UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A program budget model for selected school programs in the province of Ontario Brandwood, Colin 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A4_5 B73.pdf [ 7.35MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102351.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102351-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102351-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102351-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102351-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102351-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102351-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102351-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102351.ris

Full Text

A PROGRAM BUDGET MODEL FOR SELECTED SCHOOL PROGRAMS IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO by COLIN BRANDWOOD B.Comm., S i r George W i l l i a m s U n i v e r s i t y , 1964 R.I.A., S o c i e t y of I n d u s t r i a l and Cost Accountants of Canada, 1964 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION i n the F a c u l t y of COMMERCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1969 In presenting this thesis In partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make It freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permis-sion. Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada i i ABSTRACT Brandwood, C o l i n . "A Program Budget Model f o r Selected School Programs i n the Province of Ontario". Unpublished Master of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969. The study enquired i n t o the need f o r b e t t e r methods of presenting Information f o r d e c i s i o n making purposes by boards of education. Chap-t e r s I and I I present some in f o r m a t i o n concerning the reasons f o r the cu r r e n t trend of i n t r o d u c i n g program budgeting i n t o the p u b l i c s e c t o r . A framework of c r i t e r i a was i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n which a model could be developed. The purpose of the study was to develop a model program budget which c o u l d be used by school boards i n the Province of Ontario f o r the e f f i c i e n t a l l o c a t i o n of funds i n accordance w i t h o b j e c t i v e s and go a l s . I d e a l l y the model would comply w i t h g e n e r a l l y accepted c r i t e r i a and c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e the co s t of the three programs included i n the study. In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h senior o f f i c i a l s of the Board of Education on whose operations the model was based, a set of e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s was i d e n t i f i e d . The cost of each program under study was i s o l a t e d from the t o t a l of a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r the year 1968. F i n a n c i a l and enrolment data were presented i n a s e r i e s of t a b l e s i d e n t i f y i n g p e r t i n e n t revenues and expenditures per student. A m u l t i - y e a r p r o j e c t i o n of enrolment, f i n a n -c i a l and other data was made to emphasize the importance of the planning process. The f i n d i n g s of the study are i n d i c a t e d below. 1. P r o v i n c i a l Grants c o u l d be maximized by using a program budgeting i i i system. 2. A program budget is compatible with the present system of provincial aid to education. 3. The data now assembled for budget purposes is appropriate for use in a program budgeting system. 4. Information for developing a program budget may be obtained at reasonable cost where this information is not now available, providing the system does not attempt the ultimate, at least in i t i a l l y , in considering subject costs as program costs. 5. A program budget would require a decentralized approach to the budgeting process. The conclusions from the study were that a program budgeting system would be a useful tool for the administration in determining priorities and in utilizing resources efficiently. A further advantage is that such a system necessitates the inclusion of aspects which in the past have been neglected, such as the formal identification of goals* TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT. i i LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v i LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i x CHAPTER I . THE PROBLEM . 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Purpose of the Study 7 Method of Study 8 L i m i t a t i o n s 8 D e f i n i t i o n of Program Budgeting Terminology 9 I I . PROGRAM BUDGETING . . 15 Acceptance by Governments 15 Purpose and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 20 Advantages and Disadvantages 21 T r a d i t i o n a l Budget 24 Program C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 25 Program Cost Accounting 26 I I I . THE MODEL . . . . . . . . . . » » * . • . . 32 I n t r o d u c t i o n 32 Fundamental O b j e c t i v e s 33 Ed u c a t i o n a l O b j e c t i v e s of the School System 34 Program Budgeting Components and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 36 Accounting: Systems and Operations 39 Program Determination 41 F i n a n c i a l P l a n 55 Program A l t e r n a t i v e s 85 Program Review, M u l t i - Y e a r P l a n 97 Sub-Programs 106 V PAGE IV. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS *•>..», 115 Summary H5 Findings 116 Conclusions 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . 123 Books Studies, Report and Papers Newspapers and Periodicals 123 124 125 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I . PUPIL ENROLMENTS AND TEACHING PERIODS PER CYCLE BY PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY TO JUNE 1968 . . . . . 50 I I . PUPIL ENROLMENTS AND TEACHING PERIODS PER CYCLE BY PROGRAM AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY TO JUNE 1968 52 I I I . TEACHER-PUPIL OPERATIONAL STATISTICS AFFECTING QUALITY OF EDUCATION 53 IV. ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY ENROLMENT STATISTICS - 1968 . . 54 V. EMPIRICAL NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS FOR PRORATING CUSTODIAL COSTS . . . . . . . . . . 56 V I . DISTRIBUTION OF 1968 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT AND OTHER PROGRAMS 59 V I I . SUMMARY OF BUDGETED SHARED SERVICE COSTS EOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1968 62 V I I I . PRORATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL, CUSTODIAL AND COMMON SERVICE COSTS . , 64 IX. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS - 1968 , 67 X. SUMMARY OF SUPPORT AND OTHER PROGRAM COSTS . . . . . . 71 X I . PRORATION OF SUPPORT PROGRAMS 72 X I I . PRORATION OF DEBENTURE MATURITIES, 1968 BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST . . . . . . . . . 74 X I I I . SUMMARY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, BUSINESS AND COMMERCE AND SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAMS . . . . . 76 XIV. PROGRAM COSTS BY SCHOOL-SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM 77 XV. PRORATION OF PROVINCIAL STIMULATION GRANTS TO PROGRAMS . 81 v i i TABLE PAGE XVI. COST OF EDUCATION AND REVENUE-ARTS"AND SCIENCE PROGRAM . . 84 XVII. COST OF EDUCATION AND REVENUES-BUSINESS AND COMMERCE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 XVIII. COST OF EDUCATION AND REVENUES-SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM . . . . . 87 XIX. BUDGET ESTIMATES, I968-SCHOOL NUMBER 11 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM 90 XX. PER STUDENT COST-SCHOOL NUMBER 11 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM 95 XXI. PROGRAM COST PER STUDENT ARTS AND SCIENCE; BUSINESS AND COMMERCE; SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAMS , 96 XXII. PROGRAM REVIEW 1968 MULTI-YEAR PLAN 1968-71 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM . . . . . . . 107 XXIII. PROGRAM REVIEW 1968, MULTI-YEAR PLAN 1968-71 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES PER STUDENT . . . . . . . . 110 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. PROGRAM BUDGETING COMPONENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . 37 2. FORMATS OF BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . 94 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The w r i t e r wishes to express a p p r e c i a t i o n to the many persons who gave so generously of t h e i r time i n p r o v i d i n g the data without which t h i s model co u l d not have been developed. G r a t i t u d e i s extended to Pro f e s s o r Robert H. Heywood who, as com-mittee chairman, provided such e x c e l l e n t guidance throughout the formative stages of t h i s p r o j e c t . To committee members, Dr. W. J . H a r t r i c k and Dr. B. E. Burke, sincere a p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed f o r t h e i r co-operation, h e l p f u l suggestions, and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m . The w r i t e r ' s colleagues i n the Western Ontario Regional O f f i c e of the Department of Education, and Dr. John Holland of the Ontario I n s t i -t u t e f o r Studies i n Education deserve s p e c i a l mention f o r t h e i r encour-agement and advice. F i n a l l y , deep a p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed to the w r i t e r ' s w i f e , Rosemary, and c h i l d r e n , Fraser and Kara, f o r t h e i r understanding and patience. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM I n t r o d u c t i o n Most schools today have changed i n both s i z e and character from those i n e x i s t e n c e even a few years ago. In the beginning of the school system i n O n t a r i o , and f o r many years t h e r e a f t e r , smallness was funda-mental. Schools were s m a l l , d i s t r i c t s were s m a l l , w i t h small school boards and small s t a f f s . The f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d , however, met the needs of the c h i l d r e n and the communities they served. D i s t r i c t s were o f t e n l i m i t e d by the distance a c h i l d could walk to school.'' More r e c e n t l y , however, smallness, as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of education i n O n t a r i o , has been recognized as a problem. The wide v a r i e t y of edu-c a t i o n a l requirements demanded by modern technology can no longer be met by the simple s i n g l e school program. L i t t l e doubt e x i s t s that the s m a l l -er u n i t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y at the elementary l e v e l , have i n h i b i t e d the expan-s i o n and growth of programs. In 1945, there were 5,649 elementary, separate, and secondary school boards i n the Province of Ontario. In September, 1967, there were 1,494 o p e r a t i n g school boards, comprised of 777 elementary school boards, 482 separate school boards and 235 secondary school boards. The n e c e s s i t y to provide f o r e d u c a t i o n a l needs i n the years ahead has r e s u l t e d i n l e g i s l a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h a board of education i n each of the t h i r t y - e i g h t counties of Southern Ontario and In each of the d e s i g -2 nated school d i v i s i o n s In Northern Ontario. The prime o b j e c t i v e behind the proposal to e s t a b l i s h county-boards of education i s the d e s i r e to provide e q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l 2 o p p o r t u n i t y f o r every c h i l d i n the Province o f - O n t a r i o . Inherent i n t h i s o b j e c t i v e i s the n e c e s s i t y of o f f e r i n g school programs to meet the needs and i n t e r e s t s of the student and to provide f o r the great v a r i e t y represented by i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a b i l i t y , background and expe-r i e n c e . As a r e s u l t of t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n , i n January, 1969, approximately 100 l a r g e r u n i t s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l be formed from the 1,494 school boards e x i s t i n g i n the previous year. In s p i t e of the r e l a t i v e smallness of some a d m i n i s t r a t i v e u n i t s and the r e l a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y of p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on b a s i c programs, there has been an I n c r e a s i n g awareness by c i t i z e n s and t h e i r representa-t i v e s that t r a d i t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s , such as c e n t r a l i z e d budgeting and s i n g u l a r emphasis on f i n a n c i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y are inade-quate. Speaking to the Ontario Urban and Rural Trustees' A s s o c i a t i o n , Mr. Y i n g Hope, chairman of the Toronto Board of Education, emphasized the problem when he s a i d , "The most c r u c i a l issue f a c i n g Ontario educa-t o r s i s the waste of m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s through 'horse-and-buggy' ad-'s m l n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s . " For reasons not e a s i l y I d e n t i f i e d , some of the l a r g e r school systems and o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n the p u b l i c sector have not been successful" In a l l o c a t i n g funds to the best advantage. Mr. Hope continued by saying: My experience as Chairman of the l a r g e s t E n g l i s h language school board In Canada i s that the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s of many large boards - and I am not excepting the Toronto Board - are encrusted 3 4 w i t h ancient t r a d i t i o n s . F a i l u r e to have an adequate and e f f e c t i v e system f o r reviewing p r i o r i t i e s , and f o r reducing and e l i m i n a t i n g marginal and obsolete pro-grams, has r e s u l t e d i n some r a t h e r embarrassing s i t u a t i o n s i n the past f o r s e n i o r governments. For example, a study prepared by two research economists of the Canadian Centre f o r Community S t u d i e s , f o r the Econ-omic C o u n c i l of Canada, declared b l u n t l y " t h a t three of the f e d e r a l gov-ernment f s most sacred of sacred cow programs aren't worth the money being spent on them."'' The study emphasized that hundreds of m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s have been spent on the three programs, the P r a i r i e Farm Reha-b i l i t a t i o n A c t , the Maritime Marshland R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t , and the A g r i c u l t u r a l and Rural Development A c t , and that "a large part of that money may have gone down the d r a i n . " The authors concluded that many of the hundreds of p r o j e c t s l i s t e d i n the A g r i c u l t u r a l and R u r a l Devel-opment Act catalogue "cost the taxpayer one d o l l a r so that a farmer somewhere i n a f r i n g e area can make say, f i f t y cents. U s u a l l y , In t r a d i t i o n a l budgets, there i s no mention of how objects purchased r e l a t e to the alms, o b j e c t i v e s and outputs of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . From the taxpayer standpoint there seems to be an analogy w i t h the saying " l e t the buyer beware". To c o r r e c t the s i t u a t i o n , t r a d i t i o n a l budgets need more than j u s t i f i c a t i o n . J u s t i f i c a t i o n may merely r a t i o n a l i z e the status quo or be a defence of e x c e s s i v e l y h i g h costs that have not been examined i n terms of p o s s i b l e economies i n c o s t , or the scope, or q u a l i t y , of s e r v i c e s provided. Budgets prepared on a program b a s i s have been found to be more i n -t e l l i g i b l e than l i n e item budgets (1) as d e c i s i o n making t o o l s and (2) 4 Q f o r t r a n s m i t t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n to the general p u b l i c . The o u t l i n i n g of programs and a c t i v i t i e s to be undertaken together w i t h a l l r e l e v a n t cost data at l e a s t focuses d e c i s i o n s upon end r e s u l t s . There i s never enough money to undertake a l l p r o j e c t s and programs considered d e s i r a b l e f o r any government u n i t . Emphasis on programs, t h e r e f o r e , compels d e c i s i o n makers to evaluate the end r e s u l t s i n a l l o c a t i n g the l i m i t e d funds at t h e i r d i s p o s a l . Statement of the Problem During recent years, many changes have taken place i n e d u c a t i o n a l t h i n k i n g . Change i n e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e , however, moves more s l o w l y , being r e s t r i c t e d to some degree, by the i n e r t i a of teachers, parents, p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s and members of the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly. Some of the changes that have taken place can be a t t r i b u t e d to the f u s i o n of a number of elements such as (1) a growing r e c o g n i t i o n of the important c o n t r i b u t i o n of education to economic and s o c i a l development, and (2) the r e a l i z a t i o n that the r a p i d expansion o f education and the Increased economic resources d i v e r t e d to i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y by the p u b l i c s e c t o r , n e c e s s i t a t e t a k i n g a l l rea$onable steps to ensure the e f f i c i e n t u t i l i -z a t i o n of these r e s o u r c e s . Hatry and Cotton, i n t h e i r book on program planning f o r the S t a t e -L o c a l Finances P r o j e c t , s a i d The widening of the scope and the Increased complexity of the p u b l i c s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d by the s e v e r a l areas of government have been matched by the d i f f i c u l t i e s of g u i d i n g and c o - o r d i n a t i n g f u n c t i o n s of government. Because the context i n which a government, whether i t be f e d e r a l , s t a t e , or l o c a l , seeks to provide f o r i t s c i t i z e n s i s one of s c a r c i t y of p u b l i c resources i n r e l a t i o n to o v e r - a l l demands and o b j e c t i v e s , the d e c i s i o n makers i n government 5 are forced to choose among competing programs. A. r a t i o n a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g d e c i s i o n as to how best to serve the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t can o n l y be reached through the use of improved t o o l s of p u b l i c d e c i s i o n making. The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of education i n Ontario has become i n c r e a s -i n g l y complex over the l a s t few years and the n e c e s s i t y f o r change has become apparent to the P r o v i n c i a l Government. As a r e s u l t some changes have taken place and others are scheduled f o r the f u t u r e . The f o l l o w i n g e x t r a c t s from the Statement on the Departmental Estimates 1968-89 to the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly by the Honourable W i l l i a m G. Davis, M i n i s t e r of Education, i n d i c a t e , to some extent, the r e v i s i o n s i n t h i n k i n g . 1. I t i s most important that we who are so c l o s e l y i n v o l v e d w i t h the government p e r i o d i c a l l y make an e f f o r t to stand back from our everyday commitments and re-examine not only our f u n c t i o n s but our basic assumptions about the nature of our r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to s o c i e t y . One t h i n g that emerges from such an examination i s that the r o l e of the Department of Education i n a pioneer, un-derdeveloped j u r i s d i c t i o n i s quite d i f f e r e n t t h a n l i n a sophis-t i c a t e d and complex i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . ^ u 2. However, a t t r i b u t e s which at one time were advantageous can, i n a changing environment, lose t h e i r usefulness and r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n . One such a t t r i b u t e , necessary In time, was c e n t r a l i z a t i o n [of the Department of E d u c a t i o n ] . H 3. In a l l honesty, we must admit that while the t r a d i t i o n of a c e n t r a l i z e d system of education served the Province w e l l i t d i d lead to undue emphasis on regimentation and conformity. This was perhaps a necessary e v i l In a pioneer s o c i e t y . 4. This e v o l u t i o n has r e q u i r e d a fundamental re-examination of the r o l e of the Department.^ 5. With the d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of many of the t r a d i t i o n a l departmental f u n c t i o n s to l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s which are s i t u a t e d more c l o s e l y to the p u b l i c they serve, department o f f i c i a l s w i l l be able to concentrate on those r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s which they are best equip-ped to perform.^- 4 A few items which, by t h e i r nature, have added to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e complexity are as f o l l o w s : 1. The " r e v o l u t i o n i n q u a l i t y and d i v e r s i t y of programs• n J- J The 6 large increase In the r e t e n t i o n r a t e of students which has been o c c u r r i n g annually f o r a number of years i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the greater o p p o r t u n i t i e s that have become a v a i l a b l e 2. The i n a b i l i t y of standing committees to perform a u s e f u l f u n c t i o n i n l a r g e r u n i t s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n } 3. An i n c r e a s i n g gap between the teaching f o r c e and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees i n matters concerning both the philosophy and p r a c t i c e of c e r t a i n aspects of education. Brown i n d i c a t e s that the teacher m i l i t a n c y movement springs from s e v e r a l sources, one of which i s "the i n c r e a s i n g degree of p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m on the part of teachers." He continues: Research shows t h i s phenomenon to be a growing one5 as teachers improve t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and begin to f e e l a sense of s e l f -d i r e c t i o n i n the p r a c t i c e of t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n , they begin to c h a f e — a n d j u s t i f i a b l y so i n most instances--under the r e s t r i c t i o n s of a b u r e a u c r a t i c establishment (Trask, 1964; Brown, 1 9 6 3 ) 5 ^ 4. The r a p i d growth i n student enrolment and the cost of education; 5. The r e l a t i v e complexity of l e g i s l a t i v e grants ( i n c o r p o r a t i n g the foundation l e v e l ) , c o n s t r u c t i o n g r a n t s , and r e p o r t i n g procedures; 6. The p u b l i c pressure to increase the q u a l i t y of education but r e l u c t a n c e to pay Increased costs e i t h e r by d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t t a x a t i o n . The problems mentioned above are by no means unique to Ontario as i s shown by the f o l l o w i n g recommendation made i n the State of C a l i f o r n i a : In October, 1966 the f i n a l r e p o r t of the Advisory Committee on School Budgeting and Accounting f o r the State of C a l i f o r n i a con-t a i n e d recommendations f o r s u b s t a n t i a l r e v i s i o n s i n s t a t e law and r e g u l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g to accounting and budgeting f o r p u b l i c school purposes. The Committee recommended immediate m o d i f i c a t i o n s , a m p l i f i c a t i o n s , and changes i n the d e t a i l e d method of preparing and p r e s e n t i n g school d i s t r i c t budgetary and accounting data to make i t more understandable to the taxpaying p u b l i c through the eventual 7 adoption of a recognized and acceptable p l a n of program budgeting i n C a l i f o r n i a schools. This concept s t r e s s e s purpose before s t r u c t u r e and performance as opposed to expenditures.'- 8 Bundy, P r e s i d e n t of the Ford Foundation, stated the iss u e s u c c i n c t -l y i n h i s study of New York C i t y P u b l i c Schools: Budget f o r m u l a t i o n now i s inc r e m e n t a l , fragmented and unprogram-matic....Thus, there e x i s t s now a system w i t h l i t t l e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to the p u b l i c . . . I n the way I t a l l o c a t e s resources to meet education needs of the c i t y . - ^ At a time when the p u b l i c ' s a s p i r a t i o n s and expectations of l o c a l schools appear to exceed w i l l i n g n e s s and c a p a c i t y to provide s u f f i c i e n t r e s o u r c e s , a demand has grown f o r planning and budgetary reforms which w i l l r e s u l t i n a greater emphasis upon d i s p l a y i n g the programmatic, end o b j e c t i v e s of our schools. Purpose of The Study To develop a model program budget that complies w i t h g e n e r a l l y accepted c r i t e r i a and c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s the cost of the f o l l o w i n g school programs: 1. A r t s and Science; 2. Business and Commerce; 3. Science, Technology and Trades. In developing the model the f o l l o w i n g questions are p e r t i n e n t : 1. Can P r o v i n c i a l grants be maximized by using a program budgeting system? 2. RIs a program budget compatible w i t h the present system of prov-i n c i a l a i d to education? 3. Is the data now assembled f o r budget purposes appropriate f o r use i n a program-budgeting system? 8 4. Can i n f o r m a t i o n f o r developing a program budget be obtained at a reasonable cost where t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s not now a v a i l a b l e ? 