Supplementary Education Funding

1. Supplementary Education Funding Joint Working Group Report Highlights May 2006

2. Background • Long-standing tradition of Supplementary Education Funding (SEF) within HRM • Students benefit significantly from SEF • Annual SEF budget/approval process leads to unnecessary tensions

3. Background • Joint Working Group formed to recommend a long-term strategy for SEF • Members from Council, School Board and education critics for provincial Liberal and NDP parties • 13 meetings over the past 12 months

4. Mandate • Research and agree on relevant facts/history • Investigate all options for SEF • Joint recommendations to Council, School Board and DOE • Open and maintain respectful dialogue

5. Process • Facilitated by neutral facilitator • Supported by “expert” staff resources • Created environment for open and respectful discussion • Defined shared principles and characteristics of “win-win” solution(s)

6. Shared Principles • Education: • Is important for the advancement of our region • Is a shared responsibility • Involves life-long learning

7. Shared Principles • Supporting education strengthens the success of schools, neighbourhoods and communities • Resources should be shared across the school system according to need

8. A Win-Win Solution • Increased student access to programs and services leading to measurable student improvement • No loss of funds for schools or students • Fewer demands on HRM Councilors to explain/defend educational funding

9. A Win-Win Solution • Reasonable overall tax burden for HRM residents with equitable allocation of SEF rate • No loss of programs in traditional areas • Elimination to former city/county boundaries in taxation discussions/debates

10. A Win-Win Solution • Increased clarity among stakeholders re educational goals and funding • Simplified budgeting, accounting and reporting for HRSB • Increased collaboration between HRSB and HRM

11. A Win-Win Solution • Scaleable solution – could be used in other parts of the province • Long-term sustainability • Public feedback that supports fairness to taxpayers and equity to students

12. Educational Funding • Two primary sources for all school boards: • Province of Nova Scotia through provincial budget allocation • Municipal units through a minimum municipal contribution

13. Educational Funding • HRSB – Supplementary Education Funding • S. 530 – Municipal Government Act • “Additional funding” mandated in former Halifax and Dartmouth • Must be spent in area where $ raised

14. Educational Funding • HRSB – Supplementary Education Funding • Area rate levied on assessed value of residential property and business occupancy • Can be decreased 10% per annum • In Bedford/County, by practice (vs. legislated obligation)

15. Business Planning Challenges • Three budgets – Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford/County • Inequity of programs/services across school system

16. Business Planning Challenges • School Board does not control the SEF budget – makes long-term planning difficult • “Area” segmentation prevents achievement of efficiencies

17. What Does SEF cover? • Provincial and mandatory funding covers: • General operations and targeted programs • 83% of general funding is for staff salaries and benefits • General funding is allocated within SB based on staffing formula developed over the years

18. What Does SEF cover? • SEF enhances opportunities for students through: • Additional staffing for existing programs/services • Enrichment of PSP and special programs • Additional school instructional supplies

19. Solutions – Themes Explored • Province should bear the full cost • Decision-making and accountability for SEF with the School Board • Current system with increased use of commercial tax base for SEF

20. Solutions – Themes Explored • Harmonize SEF rate across HRM and allow funds to be used across the system • Miscellaneous: • Deed transfer tax • Dwelling tax • Per student rate • Etc.

21. Solutions – Consensus • Blend of several themes • Closer link to provincial responsibility • School board with decision-making and accountability • Overall tax burden must be reasonable – need for a cap on SEF

22. Recommendations • Amend legislation • Enable school boards to levy SEF (to a max. of 10% of previous year’s global budget) • SEF business case approved by DOE • Amount collected and remitted by municipal units • Annual report by school boards on usage of SEF

23. Win-Win? YES. • SB can plan for and implement increased access to programs/services • No loss of funds to schools or students • Fewer demands on HRM councilors to explain/justify educational funding • Cap should ensure reasonable overall tax burden

24. Win-Win? YES. • Locations may change but no loss of access to programs for traditional areas • Single system-wide budgeting, accounting and reporting for SB • Eliminate annual “bun fight” between HRM and HRSB

25. Win-Win? YES. • Could be extended to all school boards • “Approvable” by all parties • Fair to taxpayers and equitable to students within HRM

26. Next Steps • Future date for discussion/debate • Approval by Council and School Board • Joint submission to Minister of Education

27. Thank You • Questions for clarification