MORE INSIDE

Capital funding plans for schools lacking. Page A3 Recommendations for U of R.

If the provincial auditor’s report is anything to go by, school divisions aren’t exactly satisfied with the Ministry of Education when it comes to planning, building and renovating schools.

None of them think the province’s capital asset planning processes are effective, for example. Nor do any divisions strongly agree they receive adequate levels of planning guidance from the ministry.

That news was a bit of a surprise to assistant deputy minister Donna Johnson. It’s “certainly” a concern, she said Wednesday.

“We want to make sure the school divisions are able to deal with their capital asset concerns and … know who they can talk to, and that they feel confident that they’re getting the answers to the questions they’re asking when they do contact us,” Johnson said.

“I think my focus more so will be, now that we have this information, how do we work with it?”

When it comes to how the ministry deals with the big picture of capital planning, provincial auditor Bonnie Lysyk didn’t pull any punches in the report she released Wednesday.

“We found the Ministry of Education did not have effective capital asset planning processes for facilities to house and support educational programs and instructional services for students in school divisions,” she wrote.

Lysyk cited a number of concerns, including government financing for school projects and the fact the government’s accounting practices appeared to avoid having new debt recorded in the budget, particularly when it came to a $31-million promise of capital loans made to school divisions in 2012.

In effect, that meant the government’s books looked better than they actually were, Lysyk wrote.

Another of Lysyk’s concerns was the lack of a provincial strategy to make sure the most important school building projects are prioritized, tracked and completed on time.

The audit covered the 12-month period ending Dec. 31, 2012, and while Johnson acknowledged some ministry policies had fallen short in the past, she emphasized the changes the ministry has made since then.

That’s particularly true, she said, when it comes to the issue of a Saskatchewan schools “infrastructure deficit” raised by Lysyk in her report.

The auditor was concerned the ministry was not assessing both capital and non-capital alternatives to address division needs, but Johnson said things have changed.

Johnson said it’s now a priority to encourage school divisions to consider non-capital options where they’re available by amalgamating rural elementary and high schools, for example, or considering busing options.

“What we need to be doing now is assessing whether or not all those buildings from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s have to remain in place,” Johnson said.

“We have to make smart decisions to capital going forward.”

The provincial Opposition said the current education system funding model isn’t sustainable.

“The fact that the Sask. Party is struggling with education despite the economy, is a real cause for concern,” NDP deputy leader Trent Wotherspoon said in a statement.