Presentation to VISTAPresentation to VISTAFebruary 27, 2010February 27, 2010

Public Education Funding-Public Education Funding-Learning from the PastLearning from the Past

Overview of PresentationOverview of Presentation

Roles and Responsibilities to Establish Roles and Responsibilities to Establish BudgetBudget

Provincial Budget for Education Over TimeProvincial Budget for Education Over Time History of Funding and Policy ChangesHistory of Funding and Policy Changes 1983 to 1989/901983 to 1989/90 Royal CommissionRoyal Commission Spangelo Review and Resulting Spangelo Review and Resulting

ConsultationsConsultations 2002 Funding Allocation System2002 Funding Allocation System Current PictureCurrent Picture Summary Summary

04/20/23 3

Roles and ResponsibilitiesRoles and Responsibilities Cabinet and Treasury BoardCabinet and Treasury Board

– establish the overall budget and Individual establish the overall budget and Individual Ministry AmountsMinistry Amounts

Ministry of EducationMinistry of Education– sets priorities within the set overall amountsets priorities within the set overall amount

Ministry of EducationMinistry of Education– allocates dollars to school boardsallocates dollars to school boards

Boards of EducationBoards of Education– establish budgets and sets spending prioritiesestablish budgets and sets spending priorities

– allocate funding to schools and programsallocate funding to schools and programs

SchoolsSchools– allocate funding to classrooms/programsallocate funding to classrooms/programs

Provincial Budget for K-12 Provincial Budget for K-12 Education Over TimeEducation Over Time

Ministry of Education as a Percentage of the Total Provincial Budget

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

% of Prov. 26.36% 20.06% 19.67% 19.02% 19.41% 19.77% 18.71% 18.41% 18.45% 16.12% 15.34%

1991/92 2000//01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

History of Financial and Policy Changes History of Financial and Policy Changes 1981-2010-Public Education Funding1981-2010-Public Education Funding

1981/82-Non Residential property tax to 1981/82-Non Residential property tax to provincial revenuesprovincial revenues

1982/83-Fiscal Restraint program-no 1982/83-Fiscal Restraint program-no supplementary residential taxationsupplementary residential taxation

1983/84-Fiscal Framework Introduced1983/84-Fiscal Framework Introduced 1986/87-Supplementary residential taxation 1986/87-Supplementary residential taxation

returnedreturned 1988/89-Royal Commission Report (Legacy 1988/89-Royal Commission Report (Legacy

for Learners)for Learners) 1990/91-Block Funding Introduced and 1990/91-Block Funding Introduced and

residential property tax becomes residential property tax becomes provincialprovincial

History of Financial and Policy Changes History of Financial and Policy Changes 1981-2010-Public Education Funding1981-2010-Public Education Funding

1992/93-Spangelo Review of public 1992/93-Spangelo Review of public education fundingeducation funding

1993/94-Follow up Committees on 1993/94-Follow up Committees on Accountability, Education Finance and Accountability, Education Finance and Technical Review of Allocation system and Technical Review of Allocation system and targeted funding for aboriginal and special targeted funding for aboriginal and special needs and administration capneeds and administration cap

1994/95-Funding Allocation System 1994/95-Funding Allocation System introducedintroduced

1996/97-School District Amalgamation1996/97-School District Amalgamation 2002/03-Funding Allocation System moves 2002/03-Funding Allocation System moves

to focus on per pupil allocationsto focus on per pupil allocations

1983 to 1989 School FinancingSources of Revenue Gross Operating Budget

Provincial GrantsFrom 55% to 100% of Budget Pay For Shareable Average 75.25% Operating

AmountResidential Property Fiscal Taxation Framework

Pay For AllocationShareable Misc.Revenue

Residential Property SupplementaryTax determined by Boards Pay For Operating

AmountLocal Misc. Revenue

1983/84 Fiscal Framework1983/84 Fiscal Framework ““Under a system called the “fiscal framework”, Under a system called the “fiscal framework”,

the province calculates the shareable budget the province calculates the shareable budget amount for each school district. The shareable amount for each school district. The shareable amount is based on provincially acceptable amount is based on provincially acceptable service levels and cost factors….and amounts for service levels and cost factors….and amounts for provincially accepted but locally diverse provincially accepted but locally diverse requirements for special education programs and requirements for special education programs and transportation.”transportation.”

