1. Presented by David Armstrong November 5, 2015 1

2.  Approved vs actuals expenditures:  93.9% in 2014-15  94.1% in 2013-14  92.6% in 2012-13  83.65% in 2011-12  79% in 2010-11  76% in 2009-10 2

3. % Expended vs Approved Provincial Average Category of Expenditure Amount Under-spent 13-1414-15 97%99% RPTs$16,189 85%87% Activities and Forums$251,462 95%94% Dual Credits$1,911,206 3  Through contract change, funding can be moved from Activities and Forums to dual credits.

4.  2014-15: 88% to 100% ($1.9 million unspent) ◦ 12 RPTs over 90%  2013-14: 87% to 99% ($2 million unspent) ◦ 12 RPTs over 90% 4

5.  money for programs that were approved, not cancelled and that show $0 expenditures  In 2014-15 ◦ $82,167 (6 programs – 2 summer)  In 2013-14 ◦ $16,155 (one summer SWAC program)  In 2011-12 ◦ $1.01M 5

6. % Expended vs Approved – Prov. Average Category of Expenditure Range of % Expended by RPT 97% College Benchmark 89% to 100% 15 RPTs over 90% 94% Board Benchmark 81% to 100% 13 RPTs over 90% 95%Miscellaneous 0% to 100% 13 RPTs over 90% 1 RPT no requests 84%Transportation 58% to 100% 8 RPTs over 90% 6

7. % Réelles vs approuvées – Moyenne prov. Catégorie de dépenses Écart en % - Dépenses des EPR 97 % Montants repères des collèges 89 % à 100 % 15 % EPR au-delà de 90 % 94 % Montants repères des conseils 81 % à 100 % 13 EPR au-delà de 90 % 95 %Divers 0 % à100 % 13 EPR au-delà de 90 % 1 EPR sans demande 84 %Transport 58 % à100 % 8 EPR au-delà de 90 % 7

8. Dual Credit Approach (Approved vs Actual Students) % Board Benchmark % College Benchmark Team-Taught at a Secondary School (95%) 94%102% Team-Taught at a College (98%) 100%103% College Delivered at a Secondary School (95%) 95%99% College Delivered at a College (90%) 95% Level 1 College Delivered at a College (89%) 86%132% 8

9. % Expended vs Approved Provincial Average Category of Expenditure Amount Under-spent 13-1414-15 94%97% College Benchmark$642,663 91%94% Board Benchmark$318,674 90%95% Miscellaneous$114,124 81%84% Transportation$796,024 9

10.  Ranges from 58% to 100% (11% to 100% in 2011-12) $800,000 unspent  Continue to monitor closely  Transportation amounts can be changed through the contract change process and can be used to fund additional dual credits  Spending considered as part of approvals, if over or under, please provide rationales  Transportation funding model should not be a barrier to student participation 10

11.  Focus continues to be on primary target audience, including SWAC programs  Benchmarks for Dual Credits, Activities and Forums continue ◦ If benchmark does not meet estimated expenditures – use Miscellaneous section 11

12.  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 funding and student participants, retention, success, ages ◦ remember to include rationales, where necessary, in Notes section of proposals  Training – details to follow: ◦ November 24 (afternoon) and November 25 (morning) - English ◦ French – Dec 1 (afternoon) 12

13. 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 13

14. Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits ◦ MTCU Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase (Confirmation of MTCU Seat Purchase Approvals for OYAP Dual Credits) ◦ SCWI Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase (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 2016-17  Proposals will only be considered if forms received on time 14

15.  Night School ◦ only previously delivered approved programs will be re-considered for the primary target group. 15

16.  Specialist High Skills Majors – New for 2015- 16 ◦ While maintaining previous participant numbers, new programs can be proposed to replace current dual credits for SHSM students. ◦ Responds to local changes to SHSM programs ◦ RPTs will need to identify one related sector for each program designed for SHSM students. If more than one, then please list others in the Notes section of your proposal. 16

17. 17