• The maximum amount of time that practitioners felt learners should be allowed to remain in a program ranged from 1.25 years of uninterrupted learning to no limit. Most argued that exceptions needed to be made for special cases. Nearly three quarters of the learners who responded felt that they be should given a time limit to complete their programs, but that the needs of the individual also had to be considered.
• There was much discussion about learners’ goals, but a majority of practitioners felt that learners stay with unrealistic goals for too long. About half felt that learners (most, many, some) were reluctant to change their goals. Nearly half of the learners (29 out of 60) said they were somewhat willing or not willing to change their goals and the focus of their upgrading.
• Eighteen practitioners felt they had developed an effective means to help learners review their goals. Most included regularly scheduled progress review meetings. A majority of practitioners felt learners’ goals should be reviewed every two to three months.
• There was general support that attendance, progress and terms for withdrawal, be addressed in a retention protocol. Several other suggestions were offered.

These findings have been instrumental in shaping the Redirection Protocol. While we had some notion at the outset what the protocol might look like, the specific suggestions provided by practitioners and learners helped us identify seven distinct but interrelated features. Practitioners were concerned that the Protocol be flexible and sensitive. They urged us to move cautiously. They wanted assurance that redirection was in the best interests of the learners. Learners, we discovered, shared their concerns. For these reasons, the Protocol is descriptive rather than prescriptive. By focusing on features, we hope to help practitioners reflect on elements of their own processes that are working well and those that could be working better.