The Quality of Training and Evaluation Mechanisms

    While C.J.S. projects must have a training plan before approval, there are several elements which demand expertise unlikely to be found in the private sector. Professor John Dennison of the University of British Columbia writes that these include "systematic curriculum development and program evaluation procedures which training institutions have established only after considerable time and effort... certificates and diplomas are not awarded, so the graduates have no credentials through which they can seek further employment or training."(13)

    C.J.S. makes no provision to ensure that trainers in industrial settings have appropriate abilities and qualifications. Martin Billinkoff, Executive Director of Planning at Manitoba's Ministry of Employment, argues that in many regions there are no private firms available with sufficient resources and expertise to equal community college training. Opportunistic new firms are springing up, he says, to pick off federal funding - but they can't do the job.(14)

     Dennison recommends that C.J.S. operate on one major principle: "the provision for co-operative, decentralized, contractual arrangements between educational institutions and public or private workplaces to provide the most appropriate experiences for those individuals in need of upgrading, retraining, or first-skill training within their regions."

    The National Action Committee argues that many employers lack skilled trainers. In its brief on C.J.S. NAC recommends that the CEIC "employ qualified outside evaluators from industry or from training institutions if Canadians are to get full value for the tax dollars spent on this program."

     In its evaluation of the first 18 months of C.J.S., the CEIC claims that "only private trainers, licensed by provinces and territories are funded." This is not the case in Ontario and British Columbia. Most profit-making firms funded by Job Re-Entry in Ontario, for example, are not registered with the province as private vocational schools.

     As for monitoring the implementation of the plan, CEIC must request monitoring "when it is deemed necessary." The Agreement between Canada and British Columbia is similar.

    According to officials in the Ontario Ministry of Skills Development, the amount of attestation and monitoring requested has been minimal. The province only monitors projects for which a college has developed a training plan - or upon request. A similar situation exists in British Columbia. The Ottawa Citizen quotes Peter Hicks, a senior official with the CEIC in Ottawa: "It's basically not up to us to decide on the quality of training. We're going on the quality of results." To determine the "quality of results" the CEIC intends to conduct a follow-up study of C.J.S. graduates, three months and one year after completion. While this data will no doubt be useful, it will not reveal the reasons for the success or failure of any particular project, and it may be too late for the trainees involved. When the provinces renegotiate their training agreements next year, they should strengthen the sections on attestation and monitoring.

     Individual project officers make valiant attempts to check projects, but some projects have had as many as five different officers in less than a year. How many officers have had training or experience in curriculum development, evaluation procedures, and teaching techniques?

    The federal government should not bypass established centers of educational expertise. The use of tax dollars demands public accountability and collaboration between trainers in both the public and private sectors.

Terry Dance is chairperson of the Community Outreach Department at George Brown College in Toronto, and is Ontario Director of CCLOW.

Susan Witter is Associate Dean of Continuing and Developmental Education at Fraser Valley College in British Columbia, and is president-elect of CCLOW.