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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. 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

14. 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

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

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

17. 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?

18. 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?

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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.

24. 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.

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

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

27. Questions for clarification Thank You