As we already pointed out in the ‘curriculum and course design’ section [link], expectation management is important for any teaching and crucial for bridging programmes. Sticking to such initially defined (and agreed upon) expectations is, however, tricky. This is for at least two reasons. Firstly, good bridging programmes are in great part about unlocking the confidence of students: they too can do it. It means that new ideas, hopes, and expectations may flourish along the way; in fact, if nothing new emerged in this field from a bridging programme it should probably be a concern. Secondly, many bridging programmes give students a substantial voice in shaping the programme not only at its onset but also throughout the delivery (see the ‘curriculum and course design’ and ‘getting started’ sections. 

In practice, expectations will grow and students will want to push the programme in new directions –and legitimately so. This could also be the desire of the teaching staff who sees the potential of students being unlocked and thinks of new directions. There is no definitive answer in terms of what to do. Returning to the initially defined expectations but also to educational pathways that exist (or have been developed) is useful to avoid disappointment. There will also be, within each programme, room for adjusting the curriculum and room for modules and activities that may meet some of the newly defined expectations (stressing that those are changes that go beyond the originally jointly defined ones). However, growing expectations is ultimately where bridging programmes may collide with the hard realities of access to jobs and careers for refugees –advocacy for refugee rights may become necessary and something that can be done with students (see the section, considering advocacy. 

Getting accepted to university and beyond: moving the goalpost in FFA When we began the FFA programme, we were clear that the team would not be able to provide the learners with scholarships for studying at University and that our engagement with the learners would largely be time-limited. Over time, however, students’ expectations of the support that the programme would provide shifted and the team members’ sense of responsibility towards helping students after the programme also increased. Though we engaged in ongoing efforts to explore and advocate for opportunities for refugee scholarships, we remained very aware of the difficulties that students would face in obtaining funded places. Simply being enrolled on the programme, however, with its connection to wealthy institutions in the Global North nonetheless clearly and understandably lifted the hopes of learners that if they were admitted to a University, they would be financially supported to attend.  This raises a central conundrum, however: should the programme in future only admit the number of students that could realistically be funded to pursue a University-level degree? In the process of doing the programme, some students will undoubtedly drop out, others will decide not to pursue a degree, and some will not pass the exam required to enter University. Without knowing this in advance, restricting the numbers preemptively deprives students of the other opportunities that any blended, bridging programme opens up to them. However, should a large number of students be successful in their applications to University, they would understandably be frustrated at not being able to take up the position because there was no funding available to them. No amount of expectation management would be likely to offset the disempowerment experienced by a scholar who found themselves in this position. This has all further highlighted the importance of developing a learner-centred, fully accredited bridging programme with a realistic and funded pathway to higher education in the future.