GVSD & GVTA EDUCATION FINANCE PRESENTATION J ANUARY 10, 2013 P REPARED BY : J OEL J. S WAAN, B.E D, B.M US E D. F INANCE R EP., GVTA

WHY ME?

AM I A FINANCIAL GENIUS? -Teacher -Employee -Citizen -Taxpayer -Normal guy

 It’s important to mention a few things about averages  They’re not necessarily right, they’re just a litmus  For every “average” number we use, it means that half of the divisions in the province are spending over that  “Averages” with regards to FRAME are averages over divisions, not averages of student dollars. Larger divisions are weighted the same as smaller divisions. A WORD ABOUT AVERAGES

1 ACCUMULATED SURPLUS

 Accumulated surplus budget line is $1.83 million  Represents 4.9% of Annual Operating Expenses  Provincial Average of accumulated surplus is 3.8%  If GVSD accumulated surplus was closer to provincial average, it would account for $1.42 million  Difference is $410,000 above the provincial average in savings last year, rolled over again into savings this year not being spent ACCUMULATED SURPLUS

2a CLINICIAN FUNDING

-GVSD has doubled it’s clinician funding in the last 10 years -This doubling has kept the proportion stable -Currently the number is 1:585 -Provincial average is 1:490 -To bring GVSD to the provincial average, it would require adding 1.4 clinicians

2b LEVEL 2 STUDENT FUNDING

LEVEL 2 STUDENT POPULATION LEVEL 2 STUDENT POPULATION ESTIMATES (FTE’S) AS A % OF TOTAL ENROLMENT (GROWTH OVER 10 YEARS)

% OF CHANGE IN LEVEL 2 STUDENT POPULATIONS FROM

3 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION/DISTRICT EXPENDITURES PROFESSIONAL & STAFF DEVELOPMENT $ PER PUPIL

4 EQUALIZATION GRANTS

 Operating Fund Expense per Pupil: $9,259  Provincial Average is $11,473 (we’re spending 80.7% of average)  35 th out of 36 in the province  Teacher:Pupil Ratio: 1:15.2 (up from 14.9)  Provincial Average is 1:13.6  35 th out of 36 in the province  Bringing GVSD up to MB avg. would necessitate adding 32.6 teachers  Regular Support to Pupils portion of budget was 5 th highest provincially (81.1% vs. MB avg. $78.4)  Direct Support to Pupils actual $ amount was 2 nd lowest provincially ($7,421 vs. MB avg. $9,019) BUDGET STATISTICS

BIG FAMILIES WITH LOTS OF KIDS

VERY LOW WAGE-EARNERS

-Big Families = lots of students attending school -Low-income earners = smaller tax base than other divisions -Class-sizes are statistically very high -Percentage-wise, we spend a larger portion of our budget on instruction than most of the province (which is good) -Mill Rate 4 th highest in Province at 19.1% (MB avg. is 14.7%) -Still only spending $9,259/student vs. provincial average of $11,473 on student instruction -To spend the provincial average on our students, the budget would require an additional $2,214 x 4,213 = $9,327,582 -This would increase our total expenses (including capital fund transfers) from $41,310,135 to $50,637,717 -(This also means that whenever we talk about a cost as a “percent of the budget” we must acknowledge that our budget is only about 80% of what it should be) What Can Be Done? STATISTICS RECAP AND ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

 1. Accumulated Surplus  Is there are good balance of what is being saved vs. what can be spent on students?  2a. Clinician Funding  How can we better meet students’ needs with clinician staffing?  2b. Level 2 Student Population  How can we partner together to pursue provincial funding for those that would qualify, but aren’t receiving it at this time? (Having more clinicians would assist in diagnosing these students in a more timely fashion)  3. Professional Development  How can we better meet the needs of teachers with Professional Development funding?  4. Equalization Grants  We recognize that there are limited funding source options which leaves us with limited revenues. How can we partner together to petition the provincial government for a change to the equalization formula? SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS