1. Presented by David Armstrong November 6, 2014 1

2.  Approved vs actuals expenditures:  94.1% in 2013-14  92.6% in 2012-13  83.65% in 2011-12  79% in 2010-11  76% in 2009-10  2013-14 Ranges of Approved (dual credits) Funding vs Actual Expenditures: 87% to 99% ($2 million unspent) ◦ 12 RPTs over 90% 2

3.  money for programs that were approved, not cancelled and that show $0 expenditures  In 2013-14 ◦ $16,155 (one summer SWAC program)  In 2011-12 ◦ $1.01M 3

4. % Expended vs Approved – Prov. Average Category of Expenditure Range of % Expended by RPT 94% College Benchmark 90% to 100% all RPTs over 90% 91% Board Benchmark 76% to 100% 13 RPTs over 90% 90%Miscellaneous 59% to 100% 11 RPTs over 90% 1 RPT no requests 81%Transportation 35% to 100% 8 RPTs over 90% 4

5. Dual Credit Approach (Approved vs Actual Students) % Board Benchmark % College Benchmark Team-Taught at a Secondary School (91%) 91%100% Team-Taught at a College (98%) 95%98% College Delivered at a Secondary School (75%) 94%99% College Delivered at a College (93%) 96%97% Level 1 College Delivered at a College (92%) 90%100% 5

6. % Expended vs Approved Provincial Average Category of Expenditure Amount Under-spent 94%College Benchmark$283,220 91%Board Benchmark$290,821 90%Miscellaneous$214,086 81%Transportation$921,635 85%Activities and Forums$247,105 97%RPTs$33,735 6

7.  Ranges from 25% to 100% (11% to 100% in 2011-12) $1.7M unspent  Continue to monitor closely  8 RPTs over 90%  4 RPTs under 70%  Transportation amounts can be changed through the contract change process  Transportation funding model should not be a barrier to student participation 7

8. 8

9.  Focus continues to be on primary target audience, including SWAC programs  Benchmarks for Dual Credits, Activities and Forums continue ◦ Review conducted of all benchmarks ◦ If benchmark does not meet estimated expenditures – use Miscellaneous section 9

10.  Data-based decision making based on rubrics will continue  Most data is taken from SMART goal reports – ◦ % of students in the target group for whom the program was designed, approved vs actual student participants, retention, success ◦ remember to include rationales, where necessary, in Notes section of proposals  Training – details to follow: ◦ November18 (afternoon) and November 20 (morning) -English ◦ French - TBD 10

11. 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  Students must have Registered Training Agreements to be eligible for TCU Seat Purchase  Only students in the primary target group eligible for SCWI Seat Purchase 11

12. Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits  Revised Forms ◦ MTCU Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase 2015-16 (Confirmation of MTCU Seat Purchase Approvals for OYAP Dual Credits) ◦ SCWI Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase 2015-16 (Confirmation by college and board partners of request for SCWI Seat Purchase for students in the Primary Target Group)  Attestation of Training Facility for College Oversight for OYAP Dual Credit Program 2015-16  Proposals will only be considered if forms received 12

13.  No four credit dual credit packages will be approved, except in the case of Level 1 dual credit programs  With the exception of Child and Youth Worker, Child Development Practitioner, Educational Assistant and Developmental Services Worker only programs that provide students the opportunity to complete the entire Level 1 program within one school year will be approved. 13

14.  Night School ◦ only previously delivered approved programs will be re-considered for the primary target group.  eLearning ◦ Must be during the regular school day with the support of a dual credit teacher. ◦ ELearning dual credits will only be considered for approval where distance prevents participating in a dual credit on a college campus and/or where a dual credit program is not available at the secondary school. 14