5. Would a system of program budgeting r e q u i r e d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of the budget process? Method of Study The w r i t e r surveyed Regional O f f i c i a l s of the Department of Edu-c a t i o n to a s c e r t a i n whether any school boards In Ontario were u s i n g program budgeting techniques. The survey r e v e a l e d that no school boards were usi n g such techniques. To meet the s t a t e d purpose of the study i t was r e a l i z e d that an extensive review of r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e would be needed. F i r s t of a l l i t was necessary to e s t a b l i s h the extent and type of l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e on program budgeting and s p e c i f i c a l l y the l i t e r -ature p e r t a i n i n g to program budgeting i n school systems. This review i n c l u d e d correspondence w i t h c e r t a i n major school systems i n the United States to o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n . From the l i t e r a t u r e an attempt was made to re s e a r c h the b a s i c requirements or c r i t e r i a f o r the e s t a b l i s h -ment of an e f f e c t i v e program planning and budgetary system. I t was f e l t that the purpose of the study would best be served by r e s t a t i n g the l i n e item budget of a large Board of Education i n Ontario (approximately 14,000 secondary school p u p i l s and 30,000 elementary school p u p i l s ) on a program b a s i s . In a d d i t i o n , an a n a l y s i s of the board's operations together w i t h c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h senior o f f i c i a l s was r e q u i r e d to complement d e t a i l s obtained from the budget documents* L i m i t a t i o n s The s e c t i o n of t h i s study e n t i t l e d "Program Budgeting" considers 9 the concepts and characteristics of program budgeting. The treatment is presented to establish the parameters for the fulfillment of the purpose of the study and is not intended to be exhaustive. A considerable amount of literature exists on program planning and budgeting systems in general, with a much smaller amount available applicable to education. Conse-quently, i t was considered necessary only to establish and support c r i -teria to complete the purpose of the study. It i s beyond the scope of this thesis to include cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit or in-depth analyses. The study w i l l cover 1. Identification of the fundamental educational objectives; 2. Definition of program goals; 3. Development of a single year budget on a program basis displaying pertinent costs; 4. Determination of major associated revenues enabling a net program cost to be ascertained; 5. Multi-year plan. Definition of Program Budgeting Terminology Program. A program for the purposes of program budgeting is a major function designed to achieve specified objectives that have been authorized by the governing body. Traditional budget. A traditional budget is prepared for a one year period on an object-of-expenditure basis without any indication of the work to be performed towards specific objectives or goals, or the relationship to a long term plan. 10 Program budget. A program budget concentrates a t t e n t i o n on the a l l o c a t i o n of cost from the general budget c a t e g o r i e s to dafined program c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Sub-program. A d i v i s i o n o f a complex program to f a c i l i t a t e execu-t i o n i n a s p e c i f i c f i e l d f o r which p a r t i a l goals could be' set and achieved by s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i n g u n i t s . A c t i v i t y . An a c t i v i t y i s the smallest p r a c t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n of work f o r management purposes toward program f u l f i l l m e n t , and must be p h y s i c a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e . The c o s t s i n c l u d e d i n budgeting and accounting f o r an a c t i v i t y ' s input should be p r i m a r i l y d i r e c t c o s t s because the o b j e c t i v e at t h i s l e v e l i s to compare Input w i t h output. The r e l a t i o n -ship of an a c t i v i t y to the o v e r a l l o b j e c t i v e s of a program should be r e a d i l y a p p a r e n t . ^ Program g o a l s . Program goals i n v o l v e the o p e r a t i o n a l content of a plan i n terms of s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s that are to be met at a s p e c i f i c time, or times, and r e q u i r e a d e f i n i t e amount of resources. O b j e c t i v e s . The term " o b j e c t i v e s " r e f e r s to the general objec-t i v e s towards which a program i s d i r e c t e d * Objectives are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from goals i n that o b j e c t i v e s are r e l a t e d to the existence of the pro-gram and may be v e r y long range or c o n t i n u i n g , whereas goals are p l a n -ned to be completed i n a s p e c i f i c time. For example, i n meeting the o b j e c t i v e " e q u a l i z a t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y throughout the school system" a goal could be "to c o n s t r u c t l i b r a r i e s i n three (Schools A, B, and C) of the s i x schools not now having l i b r a r i e s . Object-of-expenditure. An object-of-expenditure i s an expendi-ture c l a s s i f i e d by the nature or type of item on which funds are expend-11 ed. Expenditures are i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of goods, equipment, and s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d . Performance budget. A performance budget presents the purposes and o b j e c t i v e s f o r which funds are requested, the costs of the programs proposed f o r a c h i e v i n g these o b j e c t i v e s , and q u a n t i t a t i v e data measuring the accomplishments and work performed under each program. When com-pared to program budgeting, performance budgeting i n v o l v e s the develop-ment of more r e f i n e d management t o o l s , such as u n i t c o s t s , work measure-ment, and performance standards. Performance budgeting i s an a l l - i n c l u -s i v e concept embodying program f o r m u l a t i o n and measurement of the p e r f o r -mance of work i n the accomplishment of program o b j e c t i v e s . Performance i n d i c a t o r s . Performance i n d i c a t o r s are p h y s i c a l measures of work e f f o r t which have a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the use of resources so as to provide data that w i l l help i n p r e s e n t i n g budget proposals, as-s i g n i n g personnel, a l l o c a t i n g funds, and reviewing progress i n the a t t a i n -ment of p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s and program work g o a l s . R e s p o n s i b i l i t y c e n t r e . A r e s p o n s i b i l i t y centre i s a p a r t i c u l a r d i v i s i o n or u n i t i n d i c a t i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l o c a t i o n and l e v e l of management that w i l l c a r r y out a c t i v i t i e s . Expenditures are r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the manager who i s p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r expending funds provided. F i n a n c i a l p l a n. A f i n a n c i a l p l an c o r r e l a t e s o b j e c t i v e s , author-i t i e s , r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and resources i n a manner that keeps management at v a r i o u s l e v e l s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n f u l l y informed on budget-proposals and performance, i n the attainment of approved goal s . A p p r o p r i a t i o n . An a p p r o p r i a t i o n i s an a u t h o r i z a t i o n by a govern-12 Ing body that permits payment to be made out of identif ied funds with specific l imitations as to amount, purpose, and time period. Debenture payment. A debenture payment Is the amount of principal and interest required to be paid at a specific time in accordance with a debenture by-law. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I John P. Robarts, Larger U n i t s of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r the Province  of Ontario (Toronto: O f f i c e of the Prime M i n i s t e r of O n t a r i o , November 14, 1967), p. 1. 2Information Provided by The Honourable W i l l i a m G . Davis, M i n i s t e r of Education of O n t a r i o , i n Connection w i t h the Departmental  Estimates 1968-69 (Toronto: Department of Education, June, 1968), p. 6. 3 Y i n g Hope, "School Funds, System c a l l e d W asteful," Globe and  M a l l . June 5, 1968, p. 29. 4 l b i d . 5 " B e t t e r Value f o r Tax D o l l a r s , " The Monetary Times. February, 1968, p. 29. 6 l b i d . 7 I b i d . 8Lamar L. H i l l and Frank Mattox, Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c  School D i s t r i c t s . Summary, F i n d i n g s , Conclusion and Recommendations of Doc t o r a l T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a . (Chicago: A s s o c i a t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s 1967), p. 11. 9 Harry P. Hatry and John F. C o t t o n , Program P l a n n i n g f o r S t a t e . County. C i t y (Washington: S t a t e - L o c a l Finances P r o j e c t , The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , January, 1967), p. 3. •^Statement by The Honourable W i l l i a m G. Davis, M i n i s t e r of Educa-t i o n of O n t a r i o , on the Departmental Estimates 1968-^ 69 (Toronto: Depart-ment of Education, June, 1968), pp. 1-2. 1 1 I b i d . , p. 2. 12 I b i d . . pp. 4-5. 1 3 I b l d . , p. 5. 1 4 I b i d . . p. 8. 14 -^Education f o r New Times. Statement by Hon. W i l l i a m G. Davis, Q.C., LL. D., M i n i s t e r of Education and M i n i s t e r of U n i v e r s i t y A f f a i r s , to the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly of On t a r i o , J u l y 1967 (Toronto: Department of Education 1967), p. 2. 1 6 l b i d . . p. 4. A l l a n Brown, Changing School D i s t r i c t s i n Canada (Toronto: Department of E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , The Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, 1968), p. 13. 18 Lamar L. H i l l and Frank Mattox, Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c  School D i s t r i c t s ( D o c t o r a l T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1967), p. 5, c i t i n g C a l i f o r n i a State Assembly A d v i s o r y Committee on School Finance, F i n a l Report to the Subcommittee on School E f f i c i e n c y  and Economy (State of C a l i f o r n i a , Assembly I n t e r i m Committee on Education, October, 1966). 19 Harry J . H a r t l e y , Programme Budgeting and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n  L o c a l Schools. Paper presented to the meeting of Ad Hoc Group of Budget-i n g , Programme A n a l y s i s and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n E d u c a t i o n a l Planning 3rd - 5th A p r i l 1968. ( P a r i s : O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Co-operation and Development 1968), p. 5, c i t i n g R e c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r Learning. 20 Program Review and Estimates Manual (Ottawa: Treasury Board, Program Branch, Fe d e r a l Government of Canada, March, 1967), p. 207. CHAPTER I I PROGRAM BUDGETING There seems to have been an extensive t h e o r e t i c a l development of program budgeting as evidenced by the amount of l i t e r a t u r e which has been w r i t t e n on the s u b j e c t . P r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s of program budget-i n g , however, are not yet v e r y g e n e r a l . 1 Acceptance by Governments The widening scope and increased complexity of elementary and secondary education i s being h i g h l i g h t e d by an i n c r e a s i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n o b t a i n i n g funds to finance d e s i r e d programs. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the funds which are a v a i l a b l e i s c o n s i d e r a b l y reduced because d e c i s i o n makers f r e q u e n t l y do not have adequate and r e l i a b l e Information to support e f -f i c i e n t a l l o c a t i o n of the funds. Senior governments have faced the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a m u l t i p l i c i t y of programs f o r many years but have been slow to r e a c t to any great degree. In 1912 Presi d e n t T a f t ' s Commission on economy and e f f i c i e n c y recommended extensive changes i n the t h e n - e x i s t i n g procedures. The concept of program budgeting probably evolved at t h i s time. The Commission s t a t e d : The best t h i n g that a budget can do f o r the l e g i s l a t o r i s to enable him to have expert advice i n t h i n k i n g about p o l i c i e s to be determined To the a d m i n i s t r a t o r the advantage to be gained through a budget i s the a b i l i t y to present to the L e g i s l a t u r e and to the people, 16 through the Chief Executive or someone r e p r e s e n t i n g the adminis-t r a t i o n , a w e l l d e f i n e d , c a r e f u l l y considered, l u c i d l y expressed w e l f a r e program to be financed, and i n presenting t h i s , to support requests f o r a p p r o p r i a t i o n w i t h such concrete data as are necessary to the i n t e l l i g e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n of such a program.^ T a f t ' s Commission continued by proposing a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the budget i n terms of programs or f u n c t i o n s , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between c a p i t a l and cu r r e n t items, and a thorough and systematic review of the budget a f t e r the f a c t . Some of the Commission's recommendations f i n a l l y went i n t o e f f e c t i n 1921 w i t h the passage of the Budget and Accounting A c t . Further progress was he l d up u n t i l a f t e r World War I I when i n 1949 the Hoover Commission s t a t e d : We recommend that the whole budgetary concept of the f e d e r a l government should be refashioned by the adoption of a budget based upon f u n c t i o n s , a c t i v i t i e s , and p r o j e c t s ; t h i s we designate a per-formance budget. Such an approach would focus a t t e n t i o n upon the general character and r e l a t i v e importance of the work to be done,.or upon the s e r v i c e to be renderedj r a t h e r than upon the things to be acquired, such as personal s e r v i c e s , s u p p l i e s , equipment, and so on. These l a t t e r o b j e c t s are, a f t e r a l l o n l y a means to an end. The a l l Important t h i n g i n budgeting i s the work or the s e r v i c e to be ac-complished, and what the work or s e r v i c e w i l l c o s t . 3 In August of 1965, P r e s i d e n t Johnson Informed h i s cabinet that program budgeting, commenced i n 1961 i n the Defense Department, had been so s u c c e s s f u l that i t would now be ap p l i e d to a l l departments and agen-c i e s . In Canada, senior governments have been e q u a l l y slow to respond e f f e c t i v e l y to the challenge of burgeoning programs and expenditures. In 1962, the Royal Commission on Government Organization ( f o r Canada), recommended fundamental changes to improve management of government o p e r a t i o n s . Many of the recommendations are being implemented progres-s i v e l y over a number of years. The major area of change i s concerned w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n of new concepts of program planning and budgetary 17 c o n t r o l , and the submission of departmental budgets i n the form of pro-gram review and estimate documents. At the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , the Royal Commission on Government Ad-m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r the Province of Saskatchewan s t a t e d : H i s t o r i c a l emphasis on f i n a n c i a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y p r e v a i l s where emphasis upon r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r accomplishment should be the major c r i t e r i a . The t r a d i t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s of government toward f i n a n c i a l c o n t r o l have c o n s t r i c t e d f l e x i b i l i t y and s t r a n g l e d i n i t i a t i v e . Accounting systems which confine r a t h e r than channel; i n f o r m a t i o n systems which c o n t r o l r a t h e r than inform; a l l work to impair the a b i l i t y of a dynamic o r g a n i z a t i o n . Current management p r a c t i c e s do not c l e a r l y define the r o l e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the v a r i o u s l e v e l s of management. On the one hand department, branch and d i -v i s i o n heads are charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . On the other hand, these a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are not given the f l e x i b i l i t y to discharge t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s nor are they h e l d f u l l y accountable f o r the achievement of d e f i n a b l e g o a l s . ^ P u b l i c funds are appropriated f o r a purpose. The accomplishment of the purpose must become the b a s i s f o r management: program ob-j e c t i v e s must be the f o c a l point f o r the p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The use of resources, whether manpower, c a p i t a l or f a c i l i t i e s , must be f o r m a l l y r e l a t e d to the achievement of these o b j e c t i v e s . There can be no other r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r use. There i s abundant evidence to suggest that the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of government programs has f a i l e d to meet the t e s t of r a p i d growth.-* While the above c r i t i c i s m s are based on the operations of the Saskatchewan Government i t seems c l e a r t h a t many of the c r i t i c i s m s are e q u a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to school board o p e r a t i o n s , since i n a sense, they are an e x t e n s i o n of a p r o v i n c i a l department. Under the B r i t i s h North America Act of 1867, sovereign powers over education were granted to the v a r i o u s p r o v i n c i a l l e g i s l a t u r e s by S e c t i o n 93. The Ontario Department of Education i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the admini-s t r a t i o n and enforcement of the s t a t u t e s and r e g u l a t i o n s r e s p e c t i n g a l l types of schools which are supported i n whole or i n part by p u b l i c funds. In the f i s c a l year 1969-70 the estimates of the Ontario Department 18 of Education w i l l be submitted to the Treasury Board "on the new Pro-gram a c t i v i t y b a s i s . This i s an e s s e n t i a l part of the new system of program budgeting which i s being implemented t h i s year i n the Ontario Government." Because P r o v i n c i a l L e g i s l a t i v e Grants f o r elementary and 7 secondary education t o t a l $563 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s f o r 1968-69 ( t o t a l edu-c a t i o n expenditures $876,364,000) there seems every i n d i c a t i o n that the p r e p a r a t i o n of program budgets w i l l become mandatory at the school board l e v e l . R e c e n t l y , the M i n i s t e r o f Education made the statement: "We now have to look at every l a s t expenditure to decide whether i t i s a worth-while one, and that should apply a l l the way down the l i n e i n education." F u r t h e r , the M i n i s t e r has p r e d i c t e d that " w i t h i n a year of t h e i r i n -c e p t i o n county-wide boards of education w i l l be r e q u i r e d to submit f i v e -year c a p i t a l budget f o r e c a s t s . " ^ Boards of Education have been slow to adopt Program Budgeting i n s p i t e of apparent advantages. Several reasons have been expressed f o r the r e l u c t a n t a t t i t u d e . One of the major problems i s the d i f f i c u l t y of measuring performance or output f o r education. Burkhead suggested that "school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n has been r e l a t i v e l y untouched by these reforms i n budgetary a n a l y s i s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . " 1 1 Burkhead continued, " I t i s a l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t to see why school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have remained a l o o f from these recent and important d e v e l -12 opments i n budgeting." He suggests the f o l l o w i n g as p o s s i b l e reasons: 1. Schools have remained separated from other arms of government, and have maintained independent t r a d i t i o n s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; 2 . School budgeting i s t y p i c a l l y h i g h l y c e n t r a l i z e d ; 3. The frequency of in n o v a t i o n i s low i n school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Some authors, such as Ovsiew and C a s t e t t e r are opposed to any emphasis on cost accounting. They accept the " f u n c t i o n a l uses of the budget" but s t a t e : Many of the devices used by muni c i p a l governments i n the 'p e r f o r -mance' budget (standard work u n i t s , standard c o s t s , man-hours per u n i t and work performed) are not a p p l i c a b l e i n education. They continue by saying Nor are there cost standards f o r the education of c h i l d r e n . Re-search shows, f o r example, that as expenditure l e v e l s i n c r e a s e , the q u a l i t y of education Improves.'- 3 In the w r i t e r ' s o p i n i o n the l a t t e r statement i s very much open to question. For example, the r e s u l t s of a recent u n o f f i c i a l study of school c o s t s i n one county of Western Ontario showed that i n the o p i n i o n of a p r o v i n c i a l l y employed Inspector of schools, the best equipped school i n the county o f f e r i n g the most options and the best e d u c a t i o n a l op-p o r t u n i t y had the lowest cost per student (School D). The p e r t i n e n t r e s u l t s were: Gross Cost School Enrolment Per Student A 374 $ 1,205 B 615 1,252 C 1,282 1,011 D 949 955 E 493 966 Some school boards, mainly i n the United S t a t e s , have accepted the challenge and rep o r t v a r y i n g degrees of success i n applying program procedures. H a r t l e y r e p o r t s eleven school boards which purport to be using program budgeting.'' 4 The study by H i l l and Mattox shows others who are usin g program b u d g e t i n g . ^ Four of the most extensive and i n -t e r e s t i n g United States p r o j e c t s are those of Dade County ( F l o r i d a ) , New York C i t y , Sacramento, and Chicago. Dade County has a l l o c a t e d 20 $600,000 ( i n c l u d i n g a s s i s t a n c e from the f e d e r a l government) f o r a com-prehensive r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i n program budgeting l a s t i n g over three years. The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s p r o j e c t i s "to determine and describe the procedures f o r implementation and operation of a program budget i n a T 6 large p u b l i c school system." U l t i m a t e l y the r e s u l t s of t h i s p r o j e c t w i l l i n f l u e n c e school budgets i n the more progressive j u r i s d i c t i o n s . However, I t w i l l be s e v e r a l years before d e f i n i t e g u i d e l i n e s and manuals are prepared f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n . In 1967, the Board of Education f o r the C i t y of New York announced the f i r s t - p h a s e plans f o r the development of a comprehensive P.P.B.S.^ An o f f i c i a l i n charge of the new program described the purpose as f o l l o w s : I t Is the i n t e n t of P.P.B.S. to r e l a t e costs to o b j e c t i v e s of the New York C i t y School System. In that way, we can more r e a l -i s t i c a l l y determine i f we get maximum value f o r our d o l l a r . Out-put measures, or what Industry would c a l l productive u n i t s , would be examined and f i n a n c i a l resources r e a l l o c a t e d , i f d e s i r e d r e s u l t s are not maintained. In a d d i t i o n , we are t r y i n g to b r i n g c o s t s down to the school l e v e l so that In the process of d e c e n t r a l i z i n g New York C i t y schools we s h a l l know, and the communities w i l l know, what the t o t a l costs are f o r each school. I t w i l l be p o s s i b l e , t h e r e f o r e , to r e a l l o c a t e resources even on the i n d i v i d u a l school l e v e l - i n an attempt to f a c i l -i t a t e optimal achievement of the c h i l d r e n . ^ Undoubtedly, as the f i r s t ventures i n t o program budgeting which are now t a k i n g place prove u s e f u l to the superintendent and to d e c i s i o n makers, more school boards w i l l want to overcome the b a r r i e r s which are now r a i s e d against i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n . Purpose and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s A program planning and, budgeting system i s aimed at a s s i s t i n g management to make b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s concerning the a l l o c a t i o n of r e -21 sources between a l t e r n a t i v e and competing o b j e c t i v e s . I t s u l t i m a t e ob-j e c t i v e i s the development and p r e s e n t a t i o n of p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the cost and b e n e f i t i m p l i c a t i o n s of major a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n over the long term. One a u t h o r i t y has s a i d that the program concept also seems impor-19 tant f o r an e f f i c i e n t d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of d e c i s i o n making. Some primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a program planning and budgeting system are as f o l l o w s : 1L. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the fundamental e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ; 2 . 8 D e f i n i t i o n of program goals; 3. Systematic i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of a l t e r n a t i v e ways to achieve o b j e c t i v e s ; 4. Development of a f i n a n c i a l plan d i s p l a y i n g the p e r t i n e n t c o s t s , both c a p i t a l and n o n - c a p i t a l ; 5. Development of a m u l t i - y e a r program and f i n a n c i a l plan ( f i v e years i n a d d i t i o n to the current year has been g e n e r a l l y accepted)j 6. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of major associated revenues of programs, where ap p r o p r i a t e , e n a b l i n g a net cost of the program to be determined; 7. Continuous review of the system i n c l u d i n g program e v a l u a t i o n , program f o r m u l a t i o n , program r e p o r t i n g and program r e v i s i o n . Advantages and Disadvantages Seve r a l of the advantages of program budgeting were h i g h l i g h t e d i n the s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter d e a l i n g w i t h acceptance by governments. The Board of Education of the C i t y of New York, i n P.P.B.S. B u l l e t i n No. 1 s t a t e s that program budgeting should: 22 1 . F a c i l i t a t e the whole managerial d e c i s i o n process through the pro-v i s i o n of system, d i s c i p l i n e , and improved Information f l o w . 2. Provide school o f f i c i a l s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i t h t o t a l c u r r e n t and f u t u r e resource i m p l i c a t i o n s of a l t e r n a t i v e courses of a c t i o n . 3. U t i l i z e the time of senior o f f i c i a l s more e f f e c t i v e l y by enabling them to focus on major o b j e c t i v e s , p o l i c i e s and resource d e c i s i o n s . 4. Enable e a r l y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l problems and reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of c r i s i s management, through improved planning and f o r e c a s t i n g . 5. Define and i n t e g r a t e management i n f o r m a t i o n needs and improve the development of data systems to meet these needs. 6. Improve program j u s t i f i c a t i o n to higher a u t h o r i t i e s , and th e r e -f o r e a s s i s t i n competing f o r c i t y , s t a t e and Federal funds. 