In addition, a Board may include expenses funded In addition, a Board may include expenses funded by operating surplus, miscellaneous revenues and by operating surplus, miscellaneous revenues and taxes levied on residential propertiestaxes levied on residential properties

Sources of Funds 1983-1989/90Sources of Funds 1983-1989/90

Sources of Revenue

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Misc. Revenue & Surpluses 4.79% 5.19% 4.10% 4.75% 4.68% 4.82% 4.29%

Residential Taxation-Local 1.13% 1.09% 0.89% 4.26% 6.22% 6.03% 10.39%

Residential Taxation-Prov 7.56% 7.14% 8.09% 7.34% 8.81% 8.38% 6.96%

Provincial Grants 86.52% 86.58% 86.92% 83.65% 80.29% 80.78% 78.36%

1983 1984 1985/86 1986/87 1987/88 1988/89 1989/90

Total School District Budgets 1983-1989/90Total School District Budgets 1983-1989/90 19831983 $1.907 billion$1.907 billion 19841984 $1.913 billion$1.913 billion 1985/861985/86 $1.850 billion$1.850 billion 1986/871986/87 $1.950 billion$1.950 billion 1987/881987/88 $2.084 billion$2.084 billion 1988/891988/89 $2.277 billion$2.277 billion 1989/901989/90 $2.589 billion$2.589 billion Increased by 36%; enrolment by 5.9% between Increased by 36%; enrolment by 5.9% between

1985 and 19901985 and 1990 1980s recession and compensation stabilization 1980s recession and compensation stabilization

programprogram First Teacher Collective Agreement in 1988 First Teacher Collective Agreement in 1988

– Two year agreement with 15% salary increases, class Two year agreement with 15% salary increases, class size limits, noon hour supervision costs, preparation size limits, noon hour supervision costs, preparation time coststime costs

Royal CommissionRoyal Commission

Block Funding was introduced in 1990 in Block Funding was introduced in 1990 in response to the 1988 Royal Commission response to the 1988 Royal Commission for Public Education for Public Education

It was recommended as a way to It was recommended as a way to determine the amount of provincial determine the amount of provincial funding needed for educational servicesfunding needed for educational services

It was recommended that the distribution It was recommended that the distribution of the funding be done by a stable, of the funding be done by a stable, predictable, supportable allocation systempredictable, supportable allocation system

Royal CommissionRoyal Commission

The Royal Commission recommendation was that The Royal Commission recommendation was that the block be increased annually by an education the block be increased annually by an education price index which recognized the unique costs of price index which recognized the unique costs of public educationpublic education

The allocation system of the day, a resource cost The allocation system of the day, a resource cost model, was supported by the system and model, was supported by the system and recommended for retentionrecommended for retention

The resource cost model was very detailed and The resource cost model was very detailed and provided a service level for each specific function provided a service level for each specific function such as class size, library and counseling such as class size, library and counseling

services, etc.services, etc.

Establishment of the BlockEstablishment of the Block

Relief to the homeowner as residential Relief to the homeowner as residential taxation authority removed from Boardstaxation authority removed from Boards

1989/90 Block was comprised of actual 1989/90 Block was comprised of actual school board expenditures including those school board expenditures including those funded by local capital and taxationfunded by local capital and taxation

The new system covers all public The new system covers all public education programs and is to be adjusted education programs and is to be adjusted annually to reflect economic indicators, annually to reflect economic indicators, growth in enrolments and changes in growth in enrolments and changes in mandatemandate

Published Advantages of Block Published Advantages of Block FundingFunding

Recognizes all 1989/90 spending plus Recognizes all 1989/90 spending plus economic adjustment of $305 per student economic adjustment of $305 per student or 6.17%or 6.17%

