Supplementary Education Funding

Joint Working Group

Report Highlights

May 2006

• Long-standing tradition of Supplementary Education Funding (SEF) within HRM

• Students benefit significantly from SEF

• Annual SEF budget/approval process leads to unnecessary tensions

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

Background

• 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

Mandate

• 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)

Process

• Education:– Is important for the advancement of our

region– Is a shared responsibility– Involves life-long learning

Shared Principles

• Supporting education strengthens the success of schools, neighbourhoods and communities

• Resources should be shared across the school system according to need

Shared Principles

• 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

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

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

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

A Win-Win Solution

• Two primary sources for all school boards:– Province of Nova Scotia through provincial

budget allocation– Municipal units through a minimum municipal

contribution

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

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)

Educational Funding

• Three budgets – Halifax, Dartmouth and Bedford/County

• Inequity of programs/services across school system

Business Planning Challenges

• School Board does not control the SEF budget – makes long-term planning difficult

• “Area” segmentation prevents achievement of efficiencies

Business Planning Challenges

• 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

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

What Does SEF cover?

• 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

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.

Solutions – Themes Explored

• 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

Solutions – Consensus

• 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

Recommendations

• 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

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

Win-Win? YES.

• Could be extended to all school boards

• “Approvable” by all parties

• Fair to taxpayers and equitable to students within HRM

Win-Win? YES.

• Future date for discussion/debate

• Approval by Council and School Board

• Joint submission to Minister of Education

Next Steps

• Questions for clarification

Thank You