1. November 7, 2013 David Armstrong SCWI Project Officer 1

2.  Approved vs actuals: 92.55%  83.65% in 2011-12  79% in 2010-11  76% in 2009-10 2

3. YearRanges of Approved vs Expended Total Underspending # of RPTs with Total Expenditures over 90% 2012-1367% - 100%$2.5 M11 2011-1230% - 100%$5.1 M7 3

4.  $142K – money for programs that were approved, not cancelled and that show $0 expenditures  Down from $1M in 2011-12 4

5. Category of Expenditure % Expended vs Approved – Prov. Average 2011-122012-13 College Benchmark 90%96% Board Benchmark 85%95% Miscellaneous 72%80% Transportation 68%83% 5

6. Category of ExpenditureRange of % Expended by RPT 2011-122012-13 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. 7 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% 2011-12 90%39% -100%10 2012-13 96%62% -100%12

8. 8 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% 2011-12 85%32% -100%7 2012-13 95%68% -100%10

9. 9 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% 2011-12 72%0% -100% 6 (3 with no requests) 2012-13 80%0% -100% 11 (1 with no request)

10. 10 Year % Expended vs Approved – Provincial Average Range of % Expended by RPT # of RPTs over 90% 2011-12 68%11% -100%4 2012-13 83%31% -100%5

11. Dual Credit Approach% Board Benchmark% College Benchmark 2011-122012-132011-122012-13 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

12. Category of Expenditure Amount Underspent% Expended 2011-122012-132011-12 2012- 13 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

13.  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. 14

15.  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

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

17. 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

18. Apprenticeship Level 1 In-School Dual Credits  Forms ◦ SCWI Level 1 Dual Credit Seat Purchase 2013-14 (Confirmation of MTCU Seat Purchase Approvals for OYAP Dual Credits) ◦ Attestation of Training Facility for College Oversight for OYAP Dual Credit Program 2013-14 ◦ Programs will not be approved unless forms are submitted by the due date for the proposals 18