Adequate increases through the annual Adequate increases through the annual adjustment to the blockadjustment to the block

Automatically increases with enrolmentAutomatically increases with enrolment Block will include funding for mandate Block will include funding for mandate

changes changes The education system was to be more The education system was to be more

predictable, stable and easier to predictable, stable and easier to understandunderstand

History of ReferendumHistory of Referendum

Introduced with Block Funding in 1990Introduced with Block Funding in 1990 Two held in 1990 by Vancouver and Two held in 1990 by Vancouver and

Richmond with Vancouver being Richmond with Vancouver being successfulsuccessful

Legislation changed to make more Legislation changed to make more restrictiverestrictive

Quesnel and North Vancouver later held Quesnel and North Vancouver later held unsuccessful referendums for equipment unsuccessful referendums for equipment needsneeds

1990/91 Fiscal Framework1990/91 Fiscal Framework Described as a system representing a sound basic Described as a system representing a sound basic

education program suitable to meet the education program suitable to meet the educational needs of students throughout the educational needs of students throughout the provinceprovince

A series of provincially acceptable service levels A series of provincially acceptable service levels or standards set out along with cost factors or standards set out along with cost factors indicating the acceptable costs in which the indicating the acceptable costs in which the province is willing to shareprovince is willing to share

Service levels X Cost Factors = Program Service levels X Cost Factors = Program AllocationAllocation

Recognizing the different needs of districts such Recognizing the different needs of districts such as geographic, special needs, transportation, etcas geographic, special needs, transportation, etc

Fully Supported by Boards in Royal Commission Fully Supported by Boards in Royal Commission consultation but later criticized as being too consultation but later criticized as being too complicatedcomplicated

History of Block Funding 1990 to History of Block Funding 1990 to 20102010

1990/911990/91 $2.668 billion$2.668 billion 2001/022001/02 $3.794 billion$3.794 billion 2005/062005/06 $3.860 billion$3.860 billion 2006/072006/07 $4.243 billion$4.243 billion 2007/082007/08 $4.345 billion$4.345 billion 2008/092008/09 $4.467 billion$4.467 billion 2009/102009/10 $4.551 billion$4.551 billion Increased by 67% since 1990/91 with 20% Increased by 67% since 1990/91 with 20%

since 2001/02since 2001/02 Enrolment increased between 1990/01 and Enrolment increased between 1990/01 and

2009/10 by 7% with a decline of 7% 2009/10 by 7% with a decline of 7% between 2001 and 2009 between 2001 and 2009

Early Years of Block Funding followed the Early Years of Block Funding followed the Principles of the Royal CommissionPrinciples of the Royal Commission

1990/911990/91 6.17% economic6.17% economic 1991/921991/92 3.75% economic3.75% economic

– Plus $28 per pupil for ESL and Sp. Needs Plus $28 per pupil for ESL and Sp. Needs student growth, andstudent growth, and

– Plus $15 per pupil for learning resources and Plus $15 per pupil for learning resources and primary transportationprimary transportation

1992/931992/93 2.40% economic2.40% economic– Plus $18 per pupil for technology andPlus $18 per pupil for technology and– Plus $11 per pupil for Facility planningPlus $11 per pupil for Facility planning

Economic adjustments, mandate Economic adjustments, mandate adjustments and enrolment adjustmentsadjustments and enrolment adjustments

Education Funding Review Panel Education Funding Review Panel (Spangelo Report)(Spangelo Report)

When NDP elected in 1991, a When NDP elected in 1991, a funding review was promisedfunding review was promised

Cindy Spangelo was appointed to Cindy Spangelo was appointed to head up a public consultation in head up a public consultation in 1992 entitled the Education 1992 entitled the Education Funding Review PanelFunding Review Panel

Education Funding Review Panel Education Funding Review Panel (Spangelo Report)(Spangelo Report)

The Education Funding Review Panel The Education Funding Review Panel believed that the implementation of believed that the implementation of their recommendations would make their recommendations would make the education finance system easier the education finance system easier to understand for a number of to understand for a number of reasons:reasons:– The division of responsibilities between the The division of responsibilities between the

