Perhaps I can provide a bit of context. The Education Act provides for the government to provide funding to education school authorities at a PTR level of 13 to 1. As well, the Education Act provides that we fund inclusive schooling at no less than 15 percent of the overall school contribution.

The program review office, if you recall several years ago, had done an investigation into the funding that is provided to education authorities with respect to the legislative funding levels, which is the PTR as well as the inclusive schooling. Their finding was that over the years, the PTR funding actually crept up to 16 to 1, so over the years the government has provided funding over and above the legislated level. It’s done so in terms of the PTR as well as in terms of the inclusive schooling.

In the inclusive schooling area, the specifics are that we’re funding them at 17.5 percent, on average, as opposed to the 15 percent that we’re obligated to fund them. I guess the conclusion that PRO drew was despite the fact that the government has provided significantly more funding to education authorities beyond what it is obligated to do under the legislation, your student outcomes haven’t markedly improved, so they have essentially put the Department of Education to task to say, despite the increased funding, why are student outcomes not increasing. The money, really, changes; it depends on the projected enrolments.

So I think that the takeaway from that research project that PRO undertook was that we really need to look deeper at the K to 12 system and see what is required to improve student outcomes and not just look at funding. That’s what really started the Education Renewal Initiative, because there was simply not enough evidence to suggest that low student outcomes are a result because there isn’t sufficient funding for the education system. I hope that helps in terms of context. Thank you.