. The TEC has recently reviewed the relevance of provision by PTEs and some may have consequently exited Youth Training and/or ceased to trade.

5.2 Placements by programme ‘major’ field of study

Youth 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 the emphasis in Youth Training 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.¹⁹

Youth Training courses are linked to the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) through unit standards: learners gain credits that can be used as the bases of national qualifications (later on, but not through Youth Training, which does not lead directly to 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 Youth Training has been assigned a classification under NZSCED, based on the NZQA domain of NQF credits attainable in them.²⁰

Table 27 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: ‘Mixed Field Programmes’ and ‘Society and Culture’.²¹ There has been little overall change in placements across the fields between 1999 and 2008, however, ‘Mixed Field Programmes’ has declined from 35 percent of placements in 1999 to 23 percent in 2008.

‘Agriculture Environmental and Related Studies’ courses accounted for 10 percent of placements in 1999, climbing to 14 percent in 2002 before declining steadily back down to 9 percent in 2008.

‘Engineering and Related Technologies’ major courses accounted for a high of 12 percent of placements in 2004, dropping back to 8 percent in 2008. ‘Information Technology’ major courses have fluctuated similarly, accounting for 8 percent of placements in 2002, declining down to 6 percent of placements in 2008. The proportion of placements in programmes where no credits are achieved (so a major was unable to be identified) was 3 percent in 1999 declining to 1 percent in 2008.

5.3 Placements by programme ‘major’ NQF level

Youth Training courses are commonly referred to as located at levels 1 and 2 on the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). In the absence of a specific NQF level variable in the Youth Training 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.²²

Table 28 shows the distribution of placements of learners in courses by the variable ‘Major NQF level’ between 1999 and 2008. Using this method, it appears that the majority of courses in Youth Training ‘major’ at level 2 on the NQF, with 10 percent of placements in courses located at higher levels.

The distribution of placements of learners by major NQF level appears to be quite stable until 2008, where there is a sudden proliferation of placements in courses at level 1 (39 percent of placements compared to 28 percent in 2007) with a corresponding drop in placements at level 2 (down by 11 percentage points in 2008 on 2007) compared to previous years. A small but significant proportion of courses contain mixes of standards that place them at levels 4, 5 and even level 6 of the NQF using this method.

Footnotes

17. Most of these provider types (apart from the schools and the TEIs) are legally identified as private training establishments, however, the TEC has coded them this way for the purposes of tracking performance by sub-category.
18. Active is defined as enrolling learners.
19. See Ministry of Education, New Zealand Standard Classification of Education (NZSCED).
20. See appendix 1 for course field of study allocation method.
21. ‘Mixed Field Programme’ has been assigned as a course major field if:
    - ‘Mixed Field’ 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.
22. 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. The method used to allocate level is shown in appendix 2.