Friday, February 19, 2010

Fee subsidy clarification

This will eventually be published in my own paper, but I did have a conversation with the Ministry of Education Thursday regarding my confusion over the fee-subsidy elements of Bill 242. In particular, about these sections in the first reading of the bill:
25. Section 2.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Contracting authority, school board
(6.2) A school board may enter into an agreement with a delivery agent under subsection (6) regarding the provision of financial assistance to persons who are charged fees in respect of extended day programs and the agreement may provide that the school board has some or all of the powers and duties of the delivery agent that relate to the provision of the financial assistance.
26. Subsection 7.2 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
Agreements for provision of services and financial assistance re extended day programs
(1) The Minister may enter into agreements with municipalities, delivery agents or other persons or entities, on the terms and conditions that may be agreed, respecting the provision of,
(a) the prescribed services; and
(b) financial assistance to persons who are charged fees in respect of extended day programs.
27. (1) Subsection 18 (1) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before clause (a) and substituting the following:
Regulations
(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the management, operation and use of day nurseries and private-home day care agencies and classes of either of them and premises where private-home day care is provided by a private-home day care agency and governing the provision of financial assistance to persons who are charged fees in respect of extended day programs, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing may make regulations,
. . . . .
(2) Subclause 18 (1) (p) (ii) of the Act is amended by striking out "day nursery or a private-home day care agency" and substituting "day nursery, private-home day care agency or school board".
(3) Clause 18 (1) (q) of the Act is amended by striking out "private-home day care or services provided in a day nursery" and substituting "private-home day care, services provided in a day nursery or extended day programs".
(4) Subsection 18 (1) of the Act is amended by adding the following clauses:
(z.3) governing the application of the provisions of this Act and the regulations to circumstances in which a school board and the Minister enter into an agreement regarding the provision of financial assistance to persons who are charged fees in respect of extended day programs;
(z.4) if the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers it advisable, adapting or modifying the provisions of this Act and the regulations for the purpose of their application to the circumstances referred to in clause (z.3);
(z.5) providing for such transitional matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable relating to the provision of financial assistance for extended day programs.
My understanding based on the conversation-- these clauses are an escape clause for the ministry. If the ministry cannot reach agreement with all of Ontario's municipal service managers on fee-subsidy management for before- and after-school as well as non-instructional PD Day and summertime programs, this would allow boards in those regions to manage this element themselves.
The spokesperson was adamant the education ministry does not want to take away from a 'one-window' approach for fee subsidies, and confident agreements could be reached in time to make this clause redundant in time for the programs to begin this fall.
Now, we know.

4 comments:

RetDir said...

What is also likely true, is that no board would be even remotely interested in taking this on...and absent anything compelling them to do so it won't happen.

Anonymous said...

So you will have before and after school and PD day programming for the 4 & 5 years olds but what about the 8 & 9 year olds? Send the 4 & 5 to school and keep the 8 & 9 at home. I don't thing the government has a clue what they are doing !!!

Anonymous said...

I agree with both comments above.

I sure don't want my board having their time taken up with this stuff.

It's a program that's not going over well in my district.

I have to hark back to the criticisms of both the NDP and PC opposition critics who raised that this might turn into another bungled boondoggle, because it was neither budgeted for or thought out thoroughly.

I still bet we don't see many boards moving on to a further phasing of this program once the real costs come to light.

CC

Education Reporter said...

Anon 20 Feb. 08:33
I think it depends on what may be in place today. Boards are mandated to do the before and after programs for 4/5yo. All existing and any future partnerships for other age groups can continue. So that program that exists today-- where the majority of kids are likely 6-13 on most days, can continue running, under its current partnership.

Retdir and CC:
"absent anything compelling them to do so..."
EXACTLY. If the negotiations with the municipalities don't work out, these sections of the bill will do just that-- force boards to handle their own fee subsidies.

Hugo