November 7, 2013 David Armstrong SCWI Project Officer 1

 Approved vs actuals: 92.55%  83.65% in  79% in  76% in

YearRanges of Approved vs Expended Total Underspending # of RPTs with Total Expenditures over 90% % - 100%$2.5 M % - 100%$5.1 M7 3

 $142K – money for programs that were approved, not cancelled and that show $0 expenditures  Down from $1M in

Category of Expenditure % Expended vs Approved – Prov. Average College Benchmark 90%96% Board Benchmark 85%95% Miscellaneous 72%80% Transportation 68%83% 5

Category of ExpenditureRange of % Expended by RPT College Benchmark 39% to 100% 10 RPTs over 90% 62% to 100% 12 RPTs over 90% Board Benchmark 32% - 100% 7 RPTs over 90% 68% to 100% 10 RPTs over 90% Miscellaneous 0% to 100% 6 RPTs over 90% 3 RPTs no requests 0% to 100% 9 RPTs over 90% 1 RPT no request Transportation 11% to 100% 4 RPTs over 90% 31% to 100% 5 RPTs over 90% 6

7 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %39% -100% %62% -100%12

8 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %32% -100% %68% -100%10

9 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %0% -100% 6 (3 with no requests) %0% -100% 11 (1 with no request)

10 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% %11% -100% %31% -100%5

Dual Credit Approach% Board Benchmark% College Benchmark Team-Taught at a Secondary School 90%96%92%100% Team-Taught at a College 88%99%85%100% College Delivered at a Secondary School 76%88%74%88% College Delivered at a College 89%97%90%94% Level 1 College Delivered at a College 76%84%100% 11

Category of Expenditure Amount Underspent% Expended College Benchmark $1,843,789$792,13190%96% Board Benchmark $764,051$281,98185%95% Miscellaneous $383,517$377,18172%80% Transportation $1,764,136$706,93568%83% Activities and Forums $419,474$312,97290%82% RPTs $14,395$12,34299% Total: $5,189,362$2,483,54284%89% 12

 Monitor closely  Will be reviewed at end of Sem 1 by SCWI  Transportation funding model should not be a barrier to student participation 13

14

 Focus continues to be on primary target audience, including SWAC programs  Interim benchmarks for Dual Credits, Activities and Forums continue ◦ If benchmark does not meet estimated expenditures – use Miscellaneous section 15

 Data-based decision making based on rubrics will continue  Training November 21 – details to follow 16

Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits  Required to work with OYAP coordinators, TCU Field Office staff, College Apprenticeship Leads in the determination of Level 1 In- School Dual Credits  Expectation that RPTs will first go to TCU Field Office to negotiate seat purchase  Commitment from TCU to funding seats for students with an RTA  Non-alignment of Seat Purchase dates 17

Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits  Forms ◦ SCWI Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase (Confirmation of MTCU Seat Purchase Approvals for OYAP Dual Credits) ◦ Attestation of Training Facility for College Oversight for OYAP Dual Credit Program ◦ Programs will not be approved unless forms are submitted by the due date for the proposals 18