Province and school boards would be clearer. Province and school boards would be clearer. The role of the province would be to define and The role of the province would be to define and fund a common level of service throughout the fund a common level of service throughout the province and the role of school boards would province and the role of school boards would be to manage schools and deliver programsbe to manage schools and deliver programs

Education Funding Review Panel Education Funding Review Panel (Spangelo Report) - continued(Spangelo Report) - continued

– The block of funds would be linked to a The block of funds would be linked to a resource costing model based on resource costing model based on defined services, required resources and defined services, required resources and actual costs. This means it would be actual costs. This means it would be easier to understand how the block of easier to understand how the block of funds was determined.funds was determined.

– The resource costing model would also The resource costing model would also establish a clear connection between establish a clear connection between the block of funds and the distribution of the block of funds and the distribution of funds between districtsfunds between districts

Education Funding Review Panel Education Funding Review Panel (Spangelo Report) - continued(Spangelo Report) - continued

– The distribution formula would be easier The distribution formula would be easier to understand. The formula would be to understand. The formula would be divided into four broad categories: divided into four broad categories: common costs, special resource costs, common costs, special resource costs, exceptional costs and local exceptional costs and local programmingprogramming

– The distribution of funds would be on The distribution of funds would be on current costs. Each district would be current costs. Each district would be able to compare its allocation with that able to compare its allocation with that of other districts-where costs are of other districts-where costs are different, allocations are differentdifferent, allocations are different

1992/93 Spangelo Review and 1992/93 Spangelo Review and FollowupFollowup

In 1993 the Minister of Education In 1993 the Minister of Education established three committees to build on established three committees to build on the process:the process:– An Education Finance Advisory Committee An Education Finance Advisory Committee

made up of all partners of education to provide made up of all partners of education to provide advice on the allocation of resources available advice on the allocation of resources available for public educationfor public education

– A Technical Distribution Group to conduct a A Technical Distribution Group to conduct a detailed analytical review of the funding detailed analytical review of the funding distribution systemdistribution system

– A Financial Reporting and Accountability A Financial Reporting and Accountability Committee to address the issues of Committee to address the issues of accountability raised in the Panel’s reportaccountability raised in the Panel’s report

Report of the Education Finance Report of the Education Finance Advisory Committee-December 1993Advisory Committee-December 1993

Desirable Attributes of an Education Desirable Attributes of an Education Funding System:Funding System:– Equitable system that enables delivery Equitable system that enables delivery

of the provincial education program in of the provincial education program in all districts –horizontal and vertical all districts –horizontal and vertical equityequity

– Understandable system that is easily Understandable system that is easily obtainable, clear, and one that Boards obtainable, clear, and one that Boards have confidence inhave confidence in

Report of the Education Finance Report of the Education Finance Advisory Committee-December 1993Advisory Committee-December 1993

Desirable Attributes of an Education Desirable Attributes of an Education Funding System: Funding System: – Balanced system that should allow Balanced system that should allow

provincial uniformity and local creativityprovincial uniformity and local creativity– Efficient system that should maximize Efficient system that should maximize

the use of available resources to meet the use of available resources to meet educational goalseducational goals

– Effective system that should be Effective system that should be supportive of educational outcomes and supportive of educational outcomes and neutral to Board decisionsneutral to Board decisions

Report of the Education Finance Report of the Education Finance Advisory Committee-December 1993Advisory Committee-December 1993

Other Policy Issues addressed:Other Policy Issues addressed:– Costs should be recognized at a current levelCosts should be recognized at a current level– Funding for special programs should be Funding for special programs should be

incremental with all students funded the same incremental with all students funded the same for regular programsfor regular programs

– Targeting should be kept to a minimum and the Targeting should be kept to a minimum and the funding system should be neutral to Board funding system should be neutral to Board decisionsdecisions