7. F a c i l i t a t e community r e l a t i o n s by improving v i s i b i l i t y of objec- 2Q t i v e s and the resources a v a i l a b l e to accomplish these o b j e c t i v e s . The Program Pla n n i n g and Budgeting O f f i c e of the New York Board of Education s t a t e s : The major advantage of PPBS i s I n t e g r a t i o n of a l l elements of the d e c i s i o n process to produce more d e c i s i o n s t h a t are optimal f o r the e n t i r e New York C i t y P u b l i c School System as a whole, r a t h e r than f o r i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t i e s or v o c a l m i n o r i t i e s . PPBS w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y make d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s any e a s i e r but improved d e c i s i o n s can be reached on complex issues by the use of methods which seek to c l a r i f y as many aspects of such problems as p o s s i b l e , and which insure that a l l r e l e v a n t a l t e r n a t i v e s and s i g -n i f i c a n t i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s are considered. The p o t e n t i a l long-term b e n e f i t s of PPBS to school o f f i c i a l s , t e a c h e r s , p u p i l s , f a m i l i e s , and taxpayers, through more e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e use of l i m i t e d resources, make PPBS worth the con-s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h i t . ^ l Lamar L. H i l l s t a t e s the advantages of Program Budgeting as f o l l o w s : 1 . The whole budget problem Is considered i n terms of meaningful programs, not j u s t o b j e c t s of expenditures. 2. Determines major o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals to be a t t a i n e d . 3. Develops s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s f o r each program and r e l a t e s a c t i v i t i e s a c c o r d i n g l y . 4. M u l t l and future year i m p l i c a t i o n s are e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d . 5 . A l l p e r t i n e n t c o s t s are considered f o r c u r r e n t , a l t e r n a t i v e and proposed programs. 6. Systematic a n a l y s i s of a l t e r n a t i v e s , and r e s u l t s or "output", i s u s e d . 2 2 According to H a r t l e y : The major advantage of program budgeting over conventional ap-proaches i s that I n the new format, greater a t t e n t i o n i s devoted to outputs, or programmatic outcomes of a s c h o o l , as compared to the inputs ( o b j e c t s purchased) which are necessary to support these programs. 2^ Another author s a i d that the main advantage of i n t r o d u c i n g P.P.B.S. l i e s In the f a c t that i t enables the p o l i c y maker to ask ques-t i o n s i n a systematic manner. The system must then provide f a c t u a l i n -formation or informed e s t i m a t e s . ^ 4 The f o l l o w i n g have been l i s t e d as l i m i t a t i o n s of a program budget format: 1. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a i n s are not e l i m i n a t e d ; 2. P o l i t i c a l elements may act as a b a r r i e r ; 3. Degree of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of a u t h o r i t y i s not c l e a r ; 4. Every systems a n a l y s i s has d e f e c t s ; 5 . P r o j e c t i n g long range co s t s i s hazardous; 6. Opposition to planned change permeates education; 7. E v a l u a t i o n of educational programs i s p r i m i t i v e ; 8. L o c a l schools have inadequate s t a f f s f o r systems planning; 9. A c t i v i t i e s and programs may not be mutually e x c l u s i v e ; 10. Present e d u c a t i o n a l goals are s t a t e d i n truisms and c l i c h e s ; 11. Department of Education program s t r u c t u r e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y appropriate f o r l o c a l schools; 12. Conclusive evidence of the success of P.P.B.S. i n education i s 24 not abundant. A program planning and budgeting system i s p r i m a r i l y a planning system l e a d i n g to program d e c i s i o n s . The d e c i s i o n s reached are then used as guidance i n preparing d e t a i l e d budgets. I f p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r t r a n s l a t i n g planning d e c i s i o n s i n t o compatible budget estimates, i t i s p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n most of the advantages of the system where i t i s de s i r e d not to make a complete t r a n s i t i o n from current p r a c t i c e s . T r a d i t i o n a l Budget T r a d i t i o n a l l y l o c a l budgets have been viewed as a device f o r pro-v i d i n g strong f i s c a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y and managerial c o n t r o l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to the p u b l i c f o r i t s funds. They have tended to be c o n t r o l l e r ' s budgets. The primary b a s i s f o r next year's budget has been the current budget, the major d i f f e r e n c e being an adjustment i n each of the conven-t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s . H a r t l e y contended that program budgeting need not replace conven-27 t i o n a l budgeting procedures. L i n e item and program budgets probably should be maintained c o n c u r r e n t l y as a means of d e s c r i b i n g an or g a n i z a -t i o n ' s expenditures on both an input and an output b a s i s . He continued, Program budgeting i s not a panacea...the ' o r i g i n a l s i n * i n the world of school finance i s not budgeting, but comprises numerous 'intervening v a r i a b l e s which e x i s t e d long before the program budget: human e r r o r , poor judgement, dishonesty, r e s i s t a n c e to account-a b i l i t y , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e short-sightedness, adherance to orthodoxy, manifest p o l i t i c a l f a c t o r s and the like."28 T r a n s f e r from p r e s e n t a t i o n of a t r a d i t i o n a l type budget to a pro-gram budget r a i s e s c e r t a i n problems such as a s s i g n i n g costs of a u x i l i a r y s e r v i c e s . These cos t s may be contained i n separate programs or a l l o c a t e d 25 on a proportionate b a s i s to "end product" programs. Program C l a s s i f i c a t i o n A program, f o r the purposes of program budgeting, i s the highest l e v e l of work performed by an o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c a r r y i n g out assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I d e a l l y , I t designates that p o r t i o n of work which produces an end product or s e r v i c e which i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the pur-poses f o r which the o r g a n i z a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d . The program c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n g e n e r a l l y 1. R e f l e c t s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of major o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t s j 2. F a c i l i t a t e s f o r m u l a t i o n of the budget i n r e l a t i o n to p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s ; 3. Provides the framework f o r d e c i s i o n making; 4. I l l u s t r a t e s e f f e c t i v e l y how resources w i l l be used i n ac h i e v i n g s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s ; 5. F a c i l i t a t e s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l i n determining the r e s u l t s of operations i n r e l a t i o n to the budget approved; 6. D i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n to p o l i c y o b j e c t i v e s , planned performance and c o s t . The United Nations Department of Economic and S o c i a l A f f a i r s manual s t a t e s : "The program c l a s s i f i c a t i o n f u r n i s h e s a framework f o r developing an agency budget, and a broad b a s i s f o r review of proposed p l a n s , estimates of requirements, and progress of work i n r e l a t i o n to approved p l a n s . " The manual continues: The l a c k of a measurable end product should not m i l i t a t e against 26 the establishment of a program that otherwise meets the c r i t e r i a of p r o v i d i n g a s u i t a b l e b a s i s f o r p l a n n i n g , reviewing budget pr o p o s a l s , and e v a l u a t i n g performance against p l a n s . " 3 u In some s i t u a t i o n s , what would appear to be a l o g i c a l program may be d i v i d e d i n t o two or more segments because of c e r t a i n circumstances. For i n s t a n c e , v o c a t i o n a l education In the P h i l i p p i n e s i s t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e program. In another country, the s i z e and nature of that program and the'way I t i s conducted may make I t p r e f e r a b l e to i d e n t i f y trade and Industry i n education, t r a i n i n g i n home indus-t r i e s , e t c . , as separate segments of v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . " 3 In s i m i l a r complex s i t u a t i o n s i t may be d e s i r a b l e to e s t a b l i s h separate elements of the program as sub-programs. For each program category of the program s t r u c t u r e , the cost e s t i -mates should represent estimates of a l l costs and revenues p e r t i n e n t to the program. C o n s i d e r a t i o n should be given to both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t c o s t s and to c o s t s both current and f u t u r e . 3 ^ Program Cost Accounting Program cost accounting i s used In the i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs to determine cost r e l a t i o n s h i p s between course areas and courses. One of the primary purposes of program cost accounting i s to i d e n t i f y cost e f f i c i e n c i e s . Therefore, i n a system of complete program cost accounting, a l l c o st a t t r i b u t a b l e to each program or sub-program must be accounted f o r . In most cases the volume of a n a l y t i c a l work and p o s t i n g necessary Involves the use of computer f a c i l i t i e s . H i l l and Mattox found that a major percentage of the school boards st u d i e d already u s i n g a program budgeting system were u t i l i z i n g e l e c t r o n -i c data p rocessing equipment. Program cost accounting can be u t i l i z e d on a l i m i t e d b a s i s along 27 w i t h a t r a d i t i o n a l system. For example, w i t h the establishment of an advanced mathematics course, the d i f f e r e n t i a l costs o n l y , such as i n s t r u c -t i o n a l and s p e c i a l equipment c o s t s , would be charged to the cost of course maintenance. A l l other c o s t s such as u t i l i t i e s and c u s t o d i a l s e r v i c e s 35 would be i n c u r r e d whether or not the course was o f f e r e d . Where records are maintained f o r more than one program, items such as u t i l i t i e s , heat and c u s t o d i a l s e r v i c e s may not be d i r e c t l y charge-able to each program because the exact charge to be made i s not r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e . In such cases, c o s t s must be prorated among programs by a method that has a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p to the a c t i v i t y f o r which the ex-penditure i s being prorated. For example, f l o o r area has no d i r e c t r e -l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the workload of a teacher. I t could not q u a l i f y , there-f o r e , as a d e s i r a b l e b a s i s f o r p r o r a t i n g teachers' s a l a r i e s . An important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n s e l e c t i n g a p r o r a t i n g method i s the p r a c t i c a b i l i t y of the method chosen. I t must be as simple as c o n d i t i o n s w i l l a l l o w , f e a s i b l e to apply, and capable of a c h i e v i n g the desired ob-j e c t i v e . No s i n g l e method w i l l adequately prorate the many d i f f e r e n t kinds of expenditures encountered i n school f i n a n c e . According to the O f f i c e of Education the three b a s i c p r o r a t i n g problems are as f o l l o w s : 1. P r o r a t i n g between f u n c t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s such as p r o r a t i n g the s a l a r y of a person who performs c u s t o d i a l and maintenance work between operation of p l a n t and maintenance of plant accounts. 2. P r o r a t i n g between program areas or o r g a n i z a t i o n u n i t s such as p r o r a t i n g the s a l a r y of a teacher who serves both an elementary and secondary school. 3. P r o r a t i n g expenditures to community s e r v i c e s accounts such as pro-28 rating expenditures for heat, l ight , and supplies between commun-i ty ac t iv i t i e s , rental of f a c i l i t i e s . 3 6 To minimize the work involved and to obtain the benefits of e f f i c -ient expenditure proration, school boards w i l l find i t expedient, at the beginning of the year, to determine the classes of expenditures to be prorated and establish standard ratios for prorating each class. Once set up, the standardized ratios would be applied to each class of expen-ditures as necessary, without the need for elaborate calculations each time an expenditure is made. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I George A. Terhune, Performance and Program Budgeting P r a c t i c e s  i n the U.S. and Canada. Accounting P u b l i c a t i o n No. 13^-2, Committee on Budgeting Report No. 2 (Chicago: M u n i c i p a l Finance O f f i c e r s A s s o c i a t i o n August 25, 1966), p. 8. ^David Novlck, Program Budgeting: Long Range Planning i n the  Department of Defense (Santa Monica: The Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , November, 1962), p. 30. o Lamar L. H i l l and Frank Mattox "Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t s " ( D o c t o r a l T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1967), p. 2. c i t i n g Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government, Budgeting and Accounting. A Report to the Congress (Washington: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , February, 1949), p. 8. ^Royal Commission on Government A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r Saskatchewan  1965 (Regina: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1965), p. 25. 5 I b i d . , p. 26. 6 D e partment of Education, P r e p a r a t i o n of 1969-70 Estimates (Toronto: O f f i c e of the A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r , A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , May 17, 1968), p. 2. ^Department of Education, Summary of Estimates. Estimates 1968r-69 submitted to the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly March 12, 1968 (Toronto: Department of Education 1968), p. 35. 8 I b i d . ^"Davis Sees Ontario on Bankruptcy Edge W i t h i n F i v e Years," The  London Free P r e s s . March 13, 1968, p. 10. 1 0 n F i v e Year School Budgets P r e d i c t e d , " The London Free P r e s s . A p r i l 5, 1968, p. 28. 1 1 J e s s e Burkhead, The Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n of Program Budgeting to Education (Proceedings of the E i g h t h N a t i o n a l Conference on School Finance, N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , A p r i l 6, 1965), p. 14, •^Burkhead, op_. c i t . . p. 5. 30 l 3 L e o n Ovslew and W i l l i a m B. C a s t e t t e r , Budgeting f o r B e t t e r Schools (Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1960), p. 290. •^Harry J . H a r t l e y , Programme Budgeting and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n L o c a l Schools. Paper presented to the meeting of Ad Hoc Group of Budget-i n g , Programme A n a l y s i s and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n E d u c a t i o n a l Planning 3rd. - 5 t h . A p r i l 1968. ( P a r i s : O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Co-operation and Development 1968), p. 14. 1 5 H i l l and Mattox, op_. c i t . . pp. 122-216. Program Budget Research Proposal (Miami, F l o r i d a : Dade County Board of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , November, 1966^ p. 4. •^ H a r t l e y , op. c i t . . p. 17. 1 8 H a r t l e y , op_. c i t . . p. 19. c i t i n g L e t t e r from Murray Hart, A s s i s t a n t Superintendent f o r the o f f i c e of P.P.B., Board of Education of the C i t y of New York, January 10, 1968. i§Hartley, op. c i t . . p. 13. 2 u J e a n e t t e B r a g i n , Program Budgeting. Annual Volume of Proceedings, A s s o c i a t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s , October, 1967 (Chicago: A s s o c i a -t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s 1968), p. 156. 2 1 I b i d . 2 2Lamar L. H i l l , Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t s . Annual Volume of Proceedings, A s s o c i a t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s , October, 1967 (Chicago: A s s o c i a t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s 1968), p. 159. 23Hartley, op. c i t . . p. 3. 2 ^ H a r r y P. Hatry and John F. Cotton, Program Pl a n n i n g f o r S t a t e . County. C i t y (Washington: S t a t e - L o c a l Finances P r o j e c t , The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , January, 1967), p. 7. ^ H a r t l e y , op. c i t . . p. 27. 2 6 I b i d . . p. 3 2 7 l b i d . , p. 12. 2 8 l b i d . ^Department of Economic and S o c i a l A f f a i r s , A Manual f o r Pro- gramme and Performance Budgeting (New York: United N a t i o n s , 1965), p. 7. 30lbid. 3 1 I b i d 3 2 H a t r y and Cotton, op_. c i t . . p. 23. 3 3 0 f f i c e of Education, P r i n c i p l e s of P u b l i c School Acounting. (Washington: U*S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1967), p. 248. 3^Lamar L. H i l l and Frank Mattox, "Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t s , " Summary, F i n d i n g s , Conclusion and Recommendations Doctoral T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a . (Chicago: Assoc! t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s 1967), p. 14. 3^Program Review and Estimates Manual (Ottawa: Treasury Board, Program Branch, Federal Government of Canada, March, 1967), p. 248. 3 6 0 f f i c e of Education, OJD. c i t . . p. 245. CHAPTER I I I THE MODEL . In t r o d u c t i o n A major p o r t i o n of the adult l i f e of most people I s , i n a broad way, concerned w i t h remunerative work c o n t r i b u t i n g to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s own w e l l - b e i n g , and to that of s o c i e t y i n general. One important func-t i o n , of a school system i s , t h e r e f o r e , to ensure that approximately the " r i g h t " amount of the var i o u s kinds of educational q u a l i f i c a t i o n s r e -quired by a he a l t h y economy are f o r t h coming. A system which produces a large number of students f o r whom there i s l i t t l e demand may be s a i d to be f a i l i n g i n i t s t a s k s , and so may a system producing an inadequate number of people w i t h q u a l i f i c a t i o n s which are i n demand. I t i s f a i l i n g i n d i v i d u a l s who cannot c a p i t a l i z e on t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and s o c i e t y by not ensuring the best preparation of i t s human resources and u t i l i z a -t i o n of economic resources. I t seems reasonable to assume that where se v e r a l programs are i n o p e r a t i o n , d e t a i l e d planning i s necessary to ensure that the school system discharges I t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s In an e f -f i c i e n t manner. Moreover, the b e n e f i t s and advantages of the sometimes c o n f l i c t i n g aims of e q u a l i t y of opportunity and i n d i v i d u a l freedom of choice i n education appear to be maximized only w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of planning. In terms of pla n n i n g , the f o l l o w i n g questions are pe r t i n e n t to the development of a program budget: 1. How should the s t r u c t u r e of the system develop? 2. How many p u p i l s must be provided f o r i n each program? 3. How many teachers w i l l be required? 4. How can the best use be made of teachers and equipment? 5. What supporting s e r v i c e s w i l l be required? 6 . Are present f a c i l i t i e s adequate and how w e l l are they u t i l i z e d ? 7. What type of school c o n s t r u c t i o n should be undertaken? 8. What f a c t o r s should be considered i n determining program expend-tures? 9. How much of the program's expenditures w i l l be borne l o c a l l y ? 1 0 . What changes w i l l take place i n program content? The answers to these and s i m i l a r questions w i l l provide a frame-work w i t h i n which a budget can be developed. The i n i t i a l step i s the development of fundamental educational o b j e c t i v e s . Fundamental Objectives In a s o c i e t y which i s c o n s t a n t l y changing, fundamental o b j e c t i v e s p e r i o d i c a l l y need to be re d e f i n e d i n the l i g h t of the general trend. A program budget, t h e r e f o r e , must begin w i t h the fundamental ob-j e c t i v e s of the school system. The edu c a t i o n a l goals (or tar g e t s ) which are e s t a b l i s h e d i n the process of planning can be evaluated only against the background of these more fundamental o b j e c t i v e s . The t e c h n i c a l p l a n -ning process, t h e r e f o r e , begins w i t h these more general o b j e c t i v e s : 1 . E x p l o r i n g the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the o b j e c t i v e s i n order to s p e c i f y t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the t e c h n i c a l planning process; 2. Attempting to formulate o b j e c t i v e s which are r e l e v a n t to edu-c a t i o n a l planning at a l e v e l of g e n e r a l i t y that embraces what Is 34 common to the system as a whole. Fundamental o b j e c t i v e s are o u t l i n e d only i n s o f a r as they are needed as a b a s i s f o r examining the v a l i d i t y of s p e c i f i c educational plans and go a l s . E d u c a t i o n a l Objectives of the School System For the purposes of the model the f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s were de-f i n e d : 1. To meet the d i f f e r e n t i a l needs of v a r i o u s groups of students and i n d i v i d u a l s ; 2. To e q u a l i z e e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y throughout the school system; 3 . To be f l e x i b l e and s e n s i t i v e to the s h i f t i n g t a l e n t s , i n t e r e s t s and plans of students as w e l l as a conti n u o u s l y changing labour market f o r graduates; 4. To provide school programs from which graduates w i l l o b t a i n the necessary q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and pr e p a r a t i o n to continue t h e i r edu-c a t i o n or move d i r e c t l y i n t o employment; 5. To develop-imoral and c i v i c v a l u e s , and c u l t u r a l a t t i t u d e s ; 6. To provide the s k i l l s necessary f o r s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t , an apprecia-t i o n o f , and c o n t r i b u t i o n t o , the c u l t u r a l experience of s o c i e t y ; 7. To r e t a i n the student i n school u n t i l he graduates or has progres-sed as f a r as he Is capable; 8. To develop i n each student the c a p a c i t y to adjust h i m s e l f to the career and s o c i a l changes encountered as a r e s u l t of modern technology. A fundamental c o n d i t i o n f o r the implementation of the o b j e c t i v e s 35 i s t hat the school system make e f f i c i e n t use of both human and r e a l r esources. In terms of pla n n i n g , the ed u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s are r e f l e c t e d by: 1. M a i n t a i n i n g a continous re-assessment and r e v i s i o n of a l l pro-grams, o p t i o n s , and courses i n order to meet the I n d i v i d u a l needs of the student and the needs of a changing s o c i e t y ; 2. Examining and adopting new techniques to Improve i n s t r u c t i o n , such as team te a c h i n g , seminars, i n s t r u c t i o n a i d s , t e l e v i s i o n , resource c e n t r e s , lanuage l a b o r a t o r i e s , and computer aids to i n s t r u c t i o n ; 3. P r o v i d i n g adequate educational f a c i l i t i e s to meet i n c r e a s i n g en-rolments i n p r o p o r t i o n to the needs of the v a r i o u s programs; 4. Emphasizing l e a r n i n g r a t h e r than teaching. With more f a c i l i t i e s and equipment than p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e student a p p r e c i a t i o n of subjects such as science, a r t and reading can be expanded by per-m i t t i n g students greater freedom to choose t h e i r own experiments, choose t h e i r own p r o j e c t s and to solve t h e i r own problems; 5. Designing new school f a c i l i t i e s i n keeping w i t h the demands of changing techniques and program requirements; 6 . C r e a t i n g an environment f o r l e a r n i n g conditioned by f a c t o r s other than those r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to teacher i n s t r u c t i o n . This e n v i r o n -ment demands an i n c r e a s i n g emphasis on complementary student s e r ^ v i c e s such as medical, d e n t a l , guidance, p s y c h o l o g i c a l , and r e -search so that the student may be (as f a r as i s humanly p o s s i b l e ) p h y s i c a l l y , e m o t i o n a l l y , and men t a l l y prepared f o r l e a r n i n g . 