Services
Two tracks, one question
What do your people need to be able to do, and what is standing in the way? Everything below starts there. Sometimes the answer is a new curriculum. Sometimes it's better instructors. Sometimes it isn't training at all — and saying so is part of the job.
Track 01
Curriculum analysis & development
For training divisions and academies whose curriculum has drifted from what the job actually demands — or was never built from that demand in the first place.
Analysis
Front-end and gap analysis, DACUM-style job task analysis, and an honest read on whether the performance problem is a training problem at all. Cathy Moore's decision path, applied to your actual gaps.
Design
Objective hierarchies written to measurable verbs, backwards design from assessment to activity, scope and sequence mapping across a whole programme rather than course by course.
Assessment architecture
Multi-modal assessment systems — written item banks, formative checks built into lesson plans, and scenario-based evaluation — designed so the resulting data can actually improve the programme.
Lesson plan systems
A standardised schema your instructors can write to, plus conversion of legacy material into it. Consistency across a training division is an infrastructure problem, not a willpower problem.
Quality assurance
Observation instruments and review cycles that measure curricular fidelity. At the Portland Police Bureau this ran to 194 formal observations across departmental units.
Audience differentiation
Parallel curricula for different ranks off a shared spine — as built for the Guyana Police Force, where senior leaders and frontline supervisors needed the same subject taught toward different jobs.
AI integration
Where it genuinely helps: crisis simulators, automated feedback analysis, lesson plan generation, performance tracking. Where it doesn't, I'll say so.
Track 02
Instructor development
For agencies whose subject-matter experts are teaching without ever having been taught how. Delivered on site, in five days, with a measurable result at the end.
What the course covers
- Presentation skills — built through review, practice, self-analysis and peer analysis across the week, not a single lecture.
- Adult learning theory — andragogy, cognitive load theory and the Socratic method, applied directly to participants' own practice.
- Facilitation — practised live, including facilitating peer discussion on the real obstacles to applying theory in their agency.
- Feedback — Socratic questioning used to assess and develop trainees' thinking rather than just correct their answers.
- Instructional design — backwards design, objective development, structure and sequencing.
- Curriculum development & ADDIE — how course-level design scales up to full curricula.
How it's assessed
Two criteria to pass, both applied:
- Develop and deliver a 25-minute co-taught lesson to the full group.
- Pass a post-test demonstrating command of the course content.
Results are reported using Hake's normalized gain rather than raw percentage points, because raw gain systematically understates learning in cohorts that start from a strong baseline — which experienced instructors usually do.
Also available
Adjacent work
Needs assessment and site visits ahead of a larger engagement. Longitudinal evaluation to see whether instructors are actually implementing what they were taught. Post-training coaching and instructor support. Asynchronous and hybrid learning design for organisations that need to reach staff at scale. If your problem is adjacent to the two tracks above, ask.
Practicalities
How an engagement actually runs
Buyers in this space rarely get told this up front, so here it is.
Step 01
Scoping conversation
Free, usually 45 minutes. We work out what your people need to be able to do and whether training is the right lever. You get a straight answer either way.
Step 02
Needs assessment
On site where budget allows, remote where it doesn't. Both the Bahamas and Jamaica courses were built from a prior assessment rather than off the shelf, and it shows in the results.
Step 03
Design or delivery
Curriculum development runs on a project timeline. Instructor development is typically five consecutive days on site, cohorts of roughly 18 to 24.
Step 04
Measurement
Pre/post assessment and a performance task on every instructor cohort, reported as normalized gain. If the numbers don't move, that goes in the report too.
Step 05
Written report
Results, participant feedback including the critical kind, and recommendations you can act on or take to a funder. Samples on the case studies page.
Step 06
Follow-on, if it's warranted
Coaching, advanced courses, or longitudinal evaluation to check whether instructors are still teaching differently a year later. Rarely funded. Always worth asking for.
Engagements are contracted directly or through programme funders. Work to date has been delivered under PADF programming funded by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.
Request services
Start a conversation
The more specific you can be about the performance gap, the more useful my first reply will be. Nothing here is a commitment.