Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses in?
Mr. Minister, for the record, could you introduce your witnesses?
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Dan Daniels, deputy minister of ECE; Mr. Paul Devitt, director of strategic and business services.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses. We’re on page 10-20, Education, Culture and Employment, grants and contributions, grants and contributions, total contributions, $164.874 million. Mrs. Groenewegen.
I’m not sure if this is still the right page, Mr. Chairman, but I have some more questions about the alternative schooling. Could I still ask it on this page?
Mrs. Groenewegen, are you seeking unanimous consent to go back to page 10-17?
That’s okay. I can ask the Minister these questions on the floor of the House tomorrow. They’re about the alternative schooling in Hay River. I can do it then, if we’re past that point in the budget. Thank you.
Mrs. Groenewegen, I think you can also ask your question under page 10-19, education authority contributions, which is basically talking about program funding for education authority. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I have the committee’s approval then, to ask about that.
Mr. Chairman, why is the Department of Education, Culture and Employment significantly reducing funding for students in the innovative and highly successful programs that our partners and ECE have otherwise been celebrating staff and student accomplishments? Why are we significantly reducing that funding for the alternative schooling program as disclosed yesterday that the program in Hay River is looking at a $200,000 reduction? Thank you.
Minister of Education.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. This alternative school programming, as we stated in the past, has been successful in various areas. We needed to look at the overall funding, the number of students that were attending in various schools and the funding that they were receiving, and at the end of the day, I guess, the end product, how many students are successfully completing the program. Based on the evaluation that’s been done, we decided that they would continue getting funding and the funding would be based on the alternative programming that would be offered and also the funding to offset the costs of the students that are in the program. We will continue to offer funding with a slight decrease in certain areas and some would have an increase as well. Mahsi.
Mr. Chairman, between the program in Fort Smith and in Hay River, the two larger communities in the South Slave, and with the South Slave Divisional Education Council, between the reductions to the two schools it’s a total of $428,000. Where is that money being re-profiled to? What’s the department doing with the money that they are not going to be putting into this program? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, some of the money that’s been identified or reallocated to other programming to offset the costs of, I guess you would say, higher costs to operate. The money has been expended in other areas as well. Mahsi.
Mr. Chairman, this particular initiative seems like it’s been particularly successful and falls very nicely in with the Aboriginal student achievement goals of the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. Mr. Chairman, what would it take to have these two programs... I’m particularly concerned about Hay River, but they are part of the same educational division. What would it take to have these two programs grandfathered at their current funding levels? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I’ve already written to the school boards that at this point in time we’re not considering grandfathering. However, we are providing funding after the fiscal year based on the students attending the programming. In addition, if there are additional expenditures that may occur, then there can be a substantiation. We can provide additional funding to offset the costs specifically for the students in the alternative programming. Mahsi.
The funding required to continue to operate these alternative schools, the argument could be made for a critical number of staff and a critical level of resources, the same kind of argument that we made when we passed the motion the other day that Mr. Yakeleya brought forward when he talks about the number of students in grades 10, 11, 12 in the small communities. There comes a point that even with a small number of students, you do need a certain level of staff and resources in order to make the program work.
Mr. Chairman, what was the reaction of the DEAs when and if the consultation took place regarding the reduction of the funding for these alternative schools? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I will get my deputy to elaborate more on the reaction, but I can share with the Member that when we first initiated this discussion we did state that there was going to be some funding changes. We did consult with the superintendent as well. Of course, their argument back also was the higher costs to operate, but we did an evaluation of the program and this is how much the overall programming is costing the organization. If there are additional substantiation costs, well, give us that information. We are awaiting that information, if there are additional costs. But if I can get my deputy to just elaborate more on the reaction from the DEAs. Mahsi.
Mr. Daniels.
As mentioned in the House yesterday, we have had some reaction from one of the school boards and a couple of DEAs, in particular, that have expressed their concerns to us about changes in the funding mechanism and they have expressed a request for us to consider grandfathering their programs. Thank you.
Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Chairman, we put these local governing authorities in place in the community level, thinking that they will provide us good feedback on what is an effective way to expend ECE dollars to get the best results for the students. I would like to ask the Minister: has there been an analysis done showing what the impact is going to be of these reductions in the funding, especially when you consider that if these students do not get these credits that they need to conclude their high school diplomas, that they will probably be coming back into the system at some point to either have upgrading or to get their GED or in some fashion, and that is also a cost to this government? I’m not saying it’s not a worthwhile expenditure, but has there been a cost-benefit analysis done of how these alternative schools help the students that are still at high school age or relatively close to high school age versus if they have to come back into the system at some later time to achieve their high school diplomas? Thank you.
