Polytechs go back on the tools

Chris Hipkins must have some idea of what British Prime Minister Theresa May is going through: the pursuit of a perfect solution in an imperfect world, the promotion of one group’s interests without impacting on those of others.

The education minister has released his proposals to fix a vocational training sector he says is fundamentally ‘‘broken’’. Over the past few years the Government has had to pump many tens of millions of dollars into various polytechnics and training providers to keep them afloat.

How to navigate what Manukau Institute of Technology chief executive Gus Gilmore has labelled a ‘‘perfect storm’’: changing demographics and near-full employment robbing polytechs and training institutes of thousands of students; a near decade-long freeze in spending; and cut-throat competition with universities and private organisations unleashed by previous political administrations.

Hipkins’ response speaks of a tension in the industry, but it’s worth asking whether his intervention will ease that pressure and allow progress, or simply create new bottlenecks.

It makes sense to redefine the roles of education providers and industry bodies, and to give employers and industries a bigger say in the skills taught, how they are taught, and any review of the process. That suggests polytechs will no longer be allowed to chase irrelevant courses or go into competition with universities and others for degrees and learning beyond their scope, all simply to put bums on seats.

It’s worth remembering, too, that employers and industry are the ultimate clients of polytechs and vocational training, because such institutes exist to prepare people for the workforce, to build and supply a pipeline of skills and talent that will keep the economy running. Importantly, the proposal recognises this as their primary function.

But many providers of tertiary and vocational training will be more than a little nervous about the potential creation of one bureaucracy to rule them all. Especially those in the regions.

Hipkins wants to corral all 16 polytechs and training institutes into a single pen, under a new moniker, the New Zealand Institute of Skills & Technology (NZIST).

Much of this would appear to make sense, even though it will likely come with a fair bit of pain. It would eradicate duplication in the management of capital and operational budgets, staffing, student and learning management systems. It would establish a core national curriculum that better serves the needs of employers desperate for skilled workers.

There will be tension among those for whom removing duplication means possibly losing their jobs. But there is a wider issue, the management of which will possibly determine the success or failure of Hipkins’ bold shakeup.

He wants to create a large bureaucracy with a single governing council, while still identifying the needs of regional economies, and placing employers and industries at the centre of planning, setting standards and approving qualifications.

Everyone will be a ‘‘leader’’. Everyone will have their own agenda. How Hipkins moulds that into a ‘‘unified’’ and ‘‘coherent’’ system, when the NZIST controls most of the levers of operation and change, will be key. It might even make Brexit seem like a walk in the park.

Much of this would appear to make sense, even though it will likely come with a fair bit of pain.