– The Province should not influence fund raising The Province should not influence fund raising efforts at a local level-concern that local efforts at a local level-concern that local funding raising should be for special initiatives funding raising should be for special initiatives and for on-going programsand for on-going programs

Report of the Education Finance Report of the Education Finance Advisory Committee-December 1993Advisory Committee-December 1993

Other Policy Issues addressed:Other Policy Issues addressed:– Governance-clarification of the role of the Governance-clarification of the role of the

Province and school boards in the funding and Province and school boards in the funding and spending decisionsspending decisions

– No consensus on local taxationNo consensus on local taxation– Multi year funding for planningMulti year funding for planning– Better relationship between funding and Better relationship between funding and

spending for greater accountabilityspending for greater accountability– Retain a resource cost model as it provides an Retain a resource cost model as it provides an

accountability mechanism for provincial accountability mechanism for provincial fundingfunding

Funding Allocation SystemFunding Allocation System

Introduced in 1995/96Introduced in 1995/96 Three main areas of fundingThree main areas of funding

– General Operating includes core grants –same per pupil, General Operating includes core grants –same per pupil, school and district amountsschool and district amounts

– Specific grants to recognize the differences in costs Specific grants to recognize the differences in costs between districtsbetween districts

– Targeted grants-special education, aboriginal education, Targeted grants-special education, aboriginal education, learning resources and the maximum amount that could learning resources and the maximum amount that could be spent on administrationbe spent on administration

– Developmental grants-staff training for program Developmental grants-staff training for program implementation, amalgamation supportimplementation, amalgamation support

A translation of all the factors in the fiscal A translation of all the factors in the fiscal framework to something more understandableframework to something more understandable

March 1, 2002 – New Formula March 1, 2002 – New Formula AnnouncedAnnounced

Introduced by Minister Christy Clark Introduced by Minister Christy Clark as providing Boards more flexibility, as providing Boards more flexibility, autonomy and control over autonomy and control over educational serviceseducational services

Funding Allocation System had 60 Funding Allocation System had 60 different funding categories different funding categories (translated from the fiscal (translated from the fiscal framework)-people interpreted those framework)-people interpreted those categories as indicating how much categories as indicating how much boards were to spend on each boards were to spend on each program areaprogram area

March 1, 2002 – New Formula March 1, 2002 – New Formula AnnouncedAnnounced

Move to 82% on a student allocation and five Move to 82% on a student allocation and five broad supplementary grants:broad supplementary grants:– Unique student needs, including special needs, Unique student needs, including special needs,

English as a Second Language, Aboriginal English as a Second Language, Aboriginal Education, and Adult Education programs; Education, and Adult Education programs;

– Enrolment Decline, where enrolments decrease Enrolment Decline, where enrolments decrease by more than one per cent in a year; by more than one per cent in a year;

– Salary Differentials, for districts with higher Salary Differentials, for districts with higher average teacher salaries; average teacher salaries;

– Transportation and Housing; and Transportation and Housing; and – Unique Geographic Factors. Unique Geographic Factors.

Only aboriginal education is targetedOnly aboriginal education is targeted

Recent Changes to the Block-Recent Changes to the Block-Million $Million $

Block 2001 to 2004Block 2001 to 2004 $3,794 $3,794 Salary IncreasesSalary Increases $516 $516 Literacy, arts, special ed Literacy, arts, special ed $202$202 Distributed LearningDistributed Learning $7.7 $7.7 GAAPGAAP $35.0 $35.0 Reduction in 2001/02Reduction in 2001/02 ($3.5 )($3.5 ) Total IncreaseTotal Increase $757 million $757 million Block 2009/10Block 2009/10 $4.551 billion$4.551 billion04/20/23 31

Provincial Funding ShortfallRecognized Increased Costs and Services in the Funding Formula