7. M a i n t a i n i n g a strong i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g p lan to make good teach-36 ers i n t o b e t t e r teachers through the use of c o n s u l t a n t s , c o - o r d i n -a t o r s , subject committees, workshops, and conferences; 8. P r o v i d i n g a school program which w i l l prepare the student not o n l y f o r employment or f u r t h e r education but also f o r l e i s u r e time so that he i s prepared f o r l i v i n g a f u l l l i f e versus simply making a l i v i n g ; 9 . R e p l a c i n g o l d schools and obsolete f a c i l i t i e s and equipment i n accordance w i t h a long range p l a n . A framework i s r e q u i r e d w i t h i n which o b j e c t i v e s and goals can be examined and d e f i n e d , and then transformed i n t o an a c t i o n p l a n . Program Budgeting Components and R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s The o p e r a t i o n a l framework w i t h i n which a program planning and budgeting system operates can be presented In a number of d e f i n i t e steps. P l a n n i n g , programming and budgeting i n v o l v e s a continuous re-assessment of o b j e c t i v e s , g o a l s , and the methods by which resources can be a l l o c a -ted i n the most e f f e c t i v e manner. The phases which could be used i n implementing and m a i n t a i n i n g the system are shown i n Figure 1, page 37. This f i g u r e , based on an idea f o r implementing program budgeting i n t o the Ontario Department of Education, shows the system's components and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of senior management groups. Planning In the planning phase, plans or ideas are i n i t i a t e d by senior management or program managers. The plans are passed to the planning department or committee which obtains a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n and ideas FIGURE 1 PROGRAM BUDGETING COMPONENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Components R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s Senior Management S t a f f Group Operating Management Budget O f f i c e Planning S t a f f P l anning Programming Budgeting Program -Review Annual Estimates C o n t r o l Analyze and Decide Analyze, Approve In P r i n c i p l e Review and Present to Board of Ed. Review and Present to Board of Ed. A s s i s t w i t h F i n a n c i a l Matters Develop F i n a n c i a l G u i d e l i n e s Co-ordinate and Evaluate A l t e r n a t i v e s A s s i s t Put i n t o P r e s e n t a t i o n Form Develop Estimate G u i d e l i n e s Incorporate Adjustments Evaluate and Adjust Plans I n i t i a t e Gather Data, Provide Ideas, Plans Present Data, Reports A l t e r n a t i v e s 4* *v Develop Goals, Timing, Methods Develop Program Review Prepare F i n a l Estimates Implement Approve d Programs 38 from o p e r a t i o n a l management. A f t e r summarization and due c o n s i d e r a t i o n the planning group w i l l r e t u r n to senior management a rep o r t showing a recommended plan and p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . From an a n a l y s i s of the a l t e r n a t i v e s senior management can make a t e n t a t i v e d e c i s i o n on a course of a c t i o n . Programming With the a s s i s t a n c e of the budget o f f i c e s t a f f concerning f i n a n -c i a l matters, program managers w i l l develop o p e r a t i o n a l g o a l s , methods and t i m i n g f o r the a l t e r n a t i v e s presented. Next, the planning s t a f f w i l l co-ordinate and evaluate the a l t e r n a t i v e s and present the r e s u l t s f o r a n a l y s i s and approval i n p r i n c i p l e by senior management. F i n a l l y , i n the programming stage, the budget o f f i c e s t a f f w i l l develop f i n a n c i a l g u i d e l i n e s . Budgeting and Program Review The planning s t a f f w i l l a s s i s t o p erating management i n the devel-opment of the program review document (multi-year p l a n ) . The program review i s then passed to the budget o f f i c e f o r c o n s o l i d a t i o n , and p o s s i b l e rearrangement i n t o f i n a l form, and subsequent t r a n s m i t t a l to the Board of Education. From the a l t e r n a t i v e s presented, the Board w i l l approve a plan of a c t i o n , from which the budget o f f i c e w i l l prepare f i n a l estimate g u i d e l i n e s . Annual Estimates Operational management w i l l prepare f i n a l estimates f o r program operations during the coming year. The estimates w i l l be transmitted through the budget o f f i c e f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n , a n a l y s i s , and f i n a l accept-39 ance by the Board of Education. F i n a l l y the budget o f f i c e w i l l make any adjustments r e q u i r e d by the Board and give operating management the a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r implementation of approved programs. C o n t r o l Throughout the year covered by the estimates the program's oper-a t i o n w i l l be evaluated through feedback and r e p o r t s , and adjustments w i l l be made as necessary. Accounting; Systems and Operations With the adoption of a program planning and budgeting system, the accounting procedures must be r e v i s e d to f u l f i l l the new system's requirements of p l a n n i n g , budgeting and r e p o r t i n g . An adequate account-in g system must be an i n f o r m a t i o n system about the past, present, and f u t u r e , p r o v i d i n g managers w i t h the means of planning, budgeting, and c o n t r o l l i n g "and not merely an a r i t h m e t i c a l record of the i n s and outs of voted money and revenues."''' T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the primary c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of most school board accounting systems i n the Province of Ontario has been expenditures by o b j e c t . While t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s necessary i n any accounting system, program budgeting r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The Federal Govern-ment of Canada has suggested that w i t h i n each program, expenditures and revenues may be c l a s s i f i e d as f o l l o w s ! 1. .by purpose, i . e . , the a c t i v i t y or a c t i v i t i e s In which the r e s p o n s i b l e u n i t i s engaged; 2. by source, i . e . , the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l u n i t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r I n i t i -a t i n g the expenditure or p r o v i d i n g the s e r v i c e from which revenues are obtained, such as r e s p o n s i b i l i t y centres [schools] ; 3. by object of expenditure, i . e . , s a l a r i e s , t r a v e l , m a t e r i a l , e t c . The i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d by the whole system of f i n a n c i a l manage-ment can r e a d i l y be obtained by an appropriate r e v i s i o n of the codes of accounts. In a program planning and budgeting system, the method by which c o s t s are accumulated Is of major consequence. The major o b j e c t i v e of cost accounting i s to determine the cost of producing a u n i t of product, or the r e n d e r i n g of a u n i t of s e r v i c e . A d e c i s i o n must be made, there-f o r e , on whether an h i s t o r i c a l or standard cost approach should be used. While I n c r e a s i n g or decreasing trends i n costs can be detected through the use of h i s t o r i c a l c o s t s , the e f f i c i e n c y of management remains un-known since no p r e c i s e t a r g e t s or standards are a v a i l a b l e f o r comparison w i t h a c t u a l c o s t s . In c o n t r a s t w i t h an h i s t o r i c a l system, the Treasury Board at Ottawa sta t e d that a standard cost system: ( i ) provides greater accuracy i n planning and c o n t r o l l i n g ; ( I I ) f a c i l i t a t e s the p r e p a r a t i o n of budgets; ( i i i ) predetermines the cost of a plan or p r o j e c t ; ( i v ) s i m p l i f i e s the c o s t i n g procedures; (•<?•) introduces a y a r d s t i c k to measure performance; ( v l ) s i m p l i f i e s the v a l u a t i o n of i n v e n t o r i e s and s t a b i l i z e s the recorded m a t e r i a l c o s t s , and ( v i i ) permits a v a r i e t y of analyses to c a l c u l a t e and set the r a t e s f o r goods and s e r v i c e s . 3 Because standard cost represents the d e s i r e d cost to be i n c u r r e d , v a r i a n c e s from standard cost w i l l i n d i c a t e the degree of e f f i c i e n c y and expose the areas deserving a t t e n t i o n . A budgetary system i n c o r p o r a t i n g standard c o s t s seems to o f f e r the best combination f o r a s s i s t i n g manage-41 ment to c o n t r o l o p e r a t i o n s . Program Determination Program planning i n v o l v e s e s t a b l i s h i n g appropriate r e l a t i o n s h i p s between operations which are c u r r e n t l y being proposed, long-range, and short-range plans. Data must he developed i n terms which f a c i l i t a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and c o n t r o l , and show the p h y s i c a l and f i n a n c i a l progress being made towards accepted g o a l s . Separate programs are u s u a l l y iden-t i f i e d f o r groups of i n d i v i d u a l s who have s i m i l a r needs, i n t e r e s t s , e d u c a t i o n a l make-up, or c a p a b i l i t i e s . There i s no c l e a r - c u t set of r u l e s or d e f i n i t i o n f o r the estab-lishment of s p e c i f i c programs i n a school system, because school systems do not have homogeneous end o b j e c t i v e s such as t r e e s planted by a f o r e s t r y department, or tons of garbage c o l l e c t e d by a s a n i t a t i o n department. Each program must be capable, however, of having defined f o r i t a de-t a i l e d set of g o a l s , and a s p e c i f i c program framework f o r meeting those g o a l s . F r e q u e n t l y , the choice of program c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i l l be I n -fluenced by one or more of the f o l l o w i n g : 1. Requirements of the Department of Education concerning c u r r i c u l u m ; 2. Conformity w i t h the Grant Regulations of the Department of Education; 3 . R e l a t i o n s h i p of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y centres w i t h i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Board of Education; 4. Board of Education p o l i c y . In H a r t l e y ' s o p i n i o n there are at l e a s t three basic approaches to d e v i s i n g a program s t r u c t u r e : 42 1. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l or grade l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s . Programs might i n c l u d e : a. e a r l y childhood b. primary grades c. intermediate grades d. t e c h n i c a l high school e. comprehensive high s c h o o l , e t c . 2. O r g a n i z a t i o n on c u r r i c u l a r or subject-matter. D i r e c t and i n -d i r e c t c o s t s are apportioned to subject areas such as: a. language a r t s , b. sci e n c e , c. mathematics, d. s o c i a l s c i e nce, c r e a t i v e a r t s , e t c . 3. O r g a n i z a t i o n on a h y b r i d format. Combining grade l e v e l o r g a n i z a -t i o n at the elementary l e v e l w i t h subject matter at the secondary l e v e l . 5 Concerning program development and program c o s t s , Orlando F i e r n o , D i r e c t o r of Research of the Baltimore C i t y P u b l i c Schools has s a i d : S u r e l y , f o r those who wish to embark on the path toward program accounting only an absolute minimum of programs and a c t i v i t i e s should be costed out. And what i s e q u a l l y important they should be costed out on an a c c r u a l b a s i s r a t h e r than on a cash b a s i s . What the s t r u c -t u r e of program co s t s should be, no one r e a l l y knows. Some persons t h i n k that school d i s t r i c t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y l a r ge systems, should seek to a t t a i n the i d e a l . . . i n other words, program co s t s by subject matter f o r grade l e v e l , w i t h c o s t s assigned to each school i n the system. The l i t e r a t u r e abounds w i t h such p r o p o s a l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y by c o l l e g e p r o f e s s o r s . Before anyone takes h i s school system down t h i s primrose path, he should weigh s e r i o u s l y the b e n e f i t s to be derived against the c o s t s i n v o l v e d . Program costs by subject matter, by grade l e v e l , and by sc h o o l , Involve a vast amount of work because i t n e c e s s i t a t e s the gathering and manipulation of numerous cost i t e m s . 6 The o r g a n i z a t i o n of a l l secondary schools i n the Province of Ontario (except experimental schools) i s defined f o r the year 1968-1969 i n the Department of Education c i r c u l a r H.S.I. "Recommendations and In-formation f o r Secondary School O r g a n i z a t i o n Leading to C e r t i f i c a t e s and Diplomas, 1968-1969." The programs considered i n t h i s model are con-s i s t e n t w i t h Department of Education requirements f o r r e p o r t i n g students f o r enrolment purposes. Each program i n the model has a f i v e - y e a r course, the graduates of which can proceed from grade 13 to u n i v e r s i t y . Each program also has a four year course which terminates i n grade 12 from which graduates 43 move d i r e c t l y i n t o i n d u s t r y or f o r a d d i t i o n a l education to c o l l e g e s of a p p l i e d a r t s and technology. The Science, Technology and Trades program, i n a d d i t i o n , has a two-year occupations course. T o t a l program enrolment d e t a i l s are shown i n Tables I , I I , and TV, pages 50, 52 and 53. Subjects of study f o r each course i n a l l three programs c o n s i s t of o b l i g a t o r y or core subjects and o p t i o n a l s u b j e c t s . Examples of sub-j e c t s o f f e r e d are as f o l l o w s : 1. O b l i g a t o r y ( i n a l l programs). E n g l i s h , h i s t o r y , geography, p h y s i c a l education. 2. O p t i o n a l - A r t s and Science. A r t , music, i n d u s t r i a l a r t s , home economics, a g r i c u l t u r e . 3. Optional - Business and Commerce. Shorthand: t y p e w r i t i n g . Accounting: bookkeeping. Business Machines, data processing. 4. Optional ^ Science, Technology and Trades. D r a f t i n g , e l e c t r i c i t y , e l e c t r o n i c s , machine shop, i n d u s t r i a l chemistry. Complete i n f o r m a t i o n concerning o b l i g a t o r y and o p t i o n a l subjects i n each program i s contained i n the Ontario Department of Education R e g u l a t i o n "Diplomas f o r P u p i l s of Elementary and Secondary Schools." Budget A p p r o p r i a t i o n . 1968 The budget f o r the year 1968 which was used as a b a s i s f o r the model was presented on a t r a d i t i o n a l l i n e item b a s i s . An examination showed that revenues were i d e n t i f i e d o n l y as p u b l i c s c h o o l , secondary s c h o o l , or u n c l a s s i f i e d . Expenditures were presented i n seven s e c t i o n s : 1. General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 2. D i r e c t o r of Education 3. Superintendent of Curriculum 4. Superintendent of Student S e r v i c e s $ 4,614,195 108,028 2,084,938 898.504 44 5. Superintendant of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Personnel $ 9,395,088 6. Superintendent of Business 3,454,695 Sub-Total $20,555,448 7. Secondary School Number: 1 $ 1,023,531 2 794,679 3 1,208,417 4 1,030,700 5 2,140,998 6 874,636 7 709,021 8 471,530 9 708,558 10 626,620 11 597,412 12 1,112,447 13 193,709 Sub-Total $11,492,258 T o t a l Board of Education Budget $32,047,706 Because c e r t a i n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and f i n a n c i a l f u n c t i o n s were r e -organized i n 1967, many of the i n d i v i d u a l 1967 expenditures were not d i r e c t l y comparable w i t h the 1968 budget. S i m i l a r l y the r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of expenditures r e q u i r e d i n developing the model prevented the previous year's f i g u r e s being included i n the t a b l e s . P r o r a t i n g Expenditures to Programs In Chapter I I pages 26-27, i t was pointed out that where costs are not chargeable d i r e c t l y to a program because the exact charge to be made i s . n o t r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e , costs must be prorated. The primary pro-r a t i o n s r e q u i r e d by the model are i n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s , c u s t o d i a l c o s t s , and shared school s e r v i c e s . 45 I n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s Teacher s a l a r y costs represent a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of the expenditures made by schooLboards. Consequently, the development of an acceptable a l l o c a t i o n of teacher s a l a r y costs to programs i s very important. U s u a l l y , at the time an annual budget Is drawn up the f o l l o w i n g Information i s obtainable from school r e p o r t s f o r the January to June period (the f i r s t s i x months of the year being budgeted). 1 . Number of students e n r o l l e d i n each program (Table I , page 50). 2. Number of Teaching periods i n each program (Table I I , page 52). 3 . Each teacher's c o n t r a c t s a l a r y and teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s r e g a rding subject and program. The a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , f o r a l l o c a t i n g teacher s a l a r y c o s t s to programs were as f o l l o w s : 1 . To a l l o c a t e a c t u a l teacher s a l a r y cost to programs based on student enrolment; 2. To a l l o c a t e a c t u a l teacher s a l a r y c o s t s to programs based on a c t u a l time c o n t r i b u t e d to each program; 3 . To a l l o c a t e average teacher s a l a r y costs w i t h i n each school to programs based on the estimated number of teaching periods i n each program. A l t e r n a t i v e number one was not used because programs w i t h low c l a s s enrolments would not absorb t h e i r f u l l teacher s a l a r y costs and v i c e v e r s a . Table I I shows that i n the A r t s and Science Program the number of p u p i l s as a percentage of t o t a l ( 4 7 . 9 per cent) i s greater than the number of teaching periods as a percentage of t o t a l ( 4 3 . 4 per c e n t ) . The opposite i s true of the Science, Technology and Trades Program while 46 the percentages f o r the Business and Commerce Program are approximately equal. A l t e r n a t i v e number two would have been i d e a l , but was subject to the f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s : 1. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure i n v o l v e d i n a l l o c a t i n g s p e c i f i c teacher's s a l a r i e s to secondary school programs i s extremely complex. This procedure n e c e s s i t a t e s the a n a l y s i s of each teacher's timetable amounting to approximately 33,500 teaching or non-teaching periods (Table I I I ) . l} An extensive review of teacher's timetables showed that i n addi-c t i o n to teaching time, periods were a l l o c a t e d to items such as s u p e r v i s i o n , department requirements ( p a r t i c u l a r l y department heads), study h a l l s , p r e p a r a t i o n and maintenance, and c a f e t e r i a s u p e r v i s i o n . The a l l o c a t i o n of t h i s non-teaching time to programs on an a c t u a l b a s i s presented a d d i t i o n a l problems. The high per-centage of non-teaching time i n s e v e r a l instances would have n e c e s s i t a t e d many a r b i t r a r y d e c i s i o n s i n a l l o c a t i n g time. These a l l o c a t i o n s would n u l l i f y the intended a d d i t i o n a l accuracy of charging each teacher's time to programs. 3. The f i s c a l year i s from January f i r s t to December t h i r t y - f i r s t . Because the teacher p o p u l a t i o n i s h i g h l y mobile i t i s impossible to know u n t i l June (half-way through the budget year) the changes which w i l l take place In teachers' s a l a r i e s f o r the period September to December. 4. T r a d i t i o n a l l y the r e s u l t s of teachers' s a l a r y n e g o t i a t i o n s are not known u n t i l w e l l Into the budget year. Because increases are not u s u a l l y uniform i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s , teachers' s a l a r i e s are subject to d i f f e r e n t amounts of adjustment i n September* 5. The a c t u a l time c o n t r i b u t e d to programs f o r the p e r i o d September to December i s unknown u n t i l time t a b l e s are prepared i n mid-summer. In view of these l i m i t a t i o n s , d i r e c t a l l o c a t i o n of teachers' s a l -a r i e s f o r budget purposes was impossible. A l t e r n a t i v e number three was considered an acceptable method. I n s t r u c t i o n a l c o s t s were prorated i n Table V I I I , page 62, i n accor-dance w i t h the percentage of teaching periods i n each program, shown i n Table I I . C u s t o d i a l Costs , I d e a l l y c u s t o d i a l c o s t s would be a l l o c a t e d to each of the secon-dary school programs on some d i r e c t b a s i s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , many of the s e r v i c e s performed by the c u s t o d i a l s t a f f such as c l e a n i n g of hallways and common rooms are common to a l l programs. A d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of f l o o r area could i d e n t i f y the f l o o r area d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to each program, and the f l o o r area which i s shared. Recent st u d i e s of custod-i a l c o s t s w i t h i n the school system have shown that the cost of c l e a n i n g a square foot of f l o o r area i s p r a c t i c a l l y the same i n any part of the s c h o o l , i r r e s p e c t i v e of the type of f l o o r c o v e r i n g . I f a n a l y s i s could provide the f l o o r areas p e r t i n e n t to each program, a l l o c a t i o n of custod-i a l c o s t s would present l i t t l e problem. Because f l o o r area d e t a i l s were not a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s study a formula suggested by the Department of Education f o r completing f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t s was used. The formula pro-v i d e s f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of the " e m p i r i c a l " number of c l a s s rooms i n a 48 secondary school by d i v i d i n g the number of (1) A r t s and Science students by 30 (2) Business and Commercial students by 25, and (3) Science, Technology and Trades students by 15. Table V, page 56, i n d i c a t e s the average d a i l y enrolment f o r each school (excepting those p r o v i d i n g o n ly one program), the e m p i r i c a l number of classrooms, and the e m p i r i c a l number of classrooms expressed as a percentage of t o t a l . C u s t o d i a l costs f o r each school were prorated i n Table V I I I , page 64, i n accor-dance w i t h the percentages i n Table V. Shared S e r v i c e s Each secondary school o f f e r i n g more than one program makes some expenditures which are not e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h p a r t i c u l a r programs. Items such as business s e r v i c e s , u t i l i t i e s , and c a f e t e r i a s e r v i c e s would r e q u i r e a great deal of a n a l y s i s to determine a c t u a l program c o s t s . Expenditures which were shared are shown i n Table V I I , page 62, Several items which were in c l u d e d such as t e x t books and i n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p p l i e s , could be charged d i r e c t l y to programs i f records were main-t a i n e d of consumption or usage. Because a d d i t i o n a l breakdowns were not a v a i l a b l e f o r any of the expenditures shown i n Table V I I , the t o t a l cost of shared s e r v i c e s was prorated on the b a s i s of average d a i l y en-rolment (Table IV, page 54). Output and Performance A Program budget r e q u i r e s not only i n f o r m a t i o n of a f i n a n c i a l nature, but a l s o , where p o s s i b l e , i n f o r m a t i o n concerning both output and performance. In the Province of O n t a r i o , there are at the present time, to the w r i t e r ' s knowledge, no g e n e r a l l y accepted measures of q u a l i t a t i v e 49 performance by which a school board can measure the e f f e c t i v e n e s s or performance of i t s system. There does not seem to be any agreement among educators that even a high percentage of student passes i s a c r i t e r i o n of good performance by the system. Good student performance must be due, i n p a r t , to the c a l i b r e of the student. I t i s not the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s to comment on the pros and cons of the q u a l i t a -t i v e measurement of educational performance; however, i f the school board or the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n Is prepared to accept the r e s u l t s of any t e s t or a n a l y s i s as a c r i t e r i o n , the p e r t i n e n t d e t a i l s should be en-tered as performance c r i t e r i a i n the budget. The measures used i n the model, t h e r e f o r e , are the t r a d i t i o n a l q u a n t i t a t i v e ones of (1) number of students (2) number of teachers, and (3) p u p i l - t e a c h e r r a t i o . In p r o r a t i n g teacher s a l a r y costs I t was necessary to count the number of teaching periods i n each program. The number of teaching periods seems also s i g n i f i c a n t as a measure i n that i t q u a l i f i e s the student-teacher r a t i o . A low student-teacher r a t i o , f o r example, 10:1, does not by i t -s e l f i n d i c a t e that c l a s s e s are s m a l l . I f a l l teachers taught o n l y 50 per cent of the time the average c l a s s s i z e would be 20 students; where-as i f they taught every p e r i o d (as i n elementary schools) the average c l a s s s i z e would, of course, be 10 students. Procedure-Data P r e s e n t a t i o n Table I shows the number of students e n r o l l e d f o r the January to June p e r i o d and the number of teaching periods f o r each program. School number 2 o f f e r s only the A r t s and Science Program whereas school number 8 and school number 10 o f f e r only the two-year occupations course i n the Science, Technology and Trades Program. D e t a i l s were not d i r e c t l y a v a i l -TABLE I PUPIL ENROLMENTS AND TEACHING PERIODS PER CYCLE BY PROGRAM FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY TO JUNE 1968 A r t s & Science Business & Commerce Science. Tech. & Trades T o t a l s School Number P u p i l s E n r o l l e d Teaching P e r i o d s P u p i l s E n r o l l e d Teaching Periods P u p i l s Teaching E n r o l l e d P e r i o d s P u p i l s Teaching E n r o l l e d Periods 1 700 1,019 431 700 239 596 1,370 2,315 2 1,069 1,836 1,069 1,836 2,165 3 464 661 565 664 625 840 1,654 A 426 763 499 879 293 772 1,218 2,414 5 650 1,237 1,525 2,865 2,175 4,102 6 1,207 1,660 153 294 1,360 1,954 7 859 1,204 148 l 217 1,007 1,421 8 387 1,008 387 1,008 9 254 460 284 450 238 378 776 1,288 10 846 1,352 29 47 875 1,399 11 431 1,050 431 1,050 12 785 1,254 331 694 348 630 1,464 2,578 13 t a l s 6,610 10,209 3,090 5,182 4,086 8,139 13,786 23,530 51 able whicb showed each teacher's c o n t r i b u t i o n to programs; consequently the number of teaching periods shown i n Table I was obtained by a n a l y z i n g d e t a i l s of c l a s s e s shown i n each school's Report of the P r i n c i p a l , which i s prepared f o r the Department of Education. In Table I I , p u p i l s e n r o l l e d and teaching periods i n each program are expressed as a percentage of the t o t a l . I t i s evident i n the A r t s and Science Program, that i n g e n e r a l , the percentage of teaching periods i s lower (43.4 per cent) than the percentage of students e n r o l l e d (47.9 per c e n t ) . The opposite i s the case i n the Science, Technology and Trades Program w i t h students e n r o l l e d accounting f o r 29.7 per cent of the t o t a l , w h i l e teaching periods i n t h i s program account f o r 34.6 per cent. Continuing the data from Tables I and I I i n t o Table I I I , c r i t e r i a of teacher work-load and educational o p p o r t u n i t y were e s t a b l i s h e d . The number of teachers i s shown as 798.7 r e s u l t i n g i n a p u p i l - t e a c h e r r a t i o of 17.3. This f i g u r e of 17.3 compares c l o s e l y w i t h the P r o v i n c i a l average of 17.071 i n 1967.