Supplementary Education
Funding
Joint Working Group
Report Highlights
May 2006
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
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
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
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)
Shared Principles
• 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
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
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
Educational Funding
• 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)
Business Planning Challenges
• 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
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
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
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
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 – 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
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
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
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
Next Steps
• Future date for discussion/debate
• Approval by Council and School Board
• Joint submission to Minister of Education
Thank You
• Questions for clarification