Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 10-13, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $11.544 million. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chair, I don’t have any questions on this page, but I am going to say that I appreciate the reorganization. It seems to have been done here. Frankly, I can’t think of what it was like before, but I have to say that these sections in this division seem quite logical for me and a good response to the Auditor General’s general report and the folks of many of these comments. It certainly is in line with that which I do understand, so I appreciate that being done here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I will approach that as a comment. Moving on with questions on this page, I have Mr. Menicoche, followed by Ms. Bisaro.
Mr. Chair, under corporate management, of course they have the responsibility of finance and capital planning. I know that this is our operation and maintenance budget, but schools in our small communities ought to be a priority. I’m pleased that we finished building the big schools in the big communities. I really feel that it’s time to turn our attention while we can before there’s another issue in a larger community. Let’s try to get some of these older schools in the smaller communities built and those that don’t have any, like I’ve been making a case for Trout Lake. It is more of a comment at this point. I may raise it again in the next section under Education and Culture. This is just in terms of finance and capital planning. Perhaps I can just ask the Minister what his thoughts are on strategy for small schools as we move forward here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Lafferty.
Mr. Chair, the Member has raised this issue on numerous occasions. It is one of the priorities of this department because we are going through some changes. Education renewal innovation was one of the pillars that are focusing on small community schools. Just as a reminder, Members have reiterated and focused on small communities. That is one of the drives within our pillars. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
Just in terms of capital planning, I know that we review that in the fall time, so what is the time frame of continuing to press forward with the capital planning for small schools like Trout Lake? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, obviously there is a process we have to go through with the capital planning process later this year and going through some various stages, at the approval stages. We, as a department, will push for those schools in the Northwest Territories, those that are really urgently needed for a retrofit or renovation or replacement. Based on the criteria that have been highlighted through the process, we have to follow the guidelines. Obviously, the Member’s riding of small communities, they have reiterated that, so we will be doing our part as a department to push that forward in the small communities initiative. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. On this page activity, we have Ms. Bisaro.
Sorry I didn’t hear you, Mr. Chairman. It’s tough to hear over here. I want to echo Mr. Bromley’s comments about the reorganization. I think that has been a good thing. I presume that the Education Renewal Initiative work is being done under corporate management, and I just would like to know what section of corporate management the ERI comes under. I am presuming it’s planning, research and evaluation, but if I could get a bit of an explanation on that. How has that been funded, the whole work that has been done on the ERI? Has that been funded from within, or is there money in this budget earmarked specifically for ERI in the ‘14-15 year? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. The whole education renewal innovation is a big project that we are undertaking at this point. We are developing action plans towards that by later this summer. It is an internal reallocation to push this forward and obviously we are going to have to come back to the Legislative Assembly, depending on cost factor, once the action plans develop. I will get the deputy to maybe elaborate more on detail. Mahsi.
Ms. Eggenhofer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, once the action plan for the Education Renewal Initiative is completed, which we anticipate to be in May, there will be a budget that will be developed alongside the action plan and that will be, hopefully, considered as the department is developing its business plan in the summer months. In terms of the organization of the reform and innovation division, that division works out of the directorate. The director of reform and innovation is reporting to myself, and it has been funded entirely from within existing resources. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Eggenhofer. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the action plan should be out in May. I thought I heard that there would not be any money in the ‘14-15 budget for the ERI Action Plan. Is that correct? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. Part of the process is, obviously, to develop the action plan and put it towards the next main estimates for the upcoming year. There are a couple of areas that we should be able to move forward on, but the overall theme of the action plan, once it has developed the cost factor, then we need to put it into the mains and I guess we will request our approval from there from the Legislative Assembly. That’s the process that we’re going through. Mahsi.
So if there are some things that are going to be able to be moved forward on, they are going to be funded from within. Is that correct? I’m asking if there is new money in this budget for the ERI. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that response, we will go to Deputy Minister Eggenhofer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can advise that a number of the actions that we have identified already in the preliminary development of the action plan can be funded from within existing resources and others will require new funds. The ones that we have been able to fund from within existing resources are $623,000 in this fiscal year to be provided to the Do Edaezhe program. The money will go to the Yellowknife Catholic School Board and the funding will be to assist for the program to actually be extended outside of the community of Yellowknife into the community of Hay River.
The other funding that we have managed to secure is half a million dollars for e-learning which will go to the Beaufort-Delta Education Council and, again, it is in an effort for the Beaufort-Delta Education Council to look at their e-learning initiative and expand it into other small communities. So those two initiatives are ERI initiatives, funded from within this current fiscal years’ budget. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, so I just thought I heard the deputy minister say this current budget year for these two projects. Could I get clarification on that? I was asking about ‘14-15. Is this $1.1 million coming out of ‘13-14 or ‘14-15? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Lafferty.
Mr. Chair, those two particular programs are from the 2013-14 budget.
Mr. Chair, I want to ask again, in the 2014-15 budget, is there money specifically earmarked for ERI initiatives? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, as indicated earlier, we do have to develop an action plan. Based on that, it will give us a figure of how much it is going to cost us over the long run without the action plan going to be developed. It will be carried forward with next year’s business planning process. For ERI, it’s not in this 2014-15 budget. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Moving on with questions on 10-13, I have Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to follow up on a few questions about some of that funding. I’m not sure exactly where to ask my questions, so I thought I would ask in corporate management. It is about the pupil-teacher ratio and the fact that the department continues to say, because the pupil-teacher ratio, we are funding with a bunch of these activities, whether it is education renewal or junior kindergarten, from within.
How much are we over-funding them currently with pupil-teacher ratio? To use the 16 to one, how much have we actually been over-funding for the last how many years? How much money do they actually expect that’s in the budget? Obviously, if we’re finding the expenses for these projects within, that means that we have been over-funding this department by that much for how many years? How much do they think we have been over-funded by?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. We will go to Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Our contribution is towards the school boards. We give the school board funding based on the 13 to one even though we are legislated for 16 to one. It’s an approximate figure of $11 million over a year period to subsidize them to meet that 13 to one standard. That’s where it’s at today at this point. Maybe if I can get Ms. Martin to elaborate more and provide a bit more detail. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Ms. Martin.
Mr. Chair, based on the information that we have received from the education authority and also based on the school year in the audited financial statements, the information that we have here is all the funding that they have received from ECE and also from other contributions from the other departments or other sources. Based on that information, we are showing that the education authority has a surplus.
Thank you, Ms. Martin. Mr. Bouchard.
Mr. Chair, I guess my point of this that I’m trying to get to is the fact that the department has been allowing the authorities to have these funds and to operate with these funds. I mean, you say you’re subsidizing them, you’re providing them additional funds, but they’re actually using that money to do other things.
When we add these programs, whether it’s education renewal or it’s junior kindergarten that we’re looking at, it’s actually trying to find money from within from what they’re actually doing now. I’m not sure how the department feels or thinks that the education system can actually find this money, the large sums that they’re talking about, in the system.
Can the Minister maybe justify they feel the authorities can find this money from within? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. For that answer, we’ll go to Deputy Minister Eggenhofer.
Perhaps I can provide a bit of context. The Education Act provides for the government to provide funding to education school authorities at a PTR level of 13 to 1. As well, the Education Act provides that we fund inclusive schooling at no less than 15 percent of the overall school contribution.
The program review office, if you recall several years ago, had done an investigation into the funding that is provided to education authorities with respect to the legislative funding levels, which is the PTR as well as the inclusive schooling. Their finding was that over the years, the PTR funding actually crept up to 16 to 1, so over the years the government has provided funding over and above the legislated level. It’s done so in terms of the PTR as well as in terms of the inclusive schooling.
In the inclusive schooling area, the specifics are that we’re funding them at 17.5 percent, on average, as opposed to the 15 percent that we’re obligated to fund them. I guess the conclusion that PRO drew was despite the fact that the government has provided significantly more funding to education authorities beyond what it is obligated to do under the legislation, your student outcomes haven’t markedly improved, so they have essentially put the Department of Education to task to say, despite the increased funding, why are student outcomes not increasing. The money, really, changes; it depends on the projected enrolments.
So I think that the takeaway from that research project that PRO undertook was that we really need to look deeper at the K to 12 system and see what is required to improve student outcomes and not just look at funding. That’s what really started the Education Renewal Initiative, because there was simply not enough evidence to suggest that low student outcomes are a result because there isn’t sufficient funding for the education system. I hope that helps in terms of context. Thank you.
I appreciate those numbers. I guess the difficulty that I have is we’re forcing these authorities that have been accustomed to the 16 to 1 or the 17.5 percent and making them adjust over a short period of time. I’m just wondering what time period the department is expecting. Is this all being enforced into one year, or are we slowly implementing them to get down to the 13 to 1 and the 15 percent that’s required by legislation?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Lafferty.
Mr. Chair, we’re talking about the junior kindergarten that’s going to be rolled out this particular school year in the fall. It will be a three-year phased-in approach. There will be 29 communities this fall and the following year will be four in regional centres and then the following year, ’16-17 I believe, will be into Yellowknife centres, so seven schools in Yellowknife. It will be a phased-in approach over three years and we’re going to be hovering around the 16 to 1 ratio that we’ve been using for the level of PTR. Once the junior kindergarten is rolled out, anything above and beyond that, my department is going to be subsidizing those school boards anything beyond that 16 to 1 PTR level.
Maybe if I can just get clarification. Once you roll out junior kindergarten and implement it into all three areas, after those three years what is your PTR? What’s the percentage going to be? Are you meeting the 16? Are you going down to 13 to 1 and 15 percent?
Mr. Chair, what I stated earlier is, as the Minister responsible for education, I’m guaranteeing them that they will be under 16 to 1. Anything above and beyond that, my department will be subsidizing them. Territorial-wide at this point we are, obviously, under. After a three-year period, we’re saying we want to be under. That’s the guarantee that we want to have. Anything above and beyond that, we’re going to subsidize. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Mr. Bouchard, if you have any more questions, let me know and I’ll put you back on. Committee, we’re on 10-13, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $11.544 million. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 10-14, information item, corporate management, active positions. Any questions?
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 10-17, activity summary, education and culture, operations expenditure summary, $241.213 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a huge page, $241 million. There are probably a number of questions here, but I’ll start with a few. With the adult post-secondary education, ALBE, review that was done by the program review office and I think some of the work of the Auditor General and comments from Members, how has the ALBE work been tuned up and made more effective through those reviews and the valuation work that was implemented as a result of that? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that, we’ll go to Mr. Heide.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The ALB provided us with a number of recommendations that we’ve shared with committee over time. I don’t have the exact status of each one of the recommendations in front of me now. We’ve provided progress reports going forward on the ALB review and we are progressing on schedule with the recommendations and we can provide that detail at a later time.