^ Of 33,545 p o s s i b l e teaching periods per c y c l e , 23,530 periods are used teaching and the remainder of 10,015 or 29.86 per cent i s a v a i l a b l e f o r non-teaching d u t i e s such as p r e p a r a t i o n and department work. I t would be d e s i r a b l e to have a breakdown of non-teaching time by program, but because of the large number of teachers who teach f o r more than one program, the i n f o r m a t i o n was impossible to o b t a i n f o r t h i s study. In measuring the output of a school system i n terms of students, i t i s important that the number be comparable from year to year. The usual method of c a l c u l a t i o n i s by average d a i l y enrolment. The e s t i -mated average d a i l y enrolment shown i n Table IV, page 54, was c a l c u l a t e d TABLE II PUPIL ENROLMENTS AND TEACHING PERIODS PER CYCLE BY PROGRAM AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY TO JUNE 1968 A r t s & Science Business & Commerce Science, Tech. & Trades T o t a l s P u p i l s Teaching P u p i l s Teaching P u p i l s Teaching P u p i l s Teaching School E n r o l l e d Periods E n r o l l e d Periods E n r o l l e d Periods E n r o l l e d Periods Number Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent 1 51.1 44.1 31.5 30.2 17.4 25.7 100.0 100.0 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 28.0 30.5 34.2 30.7 37.8 38.8 100.0 100.0 4 35.0 31.6 40.9 36.4 24.1 32.0 100.0 100.0 5 29.9 30.2 70.1 69.8 100.0 100.0 6 88.7 85.0 11.3 15.0 100.0 100.0 7 85.3 84.7 14.7 15.3 100.0 100.0 8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 9 32.7 35.7 36.6 35.0 30.7 29.3 100.0 100,0 10 96.7 96.6 3.3 3.4 100,0 100.0 11 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 12 53.6 48.6 22.6 27.0 23.8 24.4 100.0 100.0 13 T o t a l s 47.9 43.4 22.4 22.0 29.7 34.6 100.0 100.0 Source: Table I ro TABLE I I I TEACHER-PUPIL OPERATIONAL STATISTICS AFFECTING QUALITY OF EDUCATION P o s s i b l e 8 P u p i l Teaching A c t u a l 0 Non-Teaching c School Number of Teacher Periods Teaching Per Cent of Number Teachers R a t i o Per Cycle Periods Periods A v a i l a b l e Time 1 79.0 17.0 3,318 2,315 1,003 30.23 2 51.0 21.0 2,142 1,836 306 14.29 3 86.0 19.0 3,612 2,165 1,447 40.06 4 76.5 15.9 3,213 2,414 799 24.87 5 142.1 15.3 5,968 4,102 1,866 31.27 6 66.5 20.5 2,793 1,954 839 30.04 7 49.0 20.6 2,058 1,421 63 7 30.95 8 32.0 11.9 1,344 1,008 336 25.00 9 46.6 16.6 1,957 1,288 669 34.18 10 44.0 19.9 1,848 1,399 449 24.30 11 41.0 10.5 1,722 1,050 672 39.02 12 85.0 17.2 3,570 2,578 992 27.79 13 d T o t a l s 798.7 17.3 33,545 23,530 10,015 29.86 aNumber of teachers X 42 periods per c y c l e . bFrom Table I . c A v a i l a b l e f o r p r e p a r a t i o n , department work, e t c . "%ew school commencing operations i n September 1968. TABLE IV ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY ENROLMENT STATISTICS - 1968 Programs A r t s Business Science And and Tech. T o t a l Science Commerce and School Trades 1 670 413 228 1,311 2 1,087 1,087 3 466 568 629 1,663 4 447 523 308 1,278 AVERAGE DAILY 5 688 1,614 2,302 ENROLMENT 6 1,251 159 1,410 7 839 145 984 8 436 436 9 285 319 268 872 SECTION A 10 865 30 895 11 425 425 12 803 339 357 1,499 13 76 60 42 178 6,789 3,244 4,307 14,340 1 % 9.87 % 12.73 % 5.29 2 16.01 3 6.86 17.51 14.60 AVERAGE DAILY 4 6.58 16.12 7.15 ENROLMENT AS 5 21.22 37.48 A PERCENTAGE 6 18.43 4.90 OF THE TOTAL 7 12.36 4.47 NUMBER OF 8 10.12 STUDENTS IN 9 4.20 9.83 6.22 THE PROGRAM 10 12.74 .92 11 9.87 SECTION B 12 11.83 10.45 8.29 13 1.12 1.85 .98 100.00 100.00 100.00 1 % 51.1 31.5 % 17.4 % 100.0 2 100.0 100.0 3 28.0 34.2 37.8 100.0 AVERAGE DAILY 4 35.0 40.9 24.1 100.0 ENROLMENT AS 5 29.9 70.1 100.0 A PERCENTAGE 6 88.7 11.3 100.0 OF THE TOTAL 7 85.3 14.7 100.0 NUMBER OF 8 100.0 100.0 STUDENTS IN 9 32.7 36.6 30.7 100.0 THE SCHOOL 10 96.6 3.4 100.0 11 100.0 100.0 SECTION C 12 53.6 22.6 23.8 100.0 13 42.7 33.7 23.6 100.0 47.3 22.6 30.1 100.0 55 by (1) m u l t i p l y i n g the number of p u p i l s e n r o l l e d i n Table I by 60 per cent, (2) m u l t i p l y i n g the estimated number of p u p i l s f o r September by 40 per cent, and (3) adding the r e s u l t s of (1) and ( 2 ) . The average d a i l y enrolment f o r each program i s a l s o shown i n Table IV as a percentage of the t o t a l number of students i n the program ( S e c t i o n B) and the t o t a l number of students i n each school ( S e c t i o n C). Sections B and C point out much more f o r c e f u l l y than S e c t i o n A the c o n t r i b u t i o n , In terms of students, of each program w i t h i n the school and each school w i t h i n the program. In c o n j u n c t i o n withpper student c o s t s f o r each school (and an inti m a t e knowledge of the school system) , a d d i t i o n a l analyses could be performed to a s s i s t the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n determining optimum school s i z e s (economies of s c a l e ) , or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , the a d d i t i o n a l cost i n opera-t i n g sub-optimum u n i t s . The r e s u l t s of the study of county schools mentioned on page 19, and the r e s u l t s of the w r i t e r ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s on page 77,indicate that at l e a s t there i s a high p r o b a b i l i t y that a n a l y s i s can a s s i s t i n o b t a i n -i n g economies of s c a l e . Table V shows the e m p i r i c a l number of c l a s s rooms used f o r pro-r a t i n g c u s t o d i a l c o s t s . Information concerning the p r o r a t i o n of cus-t o d i a l c o s t s has already been presented. F i n a n c i a l P l a n Budget R e c o n s t r u c t i o n - Support and Other Programs To achieve the stated purpose of the study a r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the biidget was necessary. Table V I , page 59, shows the restatement of ex-penditures on a program b a s i s . The amount appropriated i n the 1968 56 TABLE V EMPIRICAL NUMBER OF CLASSROOMS FOR PRORATING CUSTODIAL COSTS A r t s Business Science And And Tech. Science Commerce and T o t a l School Trades 1 670 413 228 1,311 2 A l l A r t s and Science 3 466 568 629 1,663 4 447 523 308 1,278 5 688 1,614 2,302 AVERAGE DAILY 6 1,251 159 1,410 ENROLMENT 7 839 145 984 8 A l l Science, Technology and Trades 9 285 319 268 872 10 A l l A r t s and Science 11 A l l Science, Technology and Trades 12 803 339 357 1,499 13 76 60 42 178 1 22.3 16.5 15.2 54.0 2 A l l A r t s and Science EMPIRICAL NUMBER 3 15.5 22.7 41.9 80.1 OF CLASSROOMS 4 14.9 20.9 20.5 56.3 5 27.5 107.6 135.1 6 41.7 6.4 48.1 A.D.E. d i v i d e d 7 28.0 5.8 33.8 by: 8 A l l Science, Technology and Trades A r t s & Science 30 9 9.5 12.8 17.9 40.2 Business & 10 A l l A r t s and Science Commerce 25 11 A l l Science, TechnoIc gy and Trades Science, Tech. 12 26.8 13.6 23.8 64.2 & Trades 25 13 2.5 2.4 2.8 7.7 1 41.3 30.6 28.1 100.0 2 100.0 100.0 3 19.4 28.3 52.3 100.0 4 26.5 37.1 36.4 100.0 EMPIRICAL NUMBER 5 20.4 79.6 100.0 OF CLASSROOMS 6 86.7 13.3 100.0 AS A PERCENTAGE 7 82.8 17.2 100.0 OF TOTAL 8 100.0 100.0 9 23.6 31.8 44.6 100.0 10 100.0 100.0 11 100.0 100.0 12 41.7 21.2 37.1 100.0 13 32.5 31.2 36.3 100.0 57 budget under study i s shown as a t o t a l f o r each s e c t i o n and the amounts a l l o c a t e d to each program are shown under the program headings and t o -t a l l e d , A summary of the r e s u l t s of Table VI i s shown i n Table X, page 71. A l l support programs were prorated to the A r t s and Science, Business and Commerce, and Science, Technology and Trades Programs In Table X I , page 72, The expenditure shown f o r each a c t i v i t y i n Table VI i s , of course, the aggregate of a l l l i n e items shown i n the o r i g i n a l budget, A program budget attempts where p o s s i b l e to c o n s o l i d a t e o b j e c t s of expenditure i n t o the cost of a c t i v i t i e s c o n t r i b u t i n g to program f u l f i l l m e n t together w i t h some q u a n t i t a t i v e or q u a l i t a t i v e measure which shows the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the a c t i v i t y to the program. U n f o r t u n a t e l y extensive analyses showing, f o r example, the number of students, par-t i c i p a t i n g i n , or r e s p o n s i b l e f o r , expenditures i n c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s were not a v a i l a b l e . In p r a c t i c e , the model c o u l d be expanded to show cost per student f o r such items as guidance, med i c a l , d e n t a l , and psy-c h o l o g i c a l s e r v i c e s based on students counselled or examined as opposed to the average cost used i n t h i s model. The prime o b j e c t i v e i n Table VI was to a l l o c a t e the expenditures a p p l i c a b l e to each of the programs under study, and where t h i s was not p o s s i b l e , to the combined programs under the heading "Secondary Schools," The items placed under the heading "Secondary Schools" ( w i t h the ex-c e p t i o n of debenture m a t u r i t i e s ) were prorated on a b a s i s i n d i c a t e d i n the t a b l e to each program i n Table X I , With the degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n now evident i n school systems a program budgeting system must recognize program c o s t s on the one hand, 58 and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n on the other. For example, the Super-intendent of Curriculum w i l l probably be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c u r r i c u l u m i n both secondary schools and elementary sc h o o l s , s p e c i a l education, and adult education. The advantage of the program budget i n breaking down the t o t a l c u r r i c u l u m budget i n t o program cos t s (such as i n Table VI) i s q u i t e obvious. Secondary School Budgets Each of the t h i r t e e n secondary school budgets was analyzed and d i v i d e d i n t o f o u r s e c t i o n s : 1. Shared S e r v i c e s . Several a c t i v i t i e s occur i n a secondary school which cannot be i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h any of the programs In the model. Consequently, these items were segregated and included i n Table V I I , page 62. The aggregate of the shared s e r v i c e s f o r each school was prorated to each program i n Table V I I I , page 64, based on an average d a i l y enrolments 2. A r t s and Science Program. A l l c o s t s which could be ass o c i a t e d d i r e c t l y w i t h the A r t s and Science Program were in c l u d e d i n the appropriate s e c t i o n of Table IX, pages 67-68. 3. Business and Commerce Program. A l l c o s t s which could be associated d i r e c t l y w i t h the Business and Commerce Program were i n c l u d e d i n the appropriate s e c t i o n of Table IX, pages 67-68. TABLE V I DISTRIBUTION OF 1968 BUDGETED EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT AND OTHER PROGRAMS P R O G R A M S DESCRIPTION Sc. Tech. Education P u b l i c Secondary 3 Admin, & Trades Centre Schools Schools $ $ $ $ $ General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Trustees 13,615 3,240 Legal 60,000 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n B u i l d i n g 2,500 Audit 4,400 A s s o c i a t i o n Fee 6,000 Convention Fees 4,600 P r i n t i n g 8,000 P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s 10,000 T r a v e l 500 Receptions 3,200 Property Tax 200 S e c r e t a r i a l 2,400 Tax C r e d i t s 90,000 65,000 Land Purchase 193,250 229,750 Improvements 5,000 63,228 B u i l d i n g A d d i t i o n s 60,678 Po r t a b l e Classrooms 200,000 New B u i l d i n g s 203,000 Building-Workshop & 153,000 147,000 Warehouse S c h o l a s t i c Awards 2,500 Assumed on Annexation 3,444 P r i n c i p a l & I n t e r e s t 1,384,215 989,791 U.S. Exchange 3,300 7,600 Bank Charges 4,668 3,332 I n t e r e s t on Advances 40,000 50,000 Employee B e n e f i t s 596.784 T o t a l s $ 4,614,195 709,699 3,240 7,500 2,195,783 1,697,973 TABLE V I (continued) P R O G R A M S DESCRIPTION Cont. A r c h l t e c . Sc. Tech. P u b l i c Secondary 3 Educ. Services Admin. & Trades Schools Schools • $ $ $ $ $ $ O f f i c e of the D i r e c t o r and Executive Secretary A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 101,028 7,000 T o t a l s $ 108,028 101,028 7,000 Superintendent of Curriculum Mathematics 9,296 Art 61,227 Aud i o - V i s u a l 103,468 Educational T.V. 7,000 374,655 Home Economics 13,637 I n d u s t r i a l A r t s 16,293 L i b r a r y - Books 192,000 L i b r a r y - Other 87,054 Music 52,403 O r a l French 10,664 Outdoor School 8,008 P h y s i c a l Education 25,336 General Expense 541,175 29,140 Equipment Repair 7,000 204,262 Su p e r v i s i o n A r c h i t e c t u r a l 155,880 Continuing Education 186,440 T o t a l s $ 2,084,938 186,440 155,880 7,000 1^27,561 608,057 aCommon Services f o r Subsequent D i s t r i b u t i o n to Secondary School Programs. ON o TABLE V I (continued) P R O G R A M S DESCRIPTION Business Student Education P u b l i c Secondary 1 1 Services Transport'n Centre Schools Schools $9,395,088 Student S e r v i c e s Guidance A u x i l i a r y Education Remedial Reading Attendance Medical Dental P s y c h o l o g i c a l T o t a l s $ 898,504 Superintendent of  I n s t r u c t i o n a l Personnel I n s t r u c t i o n P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Su p e r v i s i o n T o t a l s Superintendent of Business Services Superintendent's O f f i c e Finance Purchasing Warehousing Data P r o c e s s i n g A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Services Stud, Transport'n.-Publie Stud, Transport'n,-Sec.Sch. D u p l i c a t i n g O f f i c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C u s t o d i a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C u s t o d i a l S e r v i c e s P l a n t Maintenance Services P o r t a b l e Classrooms T o t a l s $3,454,695" 49,023 82,923 58,001 77,057 109,864 197,490 14,670 83,109 162,288 149,500 405,400 $ $ 45,282 34,580 29,275 945 28,750 206,904 97,367 175,116 82,409 135.916 61.960 622,188 276,316 9,108,053 37,800 223,235 9,369,088 179,385 41,783 1,034,504 23,674 784,024 26,000 26,000 2,000 834,425 554,900 65,457 1,997,913 2,000 TABLE V I I SUMMARY OF BUDGETED SHARED SERVICE COSTS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS, 1968 DESCRIPTION S C H O O L S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Shared Services A u d i o - V i s u a l 1,152 A l l 7,870 609 1,746 1,255 400 Auditorium 2,725 C a f e t e r i a S e rvices A r t s 400 400 400 Commencement 400 And 650 400 350 400 E x t r a C u r r i c u l a r 4,800 Science 4,897 4,825 5,055 4,835 4,375 F i e l d T r i p s 675 Program 850 609 1,090 725 500 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Supplies 13,273 19,747 13,002 26,852 9,259 10,765 Late Bus Services 4,600 1,800 L i b r a r y 969 365 246 2,080 1,125 3,010 Lunchroom S u p e r v i s i o n 1*200 1,200 1,200 1,600 1,600 400 P i c t u r e s 400 500 200 400 400 300 P h y s i c a l Education 2,921 5,274 2,435 8,211 3,394 2,150 Reception 400 600 400 400 S c h o l a s t i c Awards 500 455 Swimming 1,700 Guidance Services 872 1,480 770 1,950 955 785 Land, B u i l d i n g s & Equipment 3 5,320 27,900 4,785 60,191 18,517 5,879 U t i l i t i e s 24,360 23,730 21,500 43,900 18,900 14,500 Laundry 750 873 850 1,900 900 615 Business Services 43,681 54,511 45,351 99,128 37,532 54,981 Text Books b 17,500 7,000 18,500 7,500 19,849 13,240 6,500 L i b r a r y Books 5,487 5,012 8,698 5,570 8,500 5,305 1,800 T e l e v i s i o n 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 15,520 3,500 4,080 Sub T o t a l $ 132,760 15,512 181,145 114,207 303,147 124,042 111,840 TABLE V I I (continued) S C H O O L S DESCRIPTION 8 9 10 11 12 13 T o t a l $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ Shared Services Au d i o - V i s u a l A l l 388 A l l c A H 608 500 C a f e t e r i a Services Science 400 A r t s Science 400 Commencement Tech. 300 And Tech. 400 E x t r a C u r r i c u l a r And 4,632 Science And 4,831 2,277 F i e l d T r i p s Trades 388 Program Trades 730 100 I n s t r u c t i o n a l Supplies Program 11,368 Program 12,553 8,500 Late Bus Service 2,700 1,800 1,500 L i b r a r y 3,320 2,866 3,000 Lunchroom S u p e r v i s i o n 800 1,600 300 P i c t u r e s 400 400 500 P h y s i c a l Education 3,827 3,166 1,500 Reception 400 S c h o l a s t i c Awards 500 500 Guidance Services 460 408 500 Land, B u i l d , & E q u i p . 3 4,888 11,360 U t i l i t i e s 24,360 24,500 Laundry 815 965 Business Services 33,932 43,840 17,754 Text Books 3,000 13,720 8,500 3,000 14,500 15,000 147,809 L i b r a r y Books 4,000 7,400 4,281 3,000 5,600 64,653 T e l e v i s i o n 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,100 55,200 Sub T o t a l $ 10,500 118,098 16,281 9,500 135,127 51,831 1,323,990 i n f o r m a t i o n was not a v a i l a b l e to a l l o c a t e any part of t h i s expenditure to programs i b T h i s expense should be charged to programs on an a c t u a l expense b a s i s . Because s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n was not a v a i l a b l e p r o r a t i o n method was used. Except f o r one c l a s s of business and commerce students, d i v i s i o n of costs i s based on enrolment i n Table V I I I TABLE VIII PRORATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL, CUSTODIAL AND COMMON SERVICE COSTS Arts Business Science School Expenditure & & Tech. & Number Science Commerce Trades $ $ $ $ Instruction 1 775,030 341,788 234,059 199,183 2 570,404 570,404 3 875,356 266,984 268,734 339,638 4 785,483 248,213 285,916 251,354 5 1,426,159 430,700 995,459 6 665,988 566,090 99,898 7 526,312 445,786 80,526 8 318,438 318,438 9 482,585 172,283 168,905 141,397 10 469,902 453,925 15,977 11 408,857 408,857 12 839,707 408,097 226,721 204,8,89 13 123,540 40,151 38,544 44,845 Total $ 8,267,761 3,513,721 1,849,980 2,904,060 a Custodial 1 79,665 32,902 24,377 22,386 2 70,465 70,465 3 86,928 16,864 24,601 45,463 4 75,369 19,973 27,962 27,434 5 186,291 38,003 148,288 6 68,183 59,115 9,068 7 57,291 47,437 9,854 8 48,532 48,532 9 76,187 17,980 24,228 33,979 10 50,577 50,577 11 52,711 52,711 12 82,334 34,333 17,455 30,546 13 6,163 2,003 1,923 2,237 Total $ 940,696 351,649 177,471 411,576 65 TABLE V I I I (continued) A r t s Business Science School Expenditure & & Tech, & Number Science Commerce Tirades $ $ $ $ Shared Services 1 132,760 67,840 41,819 23,101 2 15,512 15,512 3 181,145 50,721 61,952 68,472 4 114,207 39,972 46,711 27,524 5 303,147 90,641 212,506 6 124,042 110,025 14,017 7 111,840 95,400 16,440 8 10,500 10,500 9 118,098 38,618 43,224 36,256 10 16,281 15,727 554 11 9,500 9,500 12 135,127 72,428 30,539 32,160 13 51,831 22,132 17,467 12,232 T o t a l $ 1,323,990 528,375 363,364 432,251 P r o r a t i o n Method In s t r u c t i o n - T e a c h i n g P e r i o d s (Table I I ) 1 C u s t o d i a l - E m p i r i c a l Number of Classrooms (Table V) Shared Services-Average D a i l y Enrolment (Table XV) a N o r m a l l y t h i s expenditure would be charged to programs on a square footage b a s i s or as a r e s u l t of an analyst s of usage. Because s p e c i f i c i n -formation was not a v a i l a b l e a p r o r a t i o n method was used. 66 4. Science. Technology and Trades Program. A l l c o s t s which c o u l d be a s s o c i a t e d d i r e c t l y w i t h the Science, Technology and Trades Program were in c l u d e d i n the appropriate s e c t i o n of Table IX, pages 67-70. The p r o r a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n a l and c u s t o d i a l c o s t s shown i n Table V I I I has p r e v i o u s l y been e x p l a i n e d i n the s e c t i o n " P r o r a t i n g Expenditures to Programs". Debenture m a t u r i t i e s c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h each school and i n most cases w i t h each of the programs under study. Since 1960 the f i n a l approval f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n given by the Ontario Department of Education has shown s p e c i f i c a l l y the c o s t , the approved amount f o r grant purposes, and the debentures to be issued f o r the academic p o r t i o n ( A r t s and S c i e n c e ) . The remainder of cost and debentures issue d pertained to v o c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s (Business and Commerce; Science, Technology and Trades). From 1960 to 1962 v o c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s were constructed at no c o s t to the Board of Education (100 per cent g r a n t ) . School number 1 and school number 12 were b u i l t under t h i s arrangement; consequently a l l outstanding debentures and grant approvals f o r these schools are a p p l i -c able to the A r t s and Science Program. From 1962 to the present time, v o c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s have been constructed on a 75 per cent cash grant b a s i s w i t h the remaining 25 per cent being r a i s e d by debentures. An a n a l y s i s of each f i n a l approval f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and the debenture is s u e provided the w r i t e r w i t h i n -formation f o r charging debenture m a t u r i t i e s to programs. A d i v i s i o n between the Business and Commerce Program and the Science, Technology, and Trades Program of each debenture m a t u r i t y was TABLE IX SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS-1968 S C H 0 0 L S DESCRIPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ • $ $ $ $ $ $ A r t s & Science A r t s & C r a f t s 1,501 A l l 958 No 540 Home Management 1,601 A r t s 1,173 1,860 A r t s 1,426 1,465 Music 6,625 And 4,142 7,134 And 5,863 5,443 Science, Chemistry 5,616 Science 5,938 4,145 Science 4,035 3,330 I n d u s t r i a l A r t s Program Program 2,400 1,900 T o t a l Curriculum 15,343 138,298 11,253 14,097 13,724 12,678 C u s t o d i a l 32,902 70,465 16,864 19,973 59,115 47,437 I n s t r u c t i o n 341,788 570,404 266,984 248,213 566,090 445,786 Sub T o t a l S 390,033 779,167 295,101 282,283 638,929 505,901 Business & Commerce I n s t r u c t i o n a l Supplies 7,878 No 16,412 21,840 2,049 900 Marketing Business 12,600 S e c r e t a r i a l And 10,352 C l e r i c a l Commerce 62,641 Data Proc e s s i n g 4,156 Rentals 650 T o t a l Curriculum 7,878 16,412 21,840 89,749 2,699 900 C u s t o d i a l Services 24,377 24,601 27,962 38,003 9,068 9,854 I n s t r u c t i o n 234,059 268,734 285,916 430,700 99,898 80,526 Sub T o t a l $ 266,314 309,747 335,718 558,452 111,665 91,280 TABLE IX (continued) S C H 0 0 L S DESCRIPTION 8 9 10 11 12 13 T o t a l $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A r t s & Science Curriculum A r t s & C r a f t s No 1,353 A l l 3 No 1,339 380 Home Management Art s 1,550 Ar t s A r t s 3,641 700 Music And 4,952 And And 5,793 1,000 Science, Chemistry Science 3,590 Science Science 4,340 2,000 I n d u s t r i a l A r t s Program Program Program T o t a l Curriculum 11,445 89,860 15,113 4,080 325,891 C u s t o d i a l S e r v i c e s 17,980 50,577 34,333 2,003 351,649 I n s t r u c t i o n 172,283 469,902 408,097 40,151 3,529,698 Sub T o t a l s 201.708 610.339 457.543 46.234 4207.238 Business & Commerce Curriculum I n s t r u c t i o n a l Supplies No 3,436 0ne b No 6,905 1,250 Data Proc e s s i n g Business 1,500 C l a s s Business And Only And Commerce Commerce Program Program T o t a l Curriculum 4,936 6,905 1,250 152,569 C u s t o d i a l Services 24,228 17,455 1,923 177,471 I n s t r u c t i o n 168,905 226,721 38,544 1,834,003 Sub T o t a l $ 198,069 251,081 41,717 2,164,043 TABLE IX (continued) DESCRIPTION S C H O O L S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Science-Trades & Technology Curriculum Auto-Mechanics 1,008 No 1,573 2,504 5,550 No No D r a f t i n g 1,160 Science 1,254 2,615 2,800 Science Science E l e c t r i c a l 910 Tech. 5,242 2,087 21,354 Tech. Tech, Machine Shop 1,291 And 6,446 2,016 8,333 And And Plumbing 1,400 Trades 2,864 Trades Trades R e f r i g e r a t i o n 880 Program 10,780 1,323 3,567 Sheet Metal 2,662 1,550 9,027 Smock Rental 325 500 650 800 Welding 1,395 1,879 2,749 4,347 Woodwork 1,824 3,395 2,515 4,905 Dressmaking 232 3,577 E l e c t r o n i c 6,022 15,007 Food Processing 1,695 3,951 Graphic A r t 5,187 V o c a t i o n a l Music 7,423 Nursing 573 Educational T e l e v i s i o n 44?511 S p e c i a l A r t 16,840 Science-Chemistry 6,784 Science-Physics 8,252 T o t a l Curriculum 12,855 37,323 19,704 135,652 C u s t o d i a l Services 22,386 45,463 27,434 148,288 I n s t r u c t i o n 199,183 339,638 251,354 995,459 Sub T o t a l 234,424 422,424 298,492 1,279,399 T o t a l A l l Programs $ 1,023,531 794,679 1,208,417 1,030,700 2,140,998 874,636 709,021 TABLE IX (continued) S C H O O L S DESCRIPTION 8 9 10 11 12 13 T o t a l $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Science-Trades & Technology Curriculum Auto Mechanics A H 2,426 No A l l 3,214 700 D r a f t i n g Science 1,320 Science Science 962 770 E l e c t r i c a l Tech. 1,089 Tech. Tech. 2,975 675 E l e c t r o n i c And 1,178 And And 2,040 675 Food Processing Trades Trades Trades 3,150 Graphic Art 2,245 Machine Shop 2,380 2,154 1,000 Plumbing 2,577 R e f r i g e r a t i o n 4,627 Sheet Metal 2,990 1,000 Smock Rental 200 400 50 Welding 2,132 4,118 975 Woodwork 2,337 4,054 1,000 T o t a l Curriculum 94,060 15,307 126,344 33,261 6,845 481,351 C u s t o d i a l Services 48,532 33,979 52,711 30,546 2,237 411,576 I n s t r u c t i o n 318,438 141,397 408,857 204,889 44,845 2 ,904,060 Sub T o t a l 461,030 190,683 587,912 268,696 53,927 3 ,796,987 T o t a l A l l Programs $ 471,530 708,558 626,620 597,412 1,112,447 193,709 11,492,258 aExcept f o r one c l a s s of business and commerce students , d i v i s i o n of c o s t i s based on enrolment i n Table V I I I . ^ D i v i s i o n of c o s t s w i t h the A r t s and Science Program i s based on enrolment i n Table V I I I , TABLE X SUMMARY OF SUPPORT AND OTHER PROGRAM COSTS PROGRAM General Admin. O f f i c e of D i r e c t o r Student S e r v i c e s Superintendents Curriculum I n s t r u c t i o n a l Business Personnel T o t a l Program Costs A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Science, Tech. & Trades Education Centre P u b l i c Schools Secondary Schools Continuing Education A r c h i t e c t u r a l S e r vices Business S e r v i c e s Student T r a n s p o r t a t i o n T o t a l s 709,699 3,240 7,500 2,195,783 1,697,973 101,028 7,000 622,188 276,316 7,000 1,127,561 608,057 186,440 155,880 9,369,088 26,000 65,457 1,997,913 2,000 834,425 554,900 810,727 10,240 72,957 15,312,533 2,617,346 186,440 155;880 834,425 554,900 $ 4,614,195 108,028 898,504 2,084,938 9,395,088 3,454,695 20,555,448 a E x c l u d i n g d i r e c t program co s t s to A r t s & Science, Business and Commerce, and Science, Technology and Trades, shown i n Tables V I I and IX. Sourcet Table V I TABLE XI PRORATION OF SUPPORT PROGRAMS T o t a l P r o r a t i o n Other A r t s Business Science PROGRAM Expenditure Method Programs & & Tech, & Science Commerce Trades $ $ $ $ $ Admini s t r a t i o n 810,727 A* 465,357 121,609 69,723 154,038 Science, Tech, & Trades 10,240 D i r e c t 10,240 Education Centre 72,957 A* 41,877 10,944 6,274 13,862 P u b l i c School 15,312,533 D i r e c t 15,312,533 Secondary Schools General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - C a p i t a l 1,050,723 Table X I I 718,845 124,157 207,721 -Operating 647,250 A* 227,832 130,745 288,673 O f f i c e , of D i r e c t o r 7,000 B* 3,290 1,610 2,100 Student Services 276,316 B* 129,869 63,553 82,894 Curriculum 608,057 Table I I , C * 263,897 133,773 210,387 I n s t r u c t i o n 26,000 Table I I , C * 11,284 5,720 8,996 Business Services 2,000 A* 704 404 892 Business Services 834,425 A* 478,960 125,163 71,761 158,541 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 554,900 D i r e c t 554,900 Continuing Education 186,440 D i r e c t 186,440 A r c h i t e c t u r a l Services 155,880 D i r e c t 155,880 t o t a l s $ 20,555,448 17,195,947 1,613,437 607,720 1,138,344 Source: Table X A* E m p i r i c a l number of classrooms. Department of Education formula d i v i d e enrolments by: (1) Elementary-35 (2) A r t s & Science-30 (3) Business and Commerce -25 (4) Science, Technology & Trades-15, B* Average D a i l y Enrolment (Table I V ) . C* A r t s and Science-43.4%; Business and Commerce 22.0%; Science, Technology and Trades-34.6% (Table I I ) . 