How could it be improved?

• The Bridging the Gap model is a great model and this program certainly proved that it works. It is difficult to improve on something when there is a 100% employment success rate. However, there are some recommendations I would make:
  • The academic instructor should have some back ground in that particular field. The job description should stress this. Our instructor did a great job but I know she was not used to coming into a program that required such flexibility and continuous curriculum
  • research for the industry which required her to integrate math and communications for that particular industry. Her background was ABE and she was use to teaching in a much more structured way. I suspect this was the case for all the BTG academic instructors. Another alternative would have been to seek an instructor with program development skills. This would have made this aspect proceed more smoothly. There also needs to be as much lead time as possible to give the academic instructor time to prepare for the program. The instructor should be hired several weeks before the program starts.
  • I also believe that there should be more communication between the academic instructors at all BTG sites. There was only one teleconference for them this year. I think that should have been done at least on a monthly basis to share ideas.
  • We should examine whether the BTG warrants a full–time co–ordinator. While the co–ordinator was excellent and did a great job, I think our CRO would certainly be able to coordinate it as part of his duties in the contract.
  • The last recommendation would be to have the campuses involved in the proposal development. Last year there was a set price to deliver but it was very difficult for our campus to deliver the program within the price we were given. The College committed several in–kind contributions such as travel, curriculum design, and assessments by councillors without consulting the CRO at each campus. All of these costs came directly out of the contract.
• I think the one thing that was glaring was the budget – everybody was given the same budget and we were forced to contribute in kind – that didn't cover any travel from the Campus to the site. There was no recognition in terms of the isolation and the travel required. There weren't sufficient funds in the budget to cover that.
• We went way over on the budget. In future, we would like more money to reflect the actual costs.
• Curriculum development should be done up front. It is difficult to identify the resources and get them done remotely. The up front development needs a lot of industry liaison. If we were to do it again , we would want to do that differently (up front).
• Broad ranges of education in the classroom – that was a challenge. Perhaps that should be more refined. More of a criteria to avoid that type of thing.
• Perhaps we should have them coming out of the field first and then the teaching skills second. Or else deal with the curriculum development up front. Or a more formal linkage with industry experts.
• There was way too much co–ordination. This was a straight forward contract training contract with an instructional co–ordinator. That is the tradition here. There was not enough work for one co–ordinator.
• Perhaps the co–ordinator is not as essential here.
• We were effectively presented (as a campus) with a budget that was pre–determined. This was a big deal when the site was 2 hours away from the campus – increased costs. Needs to take into consideration that budgets reflect the actual costs and operating environment.
• Way too much assessment up front. It was unfair and too much. And it wasn't used. Trim out most of the testing. College's role should be peripheral in testing.
• I look for lack of clutter. Need to eliminate a lot of layers.