For all ministries, since 2019, the Treasury Board secretariat has produced a public administration performance dashboard. The introduction to this table indicates that it should present for each department and body subject to the Public Administration Act, the list of indicators of their strategic plan, then for each of these indicators, the target and the result obtained.
However, for the Ministry of Higher Education (MES), we are in the presence of part of the indicators of the Strategic Plan covering 2023-2027. Unfortunately, for the year 2023-2024, this table ranks the MES last in terms of achieving targets. Considering the importance of this ministry and the budgets attached to it, we must be concerned. How to explain this situation? Should we attribute it to the choices of the targets? In the process of implementing the strategic plan?
The choice of targets
First, at a minimum, we should find all the indicators of the strategic plan in the public administration performance dashboard.
Then, shouldn’t we see other targets such as those linked to infrastructure? In the strategic plan, we find the following objective: the ministry aims to increase the rate of realization of real estate solutions. The recent report from the Auditor General of Quebec on the management of Quebec’s real estate stock also reveals a more than worrying situation: “two thirds of CEGEP buildings are in poor condition and planned investments cover less than half future needs. It would therefore have been relevant to include the following targets:
- percentage of targeted buildings in the college network whose condition is satisfactory;
- annual rate of completion of investments in adding spaces;
- annual rate of achievement in maintaining assets.
Note that the last two indicators are currently monitored by the Treasury Board secretariat for the Ministry of Education.
Strategic plan implementation process
The process currently used by ministries differs from that of public bodies. Among the latter, it is expected to be adopted by the board of directors. Then, the resulting annual action plans are monitored by the Board of Directors. Naturally, throughout the year and particularly at the time of approval of the capital plan, the operating plan and the annual budget of the organization, the board of directors ensures the implementation effective actions included in the plan. Whether or not the targets have been achieved is explained in the annual reports submitted at the end of the year.
What about the approach used by the MES? Does the approach used allow adequate monitoring of the actions prioritized in the plan and the results obtained?
As with any strategic plan, there are objectives that result from the orientations and also targets (indicators). This plan is tabled in the National Assembly. It was previously the subject of an examination by the Secretariat of the Treasury Board. Then, for monitoring, we only make public an annual management report which is tabled in the National Assembly. This document reports on its implementation.
Based on the annual report recently submitted by the ministry, we see that 20 measures have been put in place. However, this portrait is incomplete.
Knowing that the ministry is committed to supporting perseverance and success in higher education, we are not informed of the reports submitted, at the request of the minister, on “Mastering French at college” (January 2022) and another entitled “Crossed perspectives on the conditions for educational success of first literature and philosophy courses” (June 2023). It is essential to report on all measures put in place, especially if we consider the stagnation of the following rates over the last 20 years: in 2003, the rate of “graduation two years after the prescribed duration” was 66%. In 2023, it is at 62.9%. As for the success rate in the first session, it increased from 84.9% in 2003 to 83.1% in 2023.
The latest report submitted confirms that the success of the first literature and philosophy courses, called “challenge courses”, is crucial to ensure the success of college studies. Knowing that the estimates for these courses have not been revised since the creation of CEGEPs, more than 50 years ago, should their revision not appear in a strategic plan? In a changing world, I am part of an approach of updating all general education specifications by attributing to them the role of training citizens of the world.
Another issue that has received a lot of attention is artificial intelligence (AI). Moreover, at the end of a day of reflection, the minister announced last August the creation of a national consultation body on AI in higher education. Again, the strategic plan and the annual report should mention this.
We can conclude that the department would have every interest in reviewing its plan, its targets and the content of the annual management report. For the sake of efficiency and effectiveness, I encourage it to update the strategic plan, to disclose the action plan and to ensure adequate financial support to enable the effective implementation of targeted actions.
Our society cannot do without good planning to create an efficient education system. Overall, shouldn’t ministries reinvent themselves, review their way of doing things and draw inspiration from the processes already in place for state corporations?