73 based on the type of f a c i l i t i e s c o n s t r u c t e d . Since 1960, a l l v o c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s have been constructed w i t h the a i d of cash grants; consequently, there are no c o n s t r u c t i o n grant approvals (payable through General L e g i s l a t i v e Grants) a p p l i c a b l e to v o c a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . The p o s i t i o n taken by the w r i t e r i n designing the model was that o nly the cost of a c q u i r i n g school b u i l d i n g s and equipment which i s pay-able l o c a l l y , e i t h e r i n cash or through debentures, i s chargeable to programs. No attempt was made to charge n o n - l o c a l items such as the value given by the Province ( a m o r t i z a t i o n of the v o c a t i o n a l cash g r a n t ) . Based on i n f o r m a t i o n provided by s e n i o r o f f i c i a l s of the admin-i s t r a t i o n , the few debenture m a t u r i t i e s a p p l i c a b l e to c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i o r to 1960 were a l l o c a t e d to programs on an estimated b a s i s . The r e s u l t i n g schedule showing the program cost of debenture m a t u r i t i e s i s shown i n Table X I I , page 74. TABLE X I I PRORATION OF DEBENTURE MATURITIES, 1968 BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST T o t a l S c h o o 1 A r t s Business Science Debenture Amount $ & Tech., & Number Mature d Number Amount Science Commerce Trades $ $ $ $ $ 1,2,3 67,294 5 67,294 20,187 47,107 4 196,650 12 8,259 2,477 2,833 2,949 7 67,059 57,000 10,059 10 44,836 43,356 1,480 2 61,551 61,551 4 14,945 5,231 6,127 3,587 5 55,137 6 55,137 55,137 6 197,100 3 ' 6,110 1,711 2,077 2,322 12 98,944 98,944 1. 92,046 92,046 7 43,527 5 15,140 15,140 4 28,387 23,561 3,040 1,786 8 73,263 3 21,980 14,064 3,958 3,958 11 20,513 20,513 9 30,770 21,231 5,231 4,308 9 20,025 3 -•£00025 5,607 6,809 7,609 10 76,632 3 76,632 21,457 26,055 29,120 11 24,605 3 24,605 6,889 8,366 9,350 12 81,833 6 81,833 81,833 13 10,232 6 10,232 10,232 14 20,882 3 20,882 13,364 3,759 3,759 15 16,924 11 16,924 16,924 16 43,477 9 43,477 29,999 7,391 6,087 17 46,965 6 4,884 2,442 2,442 9 42,081 29,036 7,153 5,892 18 15,245 8 15,245 15,245 Sub T o t a l 989,791 989,791 677,168 116,967 195,656 I n t e r e s t and Redemption Charges 60.932 41.677 7.190 12.065 T o t a l $1,050,723 718,845 124,157 207,721 75 Table X I I I provides a summary of a l l c o s t s a p p l i c a b l e to va r i o u s programs as f o l l o w s : 1. A r t s and Science Program . $ 6,349,050 2. Business and Commerce Program 3,135,127 3. Science, Technology and Trades Program 5,367,582 4. T o t a l cost of combined Programs 14,851,759 By d i v i d i n g program costs by the average d a i l y enrolment shown i n Table TV an average program cost per student was c a l c u l a t e d . The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table X I I I and are as f o l l o w s : Average Cost Per Student 1. A r t s and Science Program $ 935.20 2. Business and Commerce Program 966.44 3. Science, Technology and Trades Program 1,246,25 Program Cost Per Student by School In chapter I I i t was quoted on page 20 that the o b j e c t i v e of the New York s c h o o l system i s to " b r i n g c o s t s down to the school l e v e l " so that the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n w i l l know the c o s t s f o r each school. Table XIV shows Program c o s t s by school f o r the Science, Tech-nology and Trades Program f o r school numbers one to eleven. I n d i v i d u a l school c o s t s are taken from Table V I I I , shared s e r v i c e s ; Table IX, d i r e c t program c o s t s ; and Table X I , prorated share of support programs. Each item i s then d i v i d e d by the average d a i l y enrolment to provide a per student cost i n each school. The r e s u l t s are r a t h e r i l l u m i n a t i n g f o r comparison purposes. School number eleven had the highest cost per student. From an a n a l y s i s point of view i t i s an easy school to con-TABLE X I I I SUMMARY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, BUSINESS AND COMMERCE, AND SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION Source Table T o t a l A r t s And Science Business And Commerce Science Tech. & Trades $ $ $ $ A l l Support Programs XI 3,359,501 1,613,437 607,720 1,138,344 Secondary School, Shared Services V I I I 1,323,990 528,375 .363,364 432,251 Secondary School, A r t s and Science-Direct IX 4,207,238 4,207,238 Secondary School, Business and Commerce-Direct IX 2,164,043 2,164,043 Secondary School, Science, Technology and Trades-Direct IX 3,796,987 3,796,987 T o t a l . "$ 14,851,759 6,349,050 3,135,127 5,367,582 T o t a l Number of Students 14,340 6,789 3,244 4,307 Average Cost $1,035.69 935.20 966.44 1,246.25 TABLE XIV PROGRAM COSTS BY SCHOOL-SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM Source S C H 0 0 L S DESCRIPTION Table 1 3 4 5 8 9 11 $ $ $ $ $ 5 9 Shared Services V I I I 23,101 68,472 27,524 212,506 10,500 36,256 9,500 D i r e c t Program Costs IX 234,424 422,424 298,492 1,279,399 :461,030 190,683 587,912 P r o r a t i o n of Support Programs 3 XI 60,260 166,244 81,404 426,580 115,235 70,832 112,328 T o t a l Cost $ 317,785 657,140 407,420 1,918,485 586,765 297,771 709,740 Number of Students In Program IV 228 629 308 1,614 436 268 425 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cost Per Student Shared Services 101.32 108.85 89.36 131.66 ( ( (1 135.29 ( ( (1,405.68 D i r e c t Program Costs 1,028.18 671.58 969.13 792.69 ,081.49 711.50 P r o r a t i o n Of Support Programs 264.30 264.30 264.30 264.30 264.30 264.30 264.30 T o t a l Cost $ 1,393.80 1 ,044.73 1,322.79 1,188.65 1 ,345.79 1,111.09 1,669.98 a P r o r a t i o n to schools made on the b a s i s of average d a l l y enrolment f o r each school (Table XV) x $1, 138.344 (Table XI) 4,307 (Table IV) 78 s i d e r . The school i s r e s t r i c t e d to the Science, Technology and Trades Program and o f f e r s o n l y the two-year occupations course. Obviously I t i s a s p e c i a l i z e d s chool. I t provides education f o r students who d i d not graduate from grade 8. Had they graduated they would be i n the four or f i v e - y e a r course of the program and c o u l d not attend school number ele v e n . Table I I I shows t h a t t h i s school has a p u p i l teacher r a t i o of 10.5 to 1 and consequently i t w i l l have high teacher cost per student. In a c t u a l f a c t w i t h an average d a i l y enrolment of 425 the t o t a l teaching s a l a r y c o s t per student i s $962,00. Other d i r e c t school c o s t s amount to $443,68 per student and the cost per student f o r support programs i s $264.30 f o r a t o t a l of $1,669.98. By comparison, school number f i v e i s probably one of the l a r g e s t , best equipped schools i n the Province of O n t a r i o . An examination of the Science, Technology and Trades s e c t i o n of Table IX i n d i c a t e s that a great many options are o f f e r e d . The school has 37.48 per cent of a l l students i n the Science, Technology and Trades Program and o f f e r s both the f o u r year and f i v e - y e a r course, i . e . , students who w i l l become s k i l l e d t r a d e s -men and those proceeding to f u r t h e r education. I t can be seen from Table XIV t h a t the c o s t per student i s $1,188.65, a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n that l e s s (approximately $481.00 per year) i s being spent on students bound f o r u n i v e r s i t y than those students who probably w i l l take u n s k i l l e d work. The question of whether t h i s p o l i c y i s d e s i r a b l e or u n d e r s i r a b l e i s not at i s s u e here. I t Is the w r i t e r ^ s p o s i t i o n , however, that o n l y by an accurate p r e s e n t a t i o n of student c o s t s per school can d e c i s i o n s concerning program expenditures be r a t i o n a l i z e d . 79 Provincial Assistance Boards of Education in the Province of Ontario derive revenues primarily from two sources: ( 1 ) local taxation and ( 2 ) Provincial assis-tance. Other revenues become available from the sale of fixed assets, fees to other schoolboards and individuals, etc. As elected representa-tives of the community, schoolboard members frequently make decisions based on a proposal's cost to the community. It is important, there-fore, that expenditures be considered in the light of the Provincial assistance available for the proposal and the cost to the local, tax-payer. The grant plan of Ontario supplements local resources to the maximum of the foundation plan or foundation level. General Legislative Grants for operating purposes^ are based In a l l cases on the previous year's expenditures or average dally enrolment. The main purposes of Provincial Grants for operating purposes f a l l under four main categories. 1 . Stimulation Stimulation grants are used by the Province to encourage boards to adopt or promote a certain action or program. Stimulation is one of the earliest purposes to which provincial grants were directed. The grants are based in most cases on expenditures of the previous year. 2 . Equalization Equalization grants are paid by the Province in an attempt to reduce the extreme differences existing among dist r i c t s with respect to the burden of local taxation. The equalization prin-ciple has the objective of equalizing not the amount collected, nor the rate imposed, but the burden which the taxation imposes 80 upon the community* The r e l a t i v e a b i l i t y to pay Is measured by the assessment per classroom u n i t on a p r o v i n c i a l l y e q u a l i z e d b a s i s . 3. B a s i c Tax R e l i e f The foundation plan was introduced i n t o Ontario i n 1964 and provides p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n accordance w i t h a predetermined l e v e l . The b a s i c tax r e l i e f grant i s a grant of a f i x e d amount based on average d a i l y enrolment, and together w i t h the equal-i z a t i o n grant maximum forms the foundation l e v e l . In 1968 the foundation l e v e l i s as f o l l o w s : B a s i c Tax R e l i e f Grant E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant* A r t s Business Science And And Tech. And Science Commerce Trades Student Student Student $ 200. $ 280. $ 280. $ 265. $ 320. $ 320. $ 465. -$ 600. $ 600. * which i s i n excess of 3.5 m i l l s m u l t i p l i e d by the P r o v i n c i a l E q u a l i z e d Assessment maximum. 4. C a p i t a l Grant Every schoolboard i s paid a grant on the b a s i s of a percentage which f l u c t u a t e s from year to year m u l t i p l i e d by the p o r t i o n of the expenditures recognized f o r grant purposes f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , debenture m a t u r i t i e s , c a p i t a l expenditures from revenue funds, and fees paid to other school boards. Table XV shows the s t i m u l a t i o n grants a p p l i c a b l e to a l l secondary school programs. The grants are c a l c u l a t e d on the aggregate expenditures and enrolments o f a l l three programs. I f program expenditures TABLE XV PRORATION OF PROVINCIAL STIMULATION GRANTS TO PROGRAMS 1968 1968 1968 1967 Expenditure To be Estimated Budget A c t u a l E l i g i b l e Maximum DESCRIPTION Provided P r o v i n c i a l P o r t i o n Expend. A.D.E.d L o c a l l y A s s i s t a n c e For Grant E l i g i b l e $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A l l Secondary Schools S t i m u l a t i o n Items L i b r a r y Books ( T o t a l 12,742 5,495 59,158 64,653 84,151 84,151 127,416 A.D.E.) Text Books-Grades 9 & 10 6,860 36,732 55,628 147,809 74,482 123,620 123,620 -Grades 11 & 12 4,760 55,449 58,765 T e l e v i s i o n 11,776 52,830 2,370 55,200 3,371 3,371 20,608 A s s o c i a t i o n Fees 11,780 1,271 649 l , 9 2 0 a 1,767 923 923 M u n i c i p a l Inspectorates N/A 57,542 32,458 90,000 b 82,045 46,170 46,170 Classrooms-Agriculture, Home Economics & N/A 26,363° 26,363 26,363 26,363 I n d u s t r i a l A r t s T o t a l s $ 153,870 232,075 359,582 330,944 284,598 345,100 P r o r a t i o n On A Student B a s i s A r t s & Science 51.2% 6,031 78,781 118,823 184,106 169,443 145,714 176,691 Business & Commerce 23.0% 2,715 35,390 53,377 82,704 76,117 65,457 79,373 Science, Tech. 25 8% 3,035 39,699 59,875 92,772 85,384 73,427 89,036 & Trades 7 a 3 2 % of $6,000. A s s o c i a t i o n Fees shown i n Table V I . Estimated. cNot r e l a t e d to expenditure. d I n 1967 upon which the 1968 grant i s based. 82 on which the grant i s based could be r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i e d , then the grant could be prorated to programs i n the same r a t i o . I t i s evident from Table XV that s t i m u l a t i o n grants are paid on v a r i o u s f i g u r e s of average d a i l y enrolments; enrolment f o r the l i b r a r y book grant i n c l u d e s non-r e s i d e n t students whereas enrolment f o r the textbook grant does not i n -clude Grade 13 students. To avoid extensive a l l o c a t i o n s w i t h i n s i g -n i f i c a n t amounts s t i m u l a t i o n grants were prorated to programs based on r e s i d e n t average d a i l y enrolment. Table XV i s p a r t i c u l a r l y u s e f u l i n maximizing p r o v i n c i a l s t im-u l a t i o n g r a n t s . The t a b l e h i g h l i g h t s , f o r example, the l o s s i n 1968 grant ( p r o v i d i n g i t was p o s s i b l e and d e s i r a b l e to make the f u l l expen-d i t u r e of $20,608. i n 1967) of s e v e r a l thousands of d o l l a r s on t e l e v i s i o n s e t s . I t can be seen that the expenditure i n 1967 was $3,371. on which a grant w i l l be r e c e i v e d of $2,370. i n 1968. The maximum e l i g i b l e ex-penditure was $20,608. In 1968 the a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r t e l e v i s i o n sets i s $55,200., a f i g u r e c o n s i d e r a b l y beyond the grant c e i l i n g , i f the grant of $1.75 per student remains the same. By planning (or program-ming) the t o t a l expenditure of $58,571. (55,200 + $3,371) over the two year p e r i o d , approximately $45,000 of the expenditure of $58,571. would be covered f o r grant purposes, w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t P r o v i n c i a l A s s i s t a n c e would have been $11,641. higher: [($20,600 + $24,400) x 70% = $31,500] -[($3,371 + $25,000) x 70% = $19,859] = $11,641. I t Is a l s o evident from t h i s t a b l e that the c e i l i n g f o r l i b r a r y books of $127,416. i s much higher than the expenditure In 1967 of $84,151. Because the a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r 1968 i s s t i l l w e l l below the c e i l i n g amount any l o s s i s p u r e l y t h e o r e t i c a l . I t appears that a p o l i c y d e c i s i o n has 83 been made not to take f u l l advantage of the p r o v i n c i a l l i b r a r y book s t i m u l a t i o n grant. The t a b l e does h i g h l i g h t , however, the a d d i t i o n a l amount which c o u l d be spent on l i b r a r y books and which would be e l i g i b l e f o r grant purposes. The amounts f o r B a s i c Tax R e l i e f Grant, E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant and C a p i t a l Grants are shown i n Table XVI, page 84. Cost of Education and Revenues The Information which has been developed In the preceding t a b l e s has been brought together In summarized form i n Table XVI, page 84, to show the t o t a l c o s t and revenue f o r the A r t s and Science Program. Costs are shown f o r support programs, shared school s e r v i c e s , and d i r e c t program co s t s together w i t h the amount per student f o r each c a t -egory, based on the estimated average d a i l y enrolment of 6,789 students. A l s o , the amounts are expressed i n percentages. The form of p r e s e n t a t i o n of revenues i n Table XVI Is designed t o h i g h l i g h t s e v e r a l important p o i n t s . The l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g schoolboards to charge fees to other schoolboards ( S e c t i o n 100, Sub-section a, of the Schools A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Act) s p e c i f i e s t h a t miscellaneous revenues must be deducted from t o t a l c o st before non-resident fees - a r e t c a l c u l a t e d . Consequently, miscellaneous revenue i s deducted from t o t a l program cost to show a net cost of edu-c a t i o n , of $912.21 per student. Table XVI shows that there are 340 non-r e s i d e n t students i n the program f o r which $310,151 of fee revenue w i l l be r e c e i v e d . The w r i t e r f e e l s I t important to separate the amount of l o c a l tax l e v y to meet the cost of enrolment growth from the l e v y r e q u i r e d to ser-v i c e the number of students already i n the school system. Because current TABLE XVI COST OF EDUCATION AND REVENUE-ARTS AND SCIENCE PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE Source Table Number of Students Amount Amount Per Student Per cent Expenditures Support Brograms Shared School Services D i r e c t Program Cost T o t a l Program Cost Revenue s X I I I X I I I X I I I X I I I Miscellaneous Net Cost of Education Non-Resident Fees L o c a l Tax Levy For Resident Enrolment Growth-Expansion To Program (6449-6031) P r o v i n c i a l Assistance-Based on A.D.E. of 6031 i n 1967 1. Basic Tax R e l i e f Grant 2. E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant 3. C a p i t a l Grant-a) 1968 Debenture Payments b) 1967 Expenditure of $265,332 4. S t i m u l a t i o n Grants - D i r e c t - Prorated 5. S p e c i a l T e l e v i s i o n Grant (75% of cost) T o t a l P r o v i n c i a l Assistance L o c a l Tax Levy For E x i s t i n g Program and Extension to Program T o t a l Revenue, Excluding Miscellaneous ^ a b l e TV. XV 6,789 a 6,789 6.789 6,789 6.789 6.789 340 418 1,613,437 528,375 4.207.238 $ 237.66 77.83 619.71 6,349,050 156.099 935.20 22.99 6.192.951 912.21 310,151 381,304 912.21 912.21 25.41 8.32 66.27 100.00 6,031 1,206,200 200.00 21.93 6,031 585,062 97.00 10.63 6,031 327,530 54.31 5.95 6,031 69,987 11.60 1.27 6,031 186,065 30.85 3.38 6,031 118,822 19.70 2.16 6.031 142.331 23.60 2.59 6,031 2,635,997 437.06 47.91 6.031 2.865.499 475.15 52.09 6,031 6.192.951 912.21 100.00 85 grant regulations of the Department of Education allow only for grants based on the average daily enrolment of the previous year, It is necessary to raise a l l the cost associated with enrolment growth for the f i r s t year at the local l eve l . (The increase in students is insufficient for the board to qualify for the 1968 Enrolment Growth Grant of $200.. per student). The local tax levy required for 418 students at $912.21 per student i s $381,304. Provincial assistance in 1968 is based on the average dai ly en-rolment of 5,031 students in 1967, On a per student basis the tota l provincial grants amount to $437.06, The f ina l item of revenue in Table XVI is the local tax levy to cover the remainder of cost not covered by provincial grant for the 6,031 students who were in the system the previous year. The advantage of stating the local tax levy in this manner is that the total cost, per student cost, and mil l -rate are d irect ly comparable with the previous year (a comparison Is shown in the multi-year projection in Table XXII, page 107). Costs and Revenues pertinent to the Business and Commerce Program, and the Science, Technology and Trades Program are shown in a similar manner in Tables XVII and XVIII on pages 86 and 87. Program Alternatives A program manager's primary responsibi l i ty is the allocation of resources to achieve maximum effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the school system. Pr ior i t i e s must be established in determining the relative importance of act iv i t ies in meeting objectives. A decision must TABLE XVII COST OF EDUCATION AND REVENUES-BUSINESS AND COMMERCE PROGRAM Number Amount EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE Source of Amount Per Per cent Table Students Student Expenditures $ $ Support Programs X I I I 3,244 a 607,720 187.34 19.38 Shared School Services X I I I 3,244 363,364 112.01 11.59 D i r e c t Program Cost X I I I 3.244 2.164.043 667.09 69.03 T o t a l Program Cost 3.244 3.135.127 966.44 100.00 Revenues Miscellaneous 3.244 74.620 23.00 Net Cost of Education 3.244 3.060.507 943.44 Non-Resident Fees 260 245,294 943.44 L o c a l Tax-Levy For Resident Enrolment Growth- 269 253,785 943.44 Expansion To Program (2984-2715) P r o v i n c i a l Assistance-Based on A.D.E. of 2715 i n 1967 1. Basic Tax R e l i e f Grant 2,715 760,200 280.00 29.68 2. E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant 2,715 318,179 117.16 12.42 3. C a p i t a l G r a n t 0 4. S t i m u l a t i o n G r ants-Direct 2,715 75,300 27.72 2.94 -Prorated XV 2,715 53,377 19.70 2.09 5. S p e c i a l T e l e v i s i o n Grant 2.715 64.074 23.60 2.50 T o t a l P r o v i n c i a l Assistance 2,715 1,271,130 468.18 49.63 L o c a l Tax Levy For E x i s t i n g Program and 2,715 1,290,298 475.25 50.37 Extension To Program T o t a l Revenue Excluding Miscellaneous 2,715 3,060,507 943.44 100.00 ^ a b l e IV. ^Grants on c o n s t r u c t i o n are paid at time of c o n s t r u c t i o n i n cash. TABLE XVIII COST OF EDUCATION AND REVENUES-SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE Source Table Number of Students Amount Amount Per Student Per cent Expenditures Support Programs Shared School Services D i r e c t Program Cost X I I I X I I I X I I I 4,307 a 4,307 4.307 $ 1,138,344 432,251 3.796.987 $ 264.30 100.36 881.59 21.21 8.05 70.74 T o t a l Program Cost 4,307 5,367,582 1 ,246.25 100.00 Revenues Miseellaneous 4.307 99.022 22.99 Net Cost of Education 4.307 5.268.560 1 .223.26 Non-Resident Fees L o c a l Tax Levy For Resident Enrolment Growth Expansion To Program (3791-3035) P r o v i n c i a l Assistance-Based on A.D.E. of 3035 i n 1967 1. Basic Tax R e l i e f Grant 2. E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant 3. C a p i t a l G r a n t b 4. S t i m u l a t i o n Grants-Direct -Prorated 5. S p e c i a l T e l e v i s i o n Grant T o t a l P r o v i n c i a l Assistance L o c a l Tax Levy For E x i s t i n g Program And Extension To Program T o t a l Revenue Excluding Miscellaneous ^ a b l e IV XV 516 756 3,035 3,035 3,035 3,035 3.035 631,202 924,784 849,800 355,499 84,176 59,876 71.626 1 1 ,223.26 ,223.26 280.00 117.16 27.73 19.70 23.60 22.89 9.58 2.27 1.61 1.93 3,035 3.035 1,420,977 2.291.597 468.19 755.07 38.28 61.72 3.035 5.268.560 1 .223.26 100.00 ^Grants on c o n s t r u c t i o n are paid at time of C o n s t r u c t i o n i n cash. 88 be made concerning the s c a l e and mix of a c t i v i t i e s f o r v a r i o u s l e v e l s of program expenditure. A c t u a l budget p r e p a r a t i o n begins at the lowest l e v e l of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and becomes p r o g r e s s i v e l y c o n s o l i d a t e d as I t 9 pyramids upwards through higher l e v e l s of management. Lower management must th e r e f o r e be given a reasonably c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of the o b j e c t i v e s , and the l e v e l o f operations f o r which they w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e . W i t h i n t h i s framework schools and other r e s p o n s i b i l i t y centres can submit annual estimates showing the amounts to be provided f o r , as f o l l o w s : 1. E x i s t i n g Program - the l e v e l of a c t i v i t y which i s being c a r r i e d out at the present time i n which no change i s expected i n the standards of s e r v i c e or s i z e of work l o a d , 2. Expansion o f Program - the increase necessary to m a i n t a i n at present standards a l a r g e r number of u n i t s of work load due to u n c o n t r o l l a b l e f a c t o r s such as increased enrolment. 3. Extension of Program - the increase that r e s u l t s from a proposal to improve the standards of s e r v i c e o r program, or add new s e r v i c e s or a c t i v i t i e s . 