Distributed Learning $53,961,441

GAAP $35,002,907

Targeted Literacy, Arts and Special Needs $152,000,000

Summer School $15,431,647

Course Challenge $457,748

Special Needs increases $238,286,786

Labour Settlement $557,732,146

Total $1,052,872,675

Actual Increase to the Provincial Block $757,484,403

Shortfall $295,388,272

Provincial Funding ShortfallProvincial Funding Shortfall

It is understood that some of this It is understood that some of this shortfall can be offset by cost savings shortfall can be offset by cost savings from enrolment decline. In 2009/10 it is from enrolment decline. In 2009/10 it is estimated we can save about $3,000 per estimated we can save about $3,000 per pupil in associated costs as enrolment pupil in associated costs as enrolment declines, so for a projected provincial declines, so for a projected provincial enrolment decline of 45,000 pupils this enrolment decline of 45,000 pupils this would reduce the shortfall by $135 would reduce the shortfall by $135 million million and leave an actual overall and leave an actual overall shortfall in funding to maintain shortfall in funding to maintain services of $157 million. services of $157 million.

04/20/23 34

Effect of Enrolment Decline on Effect of Enrolment Decline on Per Pupil BlockPer Pupil Block

Comparison of Provincial Funding 2001/02 to 2009/10

10.23%

19.97%

30.13%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

Change in Total Block Change in Per Pupil Block Change in Core Per Pupil

Provincial Funding/StudentProvincial Funding/Student

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009/10-As at Nov 2009

Block funding – operating

4,027,603,717 4,243,496,038 4,345,211,469 4,426,685,547 4,507,930,215

School age and adult enrol

567,523 559,499 556,310 545,269 541,917

Total block funding per student

$ 7,097 $ 7,584 $ 7,811 $ 8,118 $ 8,318

Provincial Education Funding $ per school aged and adult student

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Dec 2009Block funding – operating

4,243,496,038 4,345,211,469 4,426,685,547 4,507,930,215

Unique student funds (not including adult)

399,204,975 414,879,981 428,173,434 446,050,481

Labour settlement funding

196,372,946 320,913,967 460,825,069 557,732,146

New program – summer learning

12,776,550 15,431,647

Remaining block funding

3,647,918,117 3,609,417,521 3,524,910,494 3,488,715,116

School age and adult enrol

559,499 556,310 545,269 541,917

Adj. block funding per student

$6,520 $6,488 $6,465 $6,438

Comparison of Per Pupil fundingComparison of Per Pupil funding

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Adjusted for CostPressures

6409 6520 6488 6465 6438

Block Per Pupil 7097 7584 7811 8118 8318

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Enrolment Decline GrantsEnrolment Decline Grants

Only provided for one yearOnly provided for one year Fluctuate as enrolment decline Fluctuate as enrolment decline

changeschanges Cannot depend for ongoing servicesCannot depend for ongoing services

04/20/23 39

Effect of Enrolment DeclineEffect of Enrolment Decline

Funding allocationFunding allocation 70% funding allocation = 5,851 per student70% funding allocation = 5,851 per student If enrolment declines 200 students= If enrolment declines 200 students=

$1,170,200$1,170,200

Teachers for 200 FTE @ 30:1 @ $85,500 = 570,000Teachers for 200 FTE @ 30:1 @ $85,500 = 570,000Clerical support + supplies, est. @ 30,000Clerical support + supplies, est. @ 30,000

______________Funding reduction (after year 1)Funding reduction (after year 1) $280,200$280,200

Predictability of Current Allocation Predictability of Current Allocation SystemSystem

Formula Changes Formula Changes Salary DifferentialSalary Differential Factors that Depend on other Factors that Depend on other

DistrictsDistricts Allocations provided too Late in Allocations provided too Late in

Budget ProcessBudget Process No longer an EstimatorNo longer an Estimator

Education Programs-Blue Book Sept 1/09Million Dollars 2011/12 2010/11 2009/10Block Funding 4,458,823 4,458,823 4,458,639Infrastructure(AFG Seismic) 40,700 40,700 40,700Funding of Suppport Staff (Pay Equity, LTD, etc.) 80,279 80,279 80,279Support for Schools (Community Link, PRP's PLNet, etc.) 82,600 82,600 82,600