We did have a consultant that looked at the different alternative school programs that are in place across the different schools boards and part of the focus was on the amount of credits that students were completing. That was part of the consideration in the formula, because we do recognize the benefit of the programs. A number of them were not attendance based, so we had to come up with a different approach on how we could fund those programs because they’re not attendance based with a focus on course completion. So that was where we put the emphasis on with the formula. Thank you.
That’s all the questions I had on that for now. I’m not happy with the answers, I’m not satisfied with them. I think the government is making a mistake by reducing the funding to these worthwhile projects, one in Fort Smith and the one in Hay River. Like I said, I’m not satisfied with the response, but I will pursue it at another time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Groenewegen, a comment. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya and Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are we on page 10-19?
We’re somewhere between 10-18, 10-19 and 10-20. Take your pick.
---Laughter
Thanks for the flexibility, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask a question on 10-19 on the NWT Teachers’ Association Professional Development Fund. We make a contribution to this development fund for teachers as part of their Collective Agreement. Now, I’m very happy that the department has initiated a mandatory cultural orientation week for teachers in the North every year. Is this part of their Collective Agreement funding?
Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. No, it’s not.
So where do we find the funds so all the teachers in the North can take a few days to learn about the specific cultures in that specific community so they get a better sense of who the children are in the community, where they are working and who the people are? Shouldn’t this be part of their Collective Agreement? Where is the money coming from?
When we initiated this, one prime example, of course, is the orientation that the Member has alluded to. That initiative has been under the Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative funding. Mahsi.
Thank you. I find it very strange taking money out of the Aboriginal achievement funding to fund these professional teachers to take a course, an orientation course to learn about the students that they’re going to be teaching throughout the year. Shouldn’t they take it out of their own fund or through the Collective Agreement and leave that Aboriginal funding alone for what it’s supposed to be for? Why did this happen? Why are we taking money out of the Aboriginal achievement funding to do something that the teachers should do already in their professional development schedules?
When we initiated this Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative, the cultural orientation was a big factor and we wanted to pursue that through the Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative because it does cover the teachers, the students, the parents, the grandparents and the elders in the schools. Then there’s the NWT Teachers’ Association, as well, that falls under professional development. They can easily access professional development in that area, as well, but this is a specific area that we’ve highlighted and targeted with cultural orientation. We felt that it’s important for our department and the NWTTA have their own agendas and mandate, but we initiated this process as a department. Mahsi.
Thank you. No argument from me to see the importance of this orientation for the teachers coming to the Northwest Territories. My point is that the NWTTA, I’m thinking why take money out of the Aboriginal pot? I think that should be done under the Collective Agreement in their professional development, because it’s just as important as some of the programs they have to take throughout the year to increase their skill or their ability to teach and using the computers or writing or reading or anything. You don’t see them taking money elsewhere. So I think we could have been stronger with the Professional Development Fund rather than just taking it out of the Aboriginal achievement funding. There’s always a lack of funds in that area. So I want to ask the Minister about working with the teachers. It seems like it’s too easy for me. Is this going to happen in the future again? Like he said at one time, is this one-time funding? Thank you.
This is an area that has been targeted, but the groups had the recommendation of the people of the North. They highlighted specific areas. One of them was the cultural orientation, another one was the laptops, another one was to deal with absenteeism. We gave funding to the school boards to deal with those important matters at hand. So we’ve captured different angles and this is one of them. So the students are also benefiting from this particular piece of work that’s before us, Mr. Chair. The teachers need to get to know our cultural perspective, the language and the students. The students are out there on the barren land or On-the-Land Program with the teachers as well. So directly and indirectly the students are also benefiting. The community is benefiting. The whole Northwest Territories is benefiting. Mahsi.
My point, Mr. Chair, is the funding here that’s been established, $1.6 million. My point is that this fund has been here for a couple of years, 2009-2010 was $1.4 million, we didn’t have any cultural orientations, not until we started pushing it in this House, in the communities. All of a sudden, okay, let’s do it, but where do we find the money. Now everybody thinks it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Everybody is benefitting, no doubt about it. I’m just saying why take it out of the Aboriginal achievement funding? This should have been done a long time ago. That’s what I’m pointing to.