1 0 A p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s type w i l l I n d i c a t e the change i n cost of c o n t i n u i n g the e x i s t i n g program, the increase necessary due to increased workload (numbers of s t u d e n t s ) , and the increase requested to extend the l e v e l or q u a l i t y of o p e r a t i o n . To each a c t i v i t y or major expenditure c o n t r i b u t i n g to the amount requested f o r program ex t e n s i o n , a p r i o r i t y number could be a l l o c a t e d which would be reviewed at a more s e n i o r l e v e l . The p r i o r i t i e s would be u s e f u l f o r developing program a l t e r n a t i v e s and f i n a l l y i n making a p p r o p r i a t i o n s . In making m u l t i - y e a r p r o j e c t i o n s i t may not be p o s s i b l e to de-v e l o p such d e t a i l e d a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r each a c t i v i t y as those developed f o r the annual estimates. M u l t i ^ y e a r p r o j e c t i o n s o r i g i n a t i n g from r e s -89 p o n s l b i l i t y centres should, however, attempt to show the a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r groups of a c t i v i t i e s where t h i s i s p o s s i b l e * For example an estimate c o u l d be made of the t o t a l increased cost f o r e d u c a t i o n a l s u p p l i e s and s a l a r i e s f o r a given increase i n enrolment* The Increase i n enrolment may r e s u l t In the a d d i t i o n of temporary or permanent c l a s s -rooms which would a f f e c t c a p i t a l , c u s t o d i a l , and maintenance c o s t s . S i m i l a r l y , an estimate of the t o t a l c o s t of extending a group of edu-c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s can e a s i l y be separated from the cost of extending c u s t o d i a l o r maintenance a c t i v i t i e s . Table XIX shows a comparative b u d g e t f o r school number 11. T h i s school was again chosen as an example because i t h i g h l i g h t s v e r y w e l l the i n c r e a s e s i n cost which can take place without an increase i n en-rolment. In t h i s instance c o s t s increased f o r the school by 15.3 per cent f o r a decrease i n average d a i l y enrolment of 12 students or 2,7 per cent. The top of Table XIX shows t h a t the teaching s t a f f remained s t a t i c at 41 teachers f o r a teacher - p u p i l r a t i o s l i g h t l y higher than 10 to 1, The f i g u r e s shown i n the f i r s t and l a s t columns are, r e s p e c t i v e l y , the 1967 budget a p p r o p r i a t i o n and the 1968 budget a p p r o p r i a t i o n . The f i g u r e s i n the columns headed E x i s t i n g , Expansion and Extension are es-t i m a t e s . I t i s f a i r l y obvious t h a t w i t h a decrease of o n l y 12 students compared to the previous year v e r y l i t t l e c o n t r a c t i o n of expenditure c o u l d be expected ( i f the e x i s t i n g program were to be c o n t i n u e d ) . The items most l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d would be s u p p l i e s . No new teachers were h i r e d i n 1968 and no new rooms were opened} consequently, program ext e n s i o n p r i m a r i l y r e s u l t e d from the purchase of new equipment and a d -d i t i o n a l s u p p l i e s . Because the school i s o n l y two years o l d no major TABLE XIX BUDGET ESTIMATES, 1968-SCHOOL NUMBER 11 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM 1968 Budget P R O G R A M T o t a l DESCRIPTION A p p r o p r i a t i o n Expansion 1968 1967 E x i s t i n g (Contraction) Extension New Program (1) (2) (3) (4) (2+3+4)=(5) Average D a i l y Enrolment 437 437 -12 425 425a Number of Teaching S t a f f 41 41 41 Curriculum $ $ $ $ $ Appliance Repairs 1,379 1,535 100 1,635 A r t s and C r a f t s 1,000 1,308 -50 200 1,458 Audio-Visual 3,706 3,818 -150 3,500 7,168 Auto Mechanics 1,293 1,760 -20 1,740 Home Management 1,180 985 985 C h i l d Care 750 785 785 Commencement 400 400 400 Commercial 1,398 1,650 -50 1,845 3,445 D r i v e r T r a i n i n g 776 1,015 1,015 Dry Cleaning 5,109 2,085 2,085 E x t r a C u r r i c u l a r 2,750 2,750 2,750 F i e l d T r i p s 250 220 220 Food Processing S8,795 10,828 3,543 14,371 General Supplies 7,649 9,000 -500 2,423 10,923 H o r t i c u l t u r e 1,471 1,700 282 1,982 I n d u s t r i a l Sewing 2,505 2,200 -300 1,900 Landscaping 2,603 3,000 465 3,465 L i b r a r y 5,000 4,750 4,750 Music 350 150 150 P i c t u r e s 500 500 500 P h y s i c a l Education 2,258 2,322 2,322 Reading Improvement 1,736 1,736 Merchandising 2,155 2,195 -200 1,995 TABLE XIX (continued) BUDGET ESTIMATES, 1968-SCHOOL NUMBER 11 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM 1968 Budget P R O G R A M T o t a l DESCRIPTION A p p r o p r i a t i o n Expansion 1968 1967 E x i s t i n g (Contraction) Extension New Program (1) (2) (3) (4) (2+3+4)=(5) Science-Chemistry 1,261 1,125 1,125 S c h o l a s t i c Awards 500 500 500 Sheet Metal 1,600 1,840 874 2,714 Smock Ren t a l 200 225 225 Student Services 500 500 500 Sup e r v i s i o n 1,600 1,600 1,600 T e l e v i s i o n 3 ,500 3,500 Textbooks 4,439 3,100 -100 3,000 Trowel Trades 1,553 1,516 1.516 T o t a l Curriculum 64,930 65,362 -1,170 18,268 82,460 I n s t r u c t i o n 345,346 408,857 408,857 Business Services C a p i t a l Items 7,844 2,986 2,986 C u s t o d i a l 37,241 52,711 52,711 U t i l i t i e s 23,690 23,600 23,600 Other 39.171 26.798 26.798 T o t a l Business Services 107.946 106.095 106.095 T o t a l Cost S 518.222 580.314. -1.170 18.268 597.412 aFrom Table IV. changes In f a c i l i t i e s were budgeted. Most of the appropriation in 1968, therefore, is to provide the same or improved services to a s l ight ly smaller student enrolment. To enable a comparison to be made, column 2 shows the estimated amount which would be required to provide the same service as last year (existing program) to the same number of students, A major portion of the increased cost is due to an Increase in the cost of instruction. The 1968 appropriation of $408,857, divided by 41 (teachers) gives an average salary of $9,971,, an increase of $1,548, per teacher from $8,423. In the previous year. Total direct school cost per student was shown in Table XIV as $1,405,68, to which was added $264,30 allocated from support programs, for a total per s tu-dent cost of $1,669.98. Numerous items of a capital nature add to the complexity of mak-ing budget appropriations. For example audio-visual equipment and com-puter aids to education could form a considerable part of the amount shown under program extension. Table XIX does not separate the amounts requested for capital purposes (equipment) and for operating purposes, A more sophisticated approach to school budgets would identify capital expenditures as follows: Replacement - To maintain existing program; Expansion - To service more units such as in* creased enrolment or additional floor space; Extension - To Improve the standards of service Cost Reduction - To reduce costs of a specific act iv i ty or several act iv i t ies ; 93 E f f i c i e n c y - To modernize equipment or f a c i l i t i e s . I n the budget-approval, or i n the decision-making process, p r i -o r i t i e s c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d . Replacement would probably be given p r i o r i t y number 1, and expansion p r i o r i t y number 2, perhaps cost r e -duc t i o n would be p r i o r i t y number 3 and so on. In order to r e f l e c t the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s of c a p i t a l expendi-t u r e s , the column headings of Table XIX would be r e v i s e d i n accordance w i t h F i g u r e 2, Example I I . Table XX contains a summary of the cost of education i n school number 11. The cos t s f o r c u r r i c u l u m , i n s t r u c t i o n and business s e r v i c e s are shown on a student b a s i s and al s o expressed as percentages. Table XXI compares the cost of education f o r students i n the A r t s and Science Program, the Business and Commerce Program, and the Science, Technology and Trades Program f o r Schools number 1 to number 7. The f i g u r e s shown i n c l u d e o n l y school c o s t s and do not i n c l u d e support pro-gram c o s t s . Program Goals In each school system program goals w i l l d i f f e r because of the l o c a l s i t u a t i o n and w i l l change over a time p e r i o d . Program goals should be achieved over the short or long term. I d e a l l y , goals w i l l show what i s to be done and how much i s to be done. When program goals are s e t , a f i n a n c i a l plan i s made s p e c i f y i n g the resources r e q u i r e d to achieve the g o a l s . Changes i n goals can have f a r - r e a c h i n g e f f e c t s . The f o l -lowing t a b u l a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f e r e n t i a l i n teacher cost because of a change i n teacher p u p i l r a t i o . FIGURE 2 FORMATS OF BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SCHOOLS Example I ( I d e n t i c a l With Table XIX) D e s c r i p t i o n . Budget Appropr'n 1967 1968 Budget Appropr'n 1968 P R O G R A M E x i s t i n g Expansion Extension Example I I (Showing D i v i s i o n Between V a r i o u s Categories of C a p i t a l Expenditures and Operating Expenditures) D e s c r i p t i o n Budget Appropr'n 1967 1968 Budget Appropr'n 1968 P R O G R A M E x i s t i n g Expansion Extension C a p i t a l Operating C a p i t a l Repl'mt Operating C a p i t a l Exp'n Operating C a p i t a l E x t r n Cost Red'n E f f i c i e n c e y (Modernize) TABLE XX PER STUDENT COST-SCHOOL NUMBER 11 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM Budget 1968 T o t a l DESCRIPTION A p p r o p r i a t i o n P R 0 G R A M New-Program 1967 (1) E x i s t i n g 3 (2) Expansion Extension (3) (4) (2+3+4)=(5) Summary $ $ $ $ $ Curriculum I n s t r u c t i o n Business Services 64,930 345,346 107.946 65,362 408,857 106.095 -1,170 18,268 82,460 408,857 106.095 T o t a l $ 518,222 580,314 -1,170 18,268 597,412 Cost Per Student Curriculum I n s t r u c t i o n Business Services 148.58 790.27 247.02 149.57 935.60 242.78 -97.50 42.98 194.02 962.02 249.64 T o t a l $ 1,185.87 1,327.95 -97.50 42.98 1,405.68° Cost Per Student As A Percentage % % % 7. % Curriculum I n s t r u c t i o n Business Services 12.53 66.64 20.83 11.26 70.45 18.29 100.00 100.00 13.80 68.44 17.76 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 aAmounts i n Columns 2, 3, a c t u a l . and 4 are estimated f o r purposes of the model Columns 1 and 5 are bSee Table XIV f o r comparison with, other schools. TABLE XXI PROGRAM COST PER STUDENT ARTS AND SCIENCE; BUSINESS AND COMMERCE; SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAMS S C H O O L S DESCRIPTION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A r t s And Science Program Number of Students 670 1,087 466 447 1,251 839 Shared Services Curriculum C u s t o d i a l I n s t r u c t i o n $ 101.27 22.90 49.11 510.13 $ 14.27 127.23 64.83 524.75 $ 108.93 24.15 36.19 572.93 $ 89.36 31.54 44.68 555.29 $ $ 87.97 10.97 47.25 452.51 $ 113.66 15.11 56.54 531.33 School Cost Per Student $ 683.41 731.08 742.20 720.87 598.70 716.64 Business And Commerce Program Number o f Students 413 568 523 688 159 145 Shared Services Curriculum C u s t o d i a l I n s t r u c t i o n $ 101.27 19.08 59.02 566.73 $ $ 108.93 28.89 43.31 473.12 $ 89.36 41.76 53.47 546.68 $ 131.69 130.44 55.23 626.02 $ 87.97 16.97 57.03 628.29 $ 113.66 6.21 67.96 555.35 School Cost Per Student $ 746.10 654.25 731.27 943.38 790.26 743.18 Science, Tech. & Trades Program Number of Students 228 629 308 1,614 Shared Services Curriculum C u s t o d i a l I n s t r u c t i o n $ 101.27 56.38 98.18 873.61 $ $ 108.93 59.34 72.28 539.97 $ 89.36 63.97 89.07 816.08 $ 131.69 84.05 91.88 616.76 $ $ School Cost Per Student $ 1 .129.44 780.52 1.058.48 924.38 -97 Number of Pu p i l s Te acher P u p i l Ratio Number of Teachers Average Teaching Salary T o t a l Teaching Salary Cost 10,000 18.1 555.5 $ 8,000. $ 4,444,000, 10,000 17.1 588.2 $ 8,000. $ 4,705,600. D i f f e r e n t i a l cost $ 261,600. Because of a change i n teacher-pupil r a t i o from 18 to 1, to 17 to 1, the a d d i t i o n a l cost to educate the same number of students Is $261,600 or an increase of $26.16 per p u p i l , based on an average salary of $8000. In addition, more classrooms would be required, more c u s t o d i a l s t a f f , e t c . Program Goals Program goals are to continue: 1. The two-year occupations course designed to prepare students f o r s k i l l e d jobs) and give a c e r t i f i c a t e of standing upon completion of the course. At the present time, schools number 8 and number 11 are devoted s o l e l y to education of students i n the two-year course. T h i s method i s expected to continue with an approximate teacher-pupil r a t i o of 11.1. School number 8 commenced operations i n 1967 and i s therefore considered up to date. No new construc-t i o n i s planned, therefore, with a view to introducing new oc-cupational courses. The two schools now i n operation have suf^ f l c i e n t capacity to provide f o r the projected student enrolment Program Review, Multi-Year Plan Science. Technology and Trades Program employment i n a number of d i f f e r e n t occupations ( u s u a l l y un-98 of 1,000 students i n 1971} 2. The four-year course l e a d i n g to the Secondary School Graduation Diploma. Graduates of t h i s course expect to enter, i n g e n e r a l , s k i l l e d employment i n which s p e c i a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n w i l l have d i r e c t p r a c t i c a l v a l u e ; 3. The f i v e - y e a r course leading to the Secondary School Honour Graduation Diploma (endorsed f o r admission to Grade 13). T h i s course enables p u p i l s of good general a b i l i t y to q u a l i f y f o r admission to a u n i v e r s i t y course, to a Teachers' C o l l e g e , or to other f u r t h e r s t u d i e s f o r which s u c c e s s f u l completion of work i n Grade 13 Is r e q u i r e d . I t provides f o r p u p i l s who plan upon graduation from Secondary School to enter work such as i s i n -d i c a t e d by the name of the program, an o p p o r t u n i t y to study sub-j e c t s having a s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e i r f u t u re c a r e e r s . Enrolment i n the four and f i v e - y e a r courses Is expected to i n -crease from 3,457 students i n 1968 to 4,234 students i n 1971. D e t a i l s of enrolment, teachers, p u p i l p l a c e s , and custodians are shown f o r the program f o r the years 1968-1971 i n Table X X I I , page 107. Program H i g h l i g h t I t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a w i t h which to determine the p o r t i o n of the t o t a l budget which should be a l l o c a t e d to the Science, Technology and Trades Program. A c c o r d i n g l y , the f o l l o w i n g assumptions are p e r t i n e n t to the 1969 - 1971 p r o j e c t i o n shown i n Table XXII j 1. The minimum i s based on the assumption t h a t the present l e v e l 99 of operations w i l l continue and ther e f o r e the p r o j e c t i o n must provide f o r s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s , p r i c e changes, and program ex-pansion. A l l items of program extension would be e l i m i n a t e d ; 2. The maximum i s based on the assumption that the program can only expand to the extent that capable teachers can be h i r e d , c l a s s -rooms provided, necessary approvals obtained, and changes e f -f e c t e d . New a c t i v i t i e s , no matter how d e s i r a b l e , need t r a i n e d s t a f f , f a c i l i t i e s and equipment. I t i s estimated that an ad-d i t i o n a l 3 per cent of the annual p r o j e c t i o n c o u l d be e f f e c t i v e l y u t i l i z e d , e x c l u s i v e o f c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s . Teachers' S a l a r i e s Teachers' S a l a r i e s i n the Science, Technology, and Trades Program are, on the average, approximately $1,000.00 above the s a l a r i e s i n the Ar t s and Science Program r e f l e c t i n g the a d d i t i o n a l allowance f o r r e -l a t e d experience. In 1967, the median of secondary school teachers' s a l a r i e s i n the Province of Ontario was $9,157 f o r male teachers and $7,956. f o r female teachers. The a r i t h m e t i c mean of s a l a r i e s f o r male teachers was $9,708 and $8,566 f o r female teachers. 1''* To a t t r a c t and r e t a i n t e a c h e r s , s a l a r i e s should m a i n t a i n t h e i r competitive p o s i t i o n w i t h i n d u s t r y . Program Expansion Enrolment during recent years has been i n c r e a s i n g r a p i d l y because a great number of shops and r e l a t e d f a c i l i t i e s have been added. E n r o l -ment i n the program Is expected to increase from 30 per cent of t o t a l secondary school enrolment i n 1968 to 32 per cent i n 1971. 100 The teacher - p u p i l r a t i o i n 1968 i s 14.9 to 1. Although many teachers would l i k e the teacher - p u p i l r a t i o reduced even f u r t h e r , the 1969 - 1971 p r o j e c t i o n has been made on the b a s i s of 15: 1. In 1968 an a d d i t i o n a l 104 temporary p u p i l places were added (por-t a b l e classrooms on which no p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e was received) to the 219 temporary places already i n e x i s t e n c e . The a d d i t i o n a l space was p r i m a r i l y r e q u i r e d because of the delay i n completing school number 13 which was o r i g i n a l l y scheduled f o r completion i n September 1968. Both school number 13 and school number 14 are scheduled f o r completion i n September 1969 and w i l l provide an a d d i t i o n a l 440 places i n 1969 (1100 places f o r 4 months). In 1970, the a d d i t i o n a l 660 places provided by schools 13 and 14 w i l l make the use of portable classrooms unnecessary. In 1971 an a d d i t i o n a l 200 p u p i l places are scheduled f o r completion as f o l l o w s : 1. 40 p u p i l places w i l l be provided by the c o n s t r u c t i o n of e l e c t r o n i c (20 places) and engineering (20 places) l a b o r a t o r i e s at school number 5. New o f f i c e space and guidance f a c i l i t i e s w i l l be i n -cluded i n the p r o j e c t ; 2. 160 p u p i l places w i l l be provided by school number 15, construc-t i o n to commence i n 1970. Program Extension 1. F l u i d Power For s e v e r a l years a l i m i t e d amount of " f l u i d power" i n s t r u c t i o n has been given at school number 5. A t e c h n i c a l l a b o r a t o r y i s being i n c l u d e d i n school number 14 i n which the scope of t h i s subject c o u l d be increased. F l u i d power i s the a r t of generating, 101 control l ing , and applying smooth, effective power of pumped or compressed fluids (such as a i r , o i l , or water) when used to push, p u l l , rotate, regulate, or drive the mechanisms of modern l i f e . F lu id power has now become such a fundamental part of designing and engineering that an understanding of Its rudiments is nec-essary for anyone who wishes to consider himself Industrial ly l i t e ra te . In the last five years a new branch of this technology has emerged cal led "fluidices". Valves having no moving parts are one type of f lu id ic device. Fluidic sensors, amplifiers, and switches are functional counter parts of electronic components such as the photo c e l l , vacuum tube and micro-switch. Develop-ments in f luidices have been extemely rapid and It i s considered necessary that instruction in this area be introduced into the Science, Technology and Trades Program, 2. Television The television studio (phase I) which was included in the 1968 Budget (75 per cent paid by Provincial Assistance) w i l l be in operation in 1969. Some students look at the introduction of this studio as an opportunity for a career. Unt i l now students interested in television have been given training in the repair and maintenance of domestic receiving sets. In 1969 and sub-sequent years (phase II ) , f a c i l i t i e s w i l l exist to introduce students to the production equipment required by a modern tele-v i s ion broadcast station. Students w i l l learn to handle, tune and repair cameras, tape machines, projectors, microphones, trans-mitters, and many other pieces of equipment needed in the modern 102 television station. Upon graduation, students w i l l have an ex-cellent training to obtain employment in the television industry of Ontario, Phase III of the Introduction of educational televis ion Is planned for the years 1972 and 1973 and therefore no f inancial estimates are i n -cluded in the current program review. The introduction of phase III , which is planned to take two years, includes: a) Expansion of Studio for furthering a l l aspects of television arts such as: I) program production Ii) broadcasting and rebroadcasting Additional staff required is expected to cost $30,000 per year. b) Extension of receiving f a c i l i t i e s to a l l schools. Approximate cost: $170,000, The above costs are total costs and only a portion w i l l be charge-able to the Science, Technology and Trades Program, Significant Factors Affecting 1969 - 1971 Estimates of Expenditures  and Revenue The significant factors affecting the 1969 - 1971 projections of expenditure and revenue shown In Table XXII are l i s ted below, 1, Expenditures a) Curriculum: 1) 2 per cent for extension to program each year, i i ) A per cent for price increases to existing program each year. b) Custodial 103 Average c o s t per custodian of $6,859.60 increased by 8 per cent f o r each year 1969, 1970 and 1971. c) I n s t r u c t i o n Average teacher cost of $10,083 Increased by 8 per cent f o r each year 1969, 1970, and 1971. (Includes-a b a s i c increase of approximately 3 per cent which i s provided f o r i n the s a l a r y schedule). d) Shared School S e r v i c e s i ) 2 per cent f o r extension to program each year, i i ) 4 per cent f o r p r i c e i n c r e a s e s to e x i s t i n g program each ye ar . e) Support Programs The t o t a l requirement f o r each support program should be de-veloped by e s t i m a t i n g the requirements of each program f o r the program review p e r i o d and a l l o c a t i n g c o s t s to elementary school and secondary school programs. In the absence of s p e c i f i c estimates the expenditures f o r 1968 were increased by the amounts i n d i c a t e d below: E x i s t i n g Program P r i c e Extension Program Increase 7 to Program 7 T o t a l 7 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n /o 4.0 /o 1.0 la 5,0 Science, Tech and Trades No Change Education Centre 4.0 2.0 6.0 Secondary Schools Gen. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - C a p i t a l * * * - Operating No Change O f f i c e of D i r e c t o r 6.0 1.0 7.0 Student Services 4.0 - 4.0 Superintendent of Curriculum 8,0 1.0 9i0 104 Superintendent of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Personnel 6,0 2*0 8.0 Business Services - 200,0 200.0 Business Services 6,0 1.0 7.0 * The C a p i t a l requirement f o r meeting debenture m a t u r i t i e s i n 1968 i s increased as f o l l o w s : 1969 School Number 13 f o r 531 Science, Technology and Trades p u p i l p l a c e s , l o c a l c o s t amounts to $324,879 debentured w i t h Ontario E d u c a t i o n a l C a p i t a l A i d C o r p o r a t i o n . Estimated annual c o s t $324,879 x 9.3% = $ 30,213. School Number 14 f o r 510 Science, Technology and Trades p u p i l p l a c e s , l o c a l c ost amounts to $364,882 debentured w i t h Ontario E d u c a t i o n a l C a p i t a l A i d C o r p o r a t i o n . Estimated annual c o s t $364,882 x 9.3% = $ 33,934. T o t a l a d d i t i o n a l debenture c o s t i n 1969 $ 64,147. A d d i t i o n a l debenture cost per student i n 1969 $ 13.89 1970 T o t a l a d d i t i o n a l debenture c o s t i n 1970 $ 64,147. A d d i t i o n a l debenture cost per student i n 1970 $ 13*35 1971 School Number 15 f o r 531 Science, Technology and Trades p u p i l p l a c e s . Design and cost s i m i l a r to school number 14. Estimated annual c o s t 364,882 x 9,3% = $ 33,934* Estimated debenture c o s t as above $ 64,147* T o t a l a d d i t i o n a l debenture cost i n 1971 = $ 98,081* A d d i t i o n a l debenture cost per student I n 1971 $ 18*92 2. Revenues a) Miscellaneous: Growth of 6 per cent per year* b) Ba s i c Tax R e l i e f Grant: Increase of $20,00 per year. c) E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant: Increase of $15,00 per year. 105 d) Stimulation Grants: i) Direct: The annexation grant (commenced In 1959) is due to terminate in 1969 at which time the grant i s estimated to he $15.20 per student, l i ) Prorated: Maxima based on 1968 Regulations and maximum expenditures* plus a $4.00 increase per year. Estimated per student grants are: 1969 - $26.00, 1970 - $30.00, 1971 - $34*00. i i i ) Special Television: Grant of $18,765 on an expenditure of $25,000 for 1969 only. e) Local Tax Levy and M i l l Rates The local tax levy for each year of the multi-year projection has been divided in the last section of Table XXII, into the amount required for existing students and the amount required to support enrolment growth. The respective figures are brought forward from the previous section. Assessment in the munic-i p a l i t y i s expected to grow at five per cent per year in-r creasing from 450 mi l l ion dollars in 1968 to 521 mi l l ion in 1971. M i l l rates are established on a s p l i t m i l l rate system whereby the corporation m i l l rate Is 10 per cent above the non-corporate m i l l rate. The respective m i l l rates for the Science, Technology and Trades program to be levied against corporate and non-corporate assessment, are shown for each year of the multi-year projection at the end of Table XXII, Table XXIII shows the f inancial data contributing to total program cost and total program revenue presented on a per student basis . 106 Continuous Review In Chapter II i t was stated that one characterist ic of a program planning and budgeting system is continuous review. The presentation of budget information obtained by this continuous service to the Board of Education would ideal ly be in two parts. 1. In June a Program Review or multi-year plan would be presented to the Board of Education emphasizing long range plans (updating the previous year's long range plans). 2. In December an estimates review would be presented emphasizing short range goals and the program budget for the following year. Comments and directives made by the board at the Program Review stage concerning short-range plans, w i l l provide the schools with guid-ance concerning the details to be included in the estimates review. In addition, reports on a monthly or periodic basis would evaluate and record the progress towards the programmed goals, expenditures, and revenues. Sub-Programs The programs used in this model are major divisions of the sec-ondary school organization. In some school systems, because of local conditions, for example, local industry requirements or emphasis on specific portions of program content, Boards of Education may require that programs be divided into sub-programs. Depending on the particular requirements, sub-programs may be composed of a single subject or a group of subjects. For example English alone may be considered a sub-program or a l l modern languages may be grouped to form a sub-program. Presumably, even a single subject such as English could be further sub-TABLE XXII PROGRAM REVIEW 1968 MULTI-YEAR PLAN 1968-71 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM 1967 DESCRIPTION Past Year 1968 Curr. Year sa T. 1969 Next Year 1970 Next Year + 1971 1 Next Year + 2 Personnel And Performance Number of Non-Resident Students Number of E x i s t i n g Resident Students Number of New Resident Students 516 3,035 756 XVIII XVIII XVIII -554 3,791 274 576 4,065 164 622 4,229 333 T o t a l Number of Students 4.307 XVIII 4.619 4.805 5.184 Per cent of T o t a l Secondary School Enrolment Number of E x i s t i n g Teachers Number of New Teachers 30.0% 232 56 IV 31.0% 288 20 31.0% 308 16 32.0% 320 26 T o t a l Number of Teachers 288 308 320 346 Average Cost Per Teacher Teacher: P u p i l R a t i o $ 10,083.00 14.9 10,889.64 15.0 11,760.08 15,0 12,700.89 15.0 Number of Permanent P u p i l Places Not - E x i s t i n g A v a i l a b l e -New T o t a l Permanent P u p i l P laces A v a i l a b l e 3,984 3,984 440 4.424 4,424 660 5.084 5,084 212 5.296 Number of Temporary P u p i l P laces - E x i s t i n g -New T o t a l Temporary P u p i l Places 219 104 323 323 323 323 323 323 323 Custodian: P u p i l R a t i o 71 71 71 71 Number of Custodians Average Cost Per Custodian 60 6,859,60 65 7,408.37 68 8,001.04 73 8,641.12 TABLE XXII (continued) 1967 1968 s. a 1969 1970 1971 DESCRIPTION Past Year Curr. Year T. Next Year Next Year + 1 Next Year + 2 ? ? $ $ 5 F i n a n c i a l Data D i r e c t School Cost Curriculum 481,351 IX 547,212 603,411 690,042 C u s t o d i a l 411,576 IX 481,544 544,070 630,802 I n s t r u c t i o n 2.904.060 IX 3,354.009 3.763.226 4.394.508 T o t a l D i r e c t School Cost 3.796.987 IX 4.382.765 4.910.707 5.715.352 Shared School Services 432.251 X I I I 491,369 541.812 619.644 Support Programs A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 154,038 XI 173,443 189,461 214,618 Science, Technology & Trades Not 10,240 XI 10,993 11,436 12,338 Education Centre A v a i l a b l e 13,862 XI 15,750 17,346 19,855 Secondary Schools General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - C a p i t a l 207,721 XI 286,932 295,892 348,106 -Operating 288,673 XI 309,565 322,031 347,432 O f f i c e of D i r e c t o r 2,100 XI 2,402 2,691 3,110 Student Services 82,894 XI 92,472 100,040 112,234 Superintendent of Curriculum 210,387 XI 245,962 278,882 327,940 Superintendent of I n s t r u c t i o n a l 8,996 XI 10,439 11,724 13,686 Personnel 7 Business Services 892 XI 1,940 4,036 8,709 Business Services 158,541 XI 183,744 204,500 236,079 T o t a l Support Programs 1,138,344 XI 1,333,642 1,438,039 1,644,107 T o t a l Program Cost $ 5,367,582 X I I I 6,207,776 6,890,558 7,979,103 TABLE XXII (continued) 1967 1968 s. a 1969 1970 1971 DESCRIPTION Past Year Curr. Year T. Next Year Next Year + 1 Next Year + 2 5 $ $ s $ Revenue Miscellaneous 99,022 XVIII 112,565 124,113 141,938 Non-Resident Fees 631,202 XVIII 731,053 811,129 940,340 L o c a l Tax Levy For Enrolment Growth 924,784 X V I I I 361,568 230,946 503,429 P r o v i n c i a l Assistance 1. Basic Tax R e l i e f Grant 849,800 X V I I I 1 ,137,300 1,300,800 1 ,437,860 2. E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant 355,499 XVIII 501,019 598,205 685,775 3. C a p i t a l Grant 4. S t i m u l a t i o n G r a n t s - D i r e c t 84,176 X V I I I 57,623 -Prorated 59,876 X V I I I 98,566 121,950 143,786 5. S p e c i a l T e l e v i s i o n 71.626 X V I I I 18.765 T o t a l P r o v i n c i a l A s s i s t a n c e 1,420,977 1 ,813,273 2,020,955 2 ,267,421 L o c a l Tax Levy For E x i s t i n g Program And Extension To Program 2,291,597 3 ,189,317 3,703,415 4 ,125,975 T o t a l Revenue $ 5,367,582 6 ,207,776 6,890,558 7 ,979,103 L o c a l Tax Levy For E x i s t i n g Students Not 2,291,597 X V I I I 3 ,189,317 3,703,415 4 ,125,975 For Enrolment Growth A v a i l a b l e 924,784 X V I I I 361,568 230,946 503,429 T o t a l Tax Levy 3,216,381 X V I I I 3 ,550,885 3,934,361 4 ,629,404 L o c a l Assessment-Non-Corporation 283 mm 296 mm 312 mm 327 mm -Corporation 167 mm 176 mm 184 mm 194 mm T o t a l Assessment 450 mm 472 mm 496 mm 521 mm L o c a l Tax Levy In M i l l s : M i l l s M i l l s M i l l s M i l l s Corporation-For E x i s t i n g Students 5.40 7.16 7.93 8„40 -For Enrolment Growth 2.18 .80 .50 1.02 T o t a l Corporation M i l l Rate For 7.58 7.96 8.43 9.42 Non-Corporation-For E x i s t i n g Student s 4.91 6.51 7.21 7.64 -For Enrolment Growth 1.98 .73 .45 .93 T o t a l Non-Corporation M i l l Rate For 6.89 7.24 7.66 8.57 Science, Tech., & Trades Programs aSource Table. TABLE X X I I I PROGRAM REVIEW 1968, MULTI-YEAR PLAN 1968-71 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND TRADES PROGRAM EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES PER STUDENT 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 DESCRIPTION Past Year Curr. Year Next Year Next Year + 1 Next Year + 2 T o t a l Number of Students 4307 4619 4805 5184 Percentage Increase i n Students 7.24% 4.03% 7.88% from Previous Year Expenditure Per Student $ $ $ $ D i r e c t School Cost Curriculum 111.76 118,47 125.58 133.11 C u s t o d i a l 95.56 104.25 113.23 121.68 I n s t r u c t i o n 674.27 726.13 783.19 847.71 T o t a l D i r e c t School Cost 881.59a 948.85 1 .022.00 1.102.50 Shared School Services 100.36 a 106.38 112.76 119.53 Support Programs A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - 35.76 37.55 39.43 41.40 Science, Technology & Trades Not 2.38 2,38 2.38 2.38 Education Centre 3.22 3.41 3.61 3.83 Secondary Schools A v a i l a b l e General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - C a p i t a l 48.23 62.12 61,58 67,15 -Operating 67.02 67.02 67.02 67.02 O f f i c e of D i r e c t o r .49 .52 .56 .60 Student Services 19.25 20.02 20.82 21.65 Superintendent of Curriculum 48.85 53.25 58.04 63.26 Superintendent of I n s t r u c t i o n a l 2.09 2.26 2.44 2.64 Personnel Business Services .21 .42 .84 1.68 Business Services 36.80 39.78 42.56 45.54 T o t a l Support Programs 264.30 a 288.73 299.28 317.15 T o t a l Program Cost Per Student $ l,246.25 a 1,343.96 1 ,434.04 1,539.18 ! TABLE X X I I I (continued) DESCRIPTION 1967 Past Year 1968 a Curr. Year 1969 Next Year 1970 Next Year + 1971 1 Next Year + 2 Revenues Per Student $ $ $ $ $ Miscellaneous 22.99 24.37 25.83 27.38 Non Resident Fees L o c a l Tax Levy For Enrolment Growth P r o v i n c i a l A s s i s t a n c e 1, Basic Tax R e l i e f Grant 2, E q u a l i z a t i o n Grant 3, C a p i t a l Grant 4, S t i m u l a t i o n G r a n t s - D i r e c t -Prorated 5, S p e c i a l T e l e v i s i o n 265.00 107.30 40.33 15.59 12223226 1,223.26 280.00 117.16 27.73 19.70 23.60 1,319.59 1,319.59 300,00 132.16 15.20 26,00 4.95 1,408.21 1,408.21 320.00 147.16 30.00 1,511.80 1,511.80 340.00 162.16 34.00 T o t a l P r o v i n c i a l Assistance 428.22 468,19 478.31 497.16 536.16 L o c a l Tax For E x i s t i n g Program And Extension To Program 755.07 841.28 911,05 975.64 T o t a l Program Revenue Per Student $ 1,246.25 1,343.96 1,434.04 1,539.18 aSource: Table X V I I I . 