Supplementary Education Funding Joint Working Group Report Highlights May 2006.
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of 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