New Zealand’s Vocational Education System: A Focus on Industry Skills Boards

In my previous articles, I examined the vocational education reforms and the new Tertiary Education Strategy. In this fifth article, I explore how these two policy streams converge, and what role the new Industry Skills Boards are expected to play in making it all work.

ISBs: More Than Standard-Setters

For those following the vocational education reforms, the Tertiary Education Strategy makes clear how Industry Skills Boards fit into the broader vision. Under Priority 2 (Economic Impact and Innovation), the strategy states that ISBs “will be a key part of” ensuring the tertiary system becomes more responsive to labour market signals.

They will ensure that industries have a voice in qualifications and programmes that vocational providers deliver, and advise on where investment should be directed. Under Priority 4 (Integration and Collaboration), the strategy expects ISBs to “improve industry voices in the system” and support providers developing new apprenticeships and traineeships.

This positions ISBs not merely as standard-setting bodies, but as central mechanisms for connecting vocational education to employment outcomes, the strategy’s primary concern. It’s a significant expansion of their role compared to the previous Workforce Development Councils.

The Industry Voice Question

The emphasis on “industry voice” raises important questions about what that actually means in practice. Which industries? Which representatives? Large employers or small businesses? Established sectors or emerging ones?

The eight ISBs will cover: Automotive, Transport, and Logistics; Construction and Specialist Trades; Food, Fibre and Forestry; Infrastructure; Manufacturing and Engineering; Services; Health and Community; and Electrotechnology and Information Technology. That’s a lot of diversity to capture in eight bodies, each with governance “dominated by industry representatives.”

My concern, raised in article 3, is what happens to smaller subject areas within these broad groupings. Will they have a genuine voice, or will they be drowned out by larger, more established industries? The strategy speaks confidently about “industry” as if it’s a monolith. Anyone who’s worked in vocational education knows it’s anything but.

The Apprenticeship Lens

Another concern is the strategy’s apparent assumption that work-based learning primarily means apprenticeships. The Government’s focus on “industry-led independent work-based learning” privileges traditional apprenticeship models. But not all industries organise learning this way, and not all learners suit these pathways.

If ISBs are designed primarily around apprenticeships and traineeships, how will they advise on investment in other forms of work-based learning? How will they support micro-credentials, stackable qualifications, and the modular approaches needed for genuine lifelong learning?

The Quality Assurance Question

The strategy expects ISBs to maintain quality while enabling innovation. That’s the eternal tension in any quality assurance system, and the devil will be in the detail of how ISBs implement it.

As I noted previously, the WDCs each had their own QA policies: six different ones, none public. This created confusion and inconsistency. ISBs being able to charge fees for QA services could restrict innovation if policies aren’t transparent and consistent.

The strategy calls for “strengthened quality assurance to ensure education and training delivers value.” Fine words, but what does that mean in practice? Will ISBs publish their QA frameworks? Will they coordinate to ensure consistency? Will fees create barriers for smaller providers trying to innovate?
Without clear answers, there’s a risk that the quality assurance tail wags the innovation dog, stifling exactly the kind of responsive, industry-aligned provision the strategy claims to want.

The Coordination Challenge

Perhaps the biggest question is how ISBs will coordinate, both with each other and with the rest of the tertiary system. The strategy emphasises integration and collaboration as Priority 4, but structural fragmentation makes this challenging.

Cross-sector qualifications, for instance, combining construction skills with digital technology for smart building systems, could require cooperation across ISBs. How will that work in practice? Who coordinates? What happens when ISBs disagree?

Similarly, how will ISBs coordinate with universities on applied research, or with wānanga on kaupapa Māori approaches to vocational learning? The strategy identifies these partnerships as important, but the mechanisms for making them happen remain unclear.

Looking Forward

Industry Skills Boards are being positioned as the linchpin of the new system, connecting industry needs to educational provision, advising on investment, maintaining standards, and enabling innovation. It’s an ambitious remit, particularly given they’re standing up in under a month with minimal preparation time.

The Tertiary Education Strategy’s success in vocational education depends substantially on whether ISBs can deliver on this expanded role. Whether they can remains very much an open question.

Next up, I will be addressing the elephant in the room that the Tertiary Education Strategy acknowledges but provides no answer for: lifelong learning.

By Stuart G A Martin, Founder of George Angus Consulting.

Here is a tag page for Stuart’s series on New Zealand’s Vocational Education System