I’ve got no question in terms of seeing the benefit in the Sahtu, but it’s like Peter taking from Paul to pay Mary sort of scenario. I mean, that’s the way you look at it, and that’s what I’m saying. The teachers should have had this in their fund in the Collective Agreement, but all of a sudden we find some money for them to take a cultural orientation but it’s out of the Aboriginal Achievement Fund. Those dollars are for the students. That’s my beef. I want to ask the Minister again, is this a one-time initiative? That’s what I heard. Now correct me if that’s not the truth.
The NWTTA has had funding in their budget to cover the orientation. Whether it be final for the fact that teachers in the Tlicho TCSA have been to the barren land almost every year, actually every year to introduce those new teachers and returning teachers to the land and the people of the land. They have done that over the years. This is nothing new.
We felt that as a department that we want to make this mandatory. The professional development available for teachers through NWTTA can be used to go to conferences and whatnot, but our vision, our goal was to establish an initiative such as the Cultural Orientation Program that will clearly highlight that it’s mandatory for Northwest Territories teachers to take those on-the-land programs and for them to be exposed. The money has been earmarked for that through Aboriginal Student Achievement Initiative because this is our initiative. It’s not an NWTTA initiative as mandatory through Cultural Orientation Program. We’ve initiated it, we’ve highlighted the money.
Next on the list I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a few questions. I checked Hansard from yesterday and I was a little confused with the answers I received relative to the funding for the Food First Foundation and where the funding that they’re not getting is now going. I was advised that there were some concerns that were identified. The deputy minister indicated that there were some concerns identified by some of the schools relative to the previous years over this current year’s project. One of the things was that there was an increased workload placed on the schools to administer the program. But then the next thing I thought I heard, or previous to that, was that the money that is in this budget year going to First Food Foundation is now going to go directly to the schools and presumably for the same thing. I was advised that there are nutrition programs they can use it for.
I’m having a difficult time understanding that if there is nobody to administer this money for the schools and if when it was administered it created a burden on the schools, if we now just give the schools the money without anybody to help them administer it, are we not still placing a burden on the schools? I think I asked yesterday but I didn’t really hear an answer. How is it the schools are going to use the money out of this $400,000 that they get? Are they being advised that it has to be used for nutrition? Can they use it for anything that they want? Or is the intent to have this $400,000 used basically for the same purpose in 2011-2012 that it’s being used for in 2010-2011? There are three questions there, but basically I want to know from the Minister or the deputy minister what this $400,000 is going to be used for. If it’s given off to each individual school, do they have criteria under which they have to use it or not?
Mr. Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify that the $400,000 that is going out to the schools is in the current year for 2010-2011 and it is sunsetting at the end of March of this year. That money will not be available past March 31st of this year.
That’s clear but I don’t think I heard that yesterday. When I asked yesterday what the $400,000 is going to be used for in the 2011-2012 budget, I thought I heard that that $400,000 was going to the schools. Could I find out what the $400,000 is going to be used for this coming budget year?
The $400,000 sunsets, so it’s not being reallocated to any other purpose. It was a one-time fund for the 2010-2011 year.
I’m struggling here. I understand that this money sunsets but there is no reduction in the ECE budget of $400,000 that I can see. In fact, my bottom line for the budget is that their dollars go up. So how is the $400,000 which is sunsetting, how is that amount of money going to be used within the ECE budget?
The overall department increases come from a number of other initiatives that are either new initiatives or forced growth. That’s where the increase in the overall department’s budget comes from.
With respect to the funding that was going into the Nutrition Program, it was actually funded through our income security budget, which we’ll be dealing with.
That’s fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up a little bit with the alternative schooling and in particular the Phoenix School. Am I correct in gathering that their funding is decreasing by about $200,000, about 50 percent of their allocation in 2011-2012?
Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. In September 2009 the current formula was approximately $666,000 for Phoenix. The proposed is... Right now the current would be $439,000. There’s a difference of just over $200,000.
I understand from Mr. Daniels that the schools were assessed on number of graduates and so on. I believe we’ve graduated 30 students from this school and 20 are projected to be graduating this year. Was that in fact the numbers used in the analysis of this school?