112 divided into English Language and English Literature. Additional examples of possible sub-programs are the related subjects of e l ec tr i c i ty and elec-tronics or a l l technical subjects. The main obstacles In providing numerous sub-programs are (1) col lect ion and manipulation of the vast amounts of data, (2) re-l i a b i l i t y of the resultant Information, and (3) the cost of providing the information. From a cost accounting point of view d i f f i cu l t i e s may be encoun-tered in deciding whether f u l l costs, direct costs, or marginal (dlf-^ ferentlal) costs be used. Direct costs are defined as those costs that vary with volume, i . e . , only variable of direct costs such as direct material, direct labour, and variable expenses are chargeable. Costs which are a function of time such as the fixed costs of insurance, salaries for executives and managers, office salaries , and maintenance costs are excluded. Marginal or di f ferent ia l costs are defined as those costs resulting from alter-native po l ic ies . Fundamentally, d i f ferent ia l cost represents the v a r i -able or additional cost which w i l l be Incurred i f the administration de-13 cides to take a particular alternative. If f u l l costs are used, the problems associated with prorating indirect expenditures w i l l be d i f f i c u l t to solve because of the amount of detai l required. The breakdown of a program Into further and finer sub-divisions always entails a cost which has to be balanced against the expected gain in effectiveness. There seems to be no reason for iden-t i fy ing sub-programs unless the divis ion of a program enables the ad-ministration to: 113 1. Establish priorities among existing and contemplated activities; 2* Weigh prospective benefits against related costs, estimate the effects of a cutback or expansion of existing operations, or the introduction of a new activity; 3. Take into account forseeable changes in the need for services and corresponding changes in levels of operations to meet those needs; 4. Establish accountability for carrying out the sub-program and for the estimate and control of associated expenditures and revenues.'" The writer investigated the possibility of including in the model a specific sub-program; however, the lack of information on which the model could be based prevented its inclusion. From the analysis of op-erations which was made In this regard, the writer formed the opinion that until the operation of a program planning and budgeting system has reached a high degree of sophistication, decisions concerning individual subjects or groups of subjects should be made on the basis of specific cost studies or cost-benefit studies as the alternative to making budget documents more complicated and more lengthy than those required by major programs. If sub-programs are identified, the formats which have been developed in the preceding tables and Figure number 2 would seem adequate for presentation purposes. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER I I I '•Government of Canada, Treasury Board, F i n a n c i a l Management (Ottawat October, 1966), p. 30. 2 l b i d . , p. 31. 3 I b i d . . p. 36, ^ I b l d . Harry J , H a r t l e y , Programme Budgeting and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n L o c a l Schools. Paper presented to the meeting of Ad Hoc Group on Budgeting, Programme A n a l y s i s and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n Edu c a t i o n a l Planning 3rd -5th A p r i l 1968. ( P a r i s : O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Co-operation and Development 1968), p. 22. 6 I b i d . , pp. 22-23. 7 0 n t a r l o Department of Education, Report of the M i n i s t e r (Toronto: December 31, 1967), p. 32. 8 0 n t a r i o Department o f Education, General L e g i s l a t i v e Grants 1968. Elementary and Secondary Schools. Ontario R e g u l a t i o n 43/68 made under The Department of Education A c t , Issued by a u t h o r i t y of The M i n i s t e r of Education (Toronto: Approved and F i l e d February 22, 1968), ^Government o f Canada, op. c i t . . p. 19, 1 0 0 n t a r l o Department o f Education, P r e p a r a t i o n o f 1968 Estimates (Toronto). ^ O n t a r i o Department o f Education, Report of the M i n i s t e r . Op. c i t . . p. 41. l^Adolph Matz, Othel J . Curry, and George W, Frank, Cost Account-i n g (Second E d i t i o n ; C i n c i n n a t i : South-Western P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1957), p. 785. 1 3 I b i d . ^Government of Canada, op_. c i t . . p. 18. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS Summary The c o n s o l i d a t i o n of school boards i n the Province of Ontario i n t o l a r g e r u n i t s of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (except f o r a few i s o l a t e d boards and the defined c i t i e s of Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Windsor) w i l l c r eate an unprecedented upheaval i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of edu-c a t i o n i n t h i s p r ovince. The massive r e o r g a n i z a t i o n , together w i t h the l e a d e r s h i p being provided by the F e d e r a l Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario to the p u b l i c s e c t o r , i n implementing a program planning and budgeting system i n d i c a t e s an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the develop-ment of a program budget model which c o u l d be used by school boards. Purpose The purpose of t h i s study was to develop a model program budget f o r s e l e c t e d secondary school programs i n accordance w i t h g e n e r a l l y accepted c r i t e r i a . L i t e r a t u r e reviewed. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e revealed that a considerable amount of l i t e r a t u r e e x i s t s on program planning and budgeting systems i n g e n e r a l , w i t h a much sm a l l e r amount a v a i l a b l e as a p p l i e d to education* From t h i s 116 body of l i t e r a t u r e were i d e n t i f i e d the primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h which the model would comply. Method of Study The model was developed by r e s t a t i n g on a program b a s i s a budget made up i n the t r a d i t i o n a l manner of a board of education having i n ex-cess of 14,000 secondary school p u p i l s . Information was obtained from the f o l l o w i n g sources: 1, The approved budget document f o r the year 1968} 2» Interviews w i t h s e n i o r admlnstrators of the board o f education s t a f f ; 3, Interviews w i t h a member of the board of education; 4, Reports by the board of education to the P r o v i n c i a l Department of Education; 5, Grant c a l c u l a t i o n statements, and f i n a l approvals f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n , made by the Department of Education, The i n f o r m a t i o n obtained was presented i n a s e r i e s of t a b l e s each of which was described to i n d i c a t e the reason f o r i t s existence and the most s i g n i f i c a n t items. Each of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s mentioned i n the s e c t i o n "Purpose and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " have been in c l u d e d i n the model. Fin d i n g s I n the s e c t i o n e n t i t l e d "Purpose of the Study" f i v e questions were considered p e r t i n e n t to the s u c c e s s f u l establishment of a program budgeting system i n a board of education. The f i n d i n g s of the study w i l l be r e l a t e d to each one i n t u r n , 1, Can P r o v i n c i a l Grants be maximized by u s i n g a program budgeting 117 system? Yesi It can be seen from Tables XVI to XVIII that most of the provincial assistance to education in the form of General Legislative Grants is paid on a per student basis . The emphasis of a program budget on unit costs and revenues highlights both general grant trends in the form of basic or incentive grants and specific grant revenues. Table XV indicates that stimulation grants were not maximized for l ibrary books, textbooks for grades 11 and 12, and television receiving sets. It was pointed out in the discussion of Table XV that i f the expenditures on televlson sets had been planned over two years, increased grants would have been due to the board. Based on the assumption that provincial aid to education does not fluctuate In an erratic manner, the projection of expenditures and average daily enrolments into the following year in a manner similar to that shown in Table XV must undoubtedly result in Grant maximization and knowledgeable decision making. 2. Is a program budget compatible with the present system of pro-v i n c i a l aid to education? Yesi Under the present system of grants, both General Legislative and School Construction, the amounts paid on behalf of Arts and Science students are identif ied spec i f ica l ly , or at least could be identif ied by further analysis. Both Business and Commerce, and Science, Technology and Trades students are considered vocational, and while In some cases provincial assistance is calculated together, figures are available by which the grants can be separated into programs. The implication i s , that If operating expenditures on students can be Identified and capital expendiutes on construction can be ident i f ied, then the provincial as-118 s l s t a n c e can be I d e n t i f i e d . 3. Is the data now assembled f o r budget purposes appropriate f o r use i n a program budgeting system? The Information a v a i l a b l e i n the budget under study was purely f i n a n c i a l , and as such f o r the development of a program budget was i n -complete. Moreover, i n many cases a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n was r e q u i r e d to separate t o t a l expenditures i n t o s p e c i f i c program c o s t s . To the ex-tent that t o t a l s were a v a i l a b l e to which the program budget co u l d cross balance, the answer i s yes. 4. Can i n f o r m a t i o n f o r developing a program budget be obtained at a reasonable c o s t where t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s not now a v a i l a b l e ? Y e s i As i n d i c a t e d i n item 3 above, a considerable amount of i n -formation which i s not shown i n a t r a d i t i o n a l budget i s r e q u i r e d i n a program budget p r e s e n t a t i o n . The answer "yes" In t h i s s e c t i o n i s qua l -i f i e d by the degree of s o p h i s t i c a t i o n of the program budgeting system. I f i t were intended to e s t a b l i s h a system which would i d e n t i f y grade c o s t s at the elementary l e v e l and subject c o s t s at the secondary school l e v e l and I n d i v i d u a l s p e c i a l education c o s t s f o r op p o r t u n i t y c l a s s e s and hard-of-hearing c l a s s , then, the w r i t e r ' s o p i n i o n would change to "no". In some i n s t a n c e s , however, program budget development co s t s may be kept w i t h i n acceptable l i m i t s by p r o v i d i n g d e t a i l e d program i n f o r -mation on a c y c l i c a l b a s i s . While i t may be too c o s t l y i n terms of personnel and equipment to d e t a i l the cost of each sub-program every year a p e r i o d i c review of s e l e c t e d or a l l sub-programs would serve the purposes of management. S i m i l a r l y , a planned a d d i t i o n to a program cou l d be budgeted without examining a l l sub-programs i n d e t a i l . I t was mentioned i n Chapter I I I that a l l o c a t i o n of a c t u a l teacher time and estimated teacher s a l a r y c o s t s to programs would mean the anal-y s i s of approximately 35,000 teacher periods per c y c l e . W i t h i n the : pro-grams defined i n the model some students may move across program l i n e s , f o r example, an A r t s and Science student may take a period or two per cy c l e of automotive shop. To i d e n t i f y these students and the p a r t i c u l a r options they take would be a b i g task. For the purpose of t h i s model i t was assumed that inter-program s t u d i e s would o f f s e t one another and that the prime motive f o r having, f o r example, a t e c h n i c a l o p t i o n , i s f o r the Science, Technology and Trades student, and that the a d d i t i o n of an Arts and Science student would not n e c e s s a r i l y Increase c o s t s . The answer "yes" i s given above, provided that the program budget does not r e q u i r e i n f o r m a t i o n e x t e n s i v e l y beyond that which was obtained by the w r i t e r . Some i n f o r m a t i o n such as program f l o o r areas was not a v a i l a b l e to the w r i t e r but would not be c o s t l y to o b t a i n . 5. Would a system of program budgeting r e q u i r e d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of the budget process? Y e s l The budget document studied i n c l u d e d i n d i v i d u a l secondary school budgets made up i n the t r a d i t i o n a l manner. I f budgets from schools were r e q u i r e d on the b a s i s shown i n e i t h e r of the examples of Figure 2, then w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r program f u l f i l l m e n t which i s delegated to schools, the necessary a u t h o r i t i e s must be d e c e n t r a l i z e d and delegated as w e l l . Based on a continuous review of budget per-formance, schools must have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and a u t h o r i t y to make adjustments as necessary to f u l f i l l goals and o b j e c t i v e s . 120 Conclusions The study has made I t c l e a r that budget documents would be con-s i d e r a b l y lengthened i n presenting a program budget. Even so, what ap-pears to be a minimum of a n a l y s i s has been presented. Tables XVI, XVII, and X V I I I ( c o s t of education and revenues f o r each program) could be expanded to show the expenditures f o r each a c t i v i t y . Several years ex-perience would show which t a b l e s c o u l d be expanded (or contracted) to provide more meaningful i n f o r m a t i o n . The m u l t i - y e a r plan Table XXII, shows th a t s u b s t a n t i a l increases i n c ost w i l l r e s u l t i f current trends continue. Per student c o s t s are p r o j e c t e d to increase by 23.5 per cent during the p e r i o d 1968 to 1971 w h i l e t o t a l c o s t i n c l u d i n g growth i n enrolment i s estimated to Increase by 48.6 per cent during the same p e r i o d . Very modest increases were estimated f o r p r o v i n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e In the model w i t h most of the I n -crease i n c o s t , t h e r e f o r e , coming d i r e c t l y from l o c a l taxes. On September 18, 1968, Premier John Robarts announced p u b l i c l y that the Ontario Government planned to cut spending "to avoid a ' f i n a n -c i a l nightmare* and any s i g n i f i c a n t reductions must a f f e d t education, h e a l t h and welfare".''' He s a i d that f o r e c a s t s show p r o v i n c i a l revenues w i l l grow o n l y 40 per cent by 1973 while a p r o j e c t i o n of spending patterns shows spend-i n g w i l l i n c r e a s e by 74 per cent i n the same p e r i o d . Because the pro-j e c t e d p r o v i n c i a l d e f i c i t cannot be financed through borrowing and tax i n c r e a s e s , the o n l y s o l u t i o n i s by c u t t i n g expenditures. He continued by saying t h a t the expenditure increase d i d not Include any new programs 121 and consequently, "any reductions of significant size must come in the areas of education, welfare, and highways because this is where the great bulk of our provincial revenues are spent."2 In the face of r i s ing costs and the rather gloomy forecast of Provincial aid to education by the Premier, i t would appear that boards of education w i l l need to scrutinize carefully program expenditures to establish a pr ior i ty ranking as a basis to allocate available funds to the most essential areas. It is concluded that i f present indications are correct and ex-penditures continue to outstrip revenues, a program, planning, and bud-geting system would be useful as a decision making tool to boards of education in Ontario to 1. Assist the administration in determining pr ior i t i e s ; 2. Assist the administration in u t i l i z i n g i t s resources in the most effective manner. Undoubtedly, the establishment of pr ior i t i e s w i l l be d i f f i c u l t due to the distorting and obscuring effect of intervening variables; however, i t seems clear that the basis of evaluation and decision making should be something more than a line-item budget and subjective judgment. The introduction of a program budgeting system would be advan-tageous in that school boards and administrators would be compelled to perform important functions which i t has too frequently been the ten-dency to neglect, for example, the formal identif icat ion of objectives and goals and the long-term financial and physical implications of meet-ing those goals in terms of people and buildings. FOOTNOTES CHAPTER IV '""Financial Nightmare for Ontario i f Spending Isn't Cut, says Robarts". The London Free Press, September 18, 1968, p, 1. 2 I b l d . BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, Bert X., and.others. P r i n c i p l e s of Public School Accounting. Washington: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1967. Bragin, Jeanette, Program Budgeting, Annual Volume of Proceedings, Asso c i a t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s , October 1967. Chicago: Association of School Business O f f i c i a l s , 1968. Brown, A l l a n . Changing School D i s t r i c t s i n Canada. Toronto: The Ontario I n s t i t u t e f or Studies i n Education, 1968. Department of Economic and S o c i a l A f f a i r s . A Manual f o r Programme and  Performance Budgeting. New York: United Nations, 1965. F i n a n c i a l Management i n Departments and Agencies of the Government of Canada. Ottawa : Treasury Board, 1966. Hatry, Harry P., John F. Cotton. Program Planning f o r State. County. City.. Washington: State-Local Finances Pr o j e c t , The George Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1967. H i l l , Lamar L. Program Budgeting i n Public School D i s t r i c t s . Annual Volume of Proceedings, Association of School Business O f f i c i a l s , October 1967. Chicago: Association of School Business O f f i c i a l s , 1968. L i v i n g and Learning. Report of the P r o v i n c i a l Committee on Aims and Objectives of Education i n the Schools of Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, 1968. Matz, Adolph, Othel J . Curry, and George W, Frank. Cost Accounting. Second E d i t i o n . C i n c i n n a t i : South-Western Publishing Company, 1957, Novick, David. Program Budgeting: Long Range Planning i n the Depart-ment of Defense. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 1962. Ovsiew, Leon, William B. Ca s t e t t e r . Budgeting f o r Better Schools. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice H a l l , 1960, 124 Program Review and Estimates Manual. [Ottawa] : Estimates and Supply Procedures D i v i s i o n , Program Branch, [Federal Government o f Canada), 1967. Report o f the M i n i s t e r . Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, 1967. Royal Commission on Government A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r Saskatchewan 1965. Regina: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1965, Terhune, George A. Performance and Program Budgeting P r a c t i c e s i n the  U.S. and Canada. Committee on Budgeting Report No. 2, Chicago: M u n i c i p a l Finance O f f i c e r s A s s o c i a t i o n , 1966, S t u d i e s . Reports and Papers A Program Budget Research P r o p o s a l . Miami, F l o r i d a : Dade County Board of P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , 1966, Burkhead, J e s s e , The Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n of Program Budgeting to  Education, Proceedings of the E i g h t h N a t i o n a l Conference on School Finance, N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , A p r i l 6, 1965, Davis, W i l l i a m G, Education f o r New Times. Statement by the Hon. W i l l i a m G, Davis Q.C. LL.D., M i n i s t e r of Education and M i n i s t e r of U n i v e r s i t y A f f a i r s , to the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly of Onta r i o . Toronto: Ontario Department o f Education, 1967, r K Information provided by the Honourable W i l l i a m G, Davis, M i n i s t e r of Education of. O n t a r i o , i n connection w i t h the Depart-mental Estimates 1968-69, Toronto: Ontario Department of Edu-c a t i o n , 1968, . Statement by The Honourable W i l l i a m G, Davis. M i n i s t e r o f Education o f Ontario. on the Departmental Estimates 1968-69. Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, 1968, Diplomas f o r P u p i l s of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Ontario Regu-l a t i o n 142/61 as amended by 0, Reg. 122/64. Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, General L e g i s l a t i v e Grants 1968. Elementary and Secondary Schools. Ontario R e g u l a t i o n 43/68 made under The Department of Education A c t . Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, 1968, H a r t l e y , Harry J , Program Budgeting and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n L o c a l  Schools. Paper presented to the meeting of Ad Hoc Group on Budgeting, Programme A n a l y s i s and Cost E f f e c t i v e n e s s i n Educa-t i o n a l P l a n n i n g 3rd - 5th A p r i l 1968, P a r i s : O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Co-operation and Development, 1968, 125 H i l l , Lamar L., Frank Mattox. Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c School  D i s t r i c t s , D o c t o r a l T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 1967. _______ Program Budgeting i n P u b l i c School D i s t r i c t s . Summary, F i n d i n g s , Conclusion and Recommendations of Doc t o r a l T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C a l i f o r n i a . Chicago: A s s o c i a t i o n of School Business O f f i c i a l s , 1967. Ontario Department of Education. P r e p a r a t i o n of 1969-70 Estimates. Toronto: O f f i c e of the A s s i s t a n t Deputy M i n i s t e r , Adminstration, 1968. . Recommendations and Information f o r Secondary School Organi-z a t i o n l e a d i n g to C e r t i f i c a t e s and Diplomas 1968-69. Toronto: Department of Education. .. Summary of Estimates. Estimates 1968-69 submitted to the L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly March 12. 1968. Toronto: Department of Education, 1968. Robarts, John P. "Larger U n i t s of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r the Province of On t a r i o , " An address by.the Prime M i n i s t e r of Ontario at G a i t . O n t a r i o . November 14, 1967. Toronto: O f f i c e of the Prime M i n i s t e r Of O n t a r i o . Newspapers and P e r i o d i c a l s " B e t t e r Value f o r Tax D o l l a r s " , The Monetary Times. February, 1968, pp. 29-31. Globe and M a i l [Toronto], June 5, 1968. The London Free Press [Ontario] , March 13, 1968. The London Free Press [Ontario] , A p r i l 5, 1968. The London Free Press [Ontario] , September 18, 1968. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102351/manifest

Comment

Related Items