Other 58,985 32,492 32,492Full Day Kindergarten 90,200 37,400Total Public Schools Component 4,811,587 4,732,294 4,694,710

Independent Schools 248,367 248,367 248,367Early Learning 23,338 23,338 23,338Total Education Programs 5,083,292 5,003,999 4,966,415

Public Libraries 13,130 13,130 13,130Management Services 61,540 62,528 63,013

Total Ministry of Education Budget 5,157,962 5,079,657 5,042,558

04/20/23 42

Ministry of Education BudgetMinistry of Education Budget

Ministry of Education Budget 2009/10

Public Schools93.10%

Independent Schools4.93%

Early Learning0.46%

Public Libraries0.26% Executive and

Support Services1.25%

04/20/23

43

Ministry Budget in Provincial Ministry Budget in Provincial ContextContext

In 2001/02 the Operating Budget of In 2001/02 the Operating Budget of the Ministry of Education Budget was the Ministry of Education Budget was $4.779 billion or 19.6% of the total $4.779 billion or 19.6% of the total Provincial BudgetProvincial Budget

In 2009/10 the Operating Budget of In 2009/10 the Operating Budget of the Ministry of Education Budget is the Ministry of Education Budget is $5.042 billion or 15.3% of the total $5.042 billion or 15.3% of the total Provincial BudgetProvincial Budget

Source of Funds for School District Source of Funds for School District Budgets-2000 to 2010Budgets-2000 to 2010

90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100%

1990/91

2001/02

2005/06

2009/10

SD Budgeted Revenue Sources

Prov. Grants Local Revenue Operating Surplus Referendum

Cost Pressures for 2010/11Cost Pressures for 2010/11

HST ImplementationHST Implementation Medical Service Plan IncreasesMedical Service Plan Increases Teacher Salary Teacher Salary Teacher Pension CostsTeacher Pension Costs Carbon Offsets and Smart ToolCarbon Offsets and Smart Tool BC Hydro Rate ChangesBC Hydro Rate Changes CUPE trades rate adjustmentCUPE trades rate adjustment Loss of ReservesLoss of Reserves Full Day KindergartenFull Day Kindergarten

Estimated by the BC School Business Officials to Estimated by the BC School Business Officials to be $282 million across the provincebe $282 million across the province

BCPSEA Presentation April 1999BCPSEA Presentation April 1999

“…“…currently we have systems that are not currently we have systems that are not harmonized. The allocation system is based harmonized. The allocation system is based primarily on the premise of full local autonomy, primarily on the premise of full local autonomy, the amount of dollars to fund public education is the amount of dollars to fund public education is calculated without consultation with Boards about calculated without consultation with Boards about the needs and realities, the centralized the needs and realities, the centralized bargaining system is not adequately reflected in bargaining system is not adequately reflected in either the allocation system or the amount of either the allocation system or the amount of funding available and there is a lack of trust of funding available and there is a lack of trust of the financial information between parties”the financial information between parties”

Are we still there today?Are we still there today?

SummarySummary

The Select Standing Committee on the The Select Standing Committee on the Budget recommended a review of Public Budget recommended a review of Public Education fundingEducation funding

Should it address the following:Should it address the following:– Rationalization of amount of funding and Rationalization of amount of funding and

service expectationsservice expectations– Relationship of overall block amount and Relationship of overall block amount and

allocation systemallocation system– Role of special grants and accounting Role of special grants and accounting

requirementsrequirements– Effect of enrolment decline and recognition in Effect of enrolment decline and recognition in

the allocation systemthe allocation system

SummarySummary How should public education be resourced How should public education be resourced

in the future?in the future?

– What should be the relationship What should be the relationship between the total amount of funding between the total amount of funding and service/mandate expectations?and service/mandate expectations?

– What is the appropriate % provincial What is the appropriate % provincial contribution to school district budgets?contribution to school district budgets?

– How should individual district choices How should individual district choices and costs be recognized?and costs be recognized?

– How should public education be held How should public education be held accountable for its funding and accountable for its funding and spending?spending?