MANAGING SCHOOL FEES

1. April 2, 2012 RESULTS OF THE CBE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MANAGING SCHOOL FEES TONY AND PHILIP

2. We can’t support what we don’t understand.

3. Background The purpose of the school fees project is To have school fees that meet CBE’s financial objectives, reflect meaningful and representative community engagement and can be understood by an average parent. Stormy Lake Consulting and Environics Research Group were hired to conduct a qualitative engagement and a quantitative research study to further gather parent input into the values and principles that should inform the setting of school fees.

4. Method Qualitative Six parent engagement sessionswere held with a total of 41 parents. This included elementary, junior high and senior high schools. Two school administration engagement sessions with 110 participants were held to gather insights into parent issues from a different point of view and to engage the schools in discussing how fees should be developed. Quantitative All parents within CBE were invited to complete a 16-minute on-line survey. 3,878 completed the survey. 119 schools completed a similar, but shorter, on-line survey.

5. Demographics * Less than 1 percent

6. Demographics

7. Three sets of fees Three kinds of fees were discussed with parents: Transportation fees, including charter buses and public transit. Noon supervision fees, including incidental activity fees. School based fees, including ISM fees, refundable security deposits and all other school-based fees. A short and simplified explanation of how school fees are calculated and how waivers are determined was provided to participants as part of the discussion.

8. THE OVERALL ENGAGEMENT

9. Satisfaction with this engagement Overall, parents were very satisfied with this engagement: extremely relevant not at alllistened to extremely well listened to not at all relevant

10. Satisfaction with this engagement Overall, school administrators were satisfied with this engagement: extremely relevant not at alllistened to extremely well listened to not at all relevant

11. Some skepticism Q: The information from these session will be used by CBE Administration to guide how fees are set. How much confidence do you have that this discussion session will influence decision-making?

12. Qualitative versus quantitative The quantitative survey was designed after two school administration sessions and two parent sessions were complete. In most areas, there is substantial alignment between the qualitative and quantitative results. In a few key areas, parent positions changed upon deeper discussion or the understanding of critical pieces of information. When you get the survey, you think one thing, but after a week of thought, you think otherwise. Parent

13. In my house, September is more expensive than Christmas!

14. Issues with fees People arriving at the discussion sessions came with a few core issues: I do not understand or think it’s fair that some people and not others must pay for noon time supervision (outside of financial reasons). Frustrated about inconsistency of school fees. Threats of collection –inappropriate – especially when fees paid. Will the family maximum ever be reinstated? The extraordinary increase in fees last September. The burden of fees in September. I’ve never really gotten a good answer about the increases in fees. Parent

15. Acceptance of fees Most parents appear to accept that fees are part of the education system. However, the most opposed fees are for noonsupervision.

16. Perceptions The way that fees have been handled in the past contribute to several perceptions about CBE: Unaccountable CBE does not have to be accountable because they can always collect more money from parents through fees. If there is a shortfall, then they go to the parents. Because it’s their children and they want them to do well, they might as well pay. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and the parents will cover the shortfall. They aren’t being efficient with their money because they don’t have to be. They’re not a corporation downtown where they have to worry about their bottom line. The pot will always get refilled next year. Parent

17. Perceptions Secretive The true costs for a service are not presented accurately (e.g. lunchroom supervisors do clerical activities outside their positions). We pay this fee and what do we get for it? A couple of stacks of paper and pencils? There has to be more to it than that. Parent

18. Perceptions Threatening Parents are sensitive to perceived threats. “Support this or we have to take it out of the instructional budget,” is taken as a threat to the quality of the child’s education. It’s not fair to frame it in that way. Pay this fee, or it comes out of the classrooms. Excuse me, there must be other solutions then just that. Parent The use of collection services rather than school follow ups this past year increased this perception. Threats of collection - inappropriate – especially when my fees have been paid & especially when concerning security deposits not yet “earned”. Parent

19. Perceptions Inflexible While principals may make individual exceptions, CBE as a whole is seen to be inflexible. I loved the letter we got that said there will be no discussion on this matter and that it was final. Parent The wording on the fee forms can come across as “harsh”, we should soften the language. Admin

20. Fees are more than fees Fees are seen to be more than just the set fees, they are all the costs “mandated” by the classroom. It’s not rare for me to pay $70 to complete a single science project, which is over and above the fees I already pay. As a parent, I say this is what will help them learn best, so I will pay to make this happen. Parent Why are specific items like calculators insisted upon? Parent The broader expense of school supplies are considered part of the burden of fees.

21. Value-for-money People want to see value for money paid into the system. They will create a value equation based on what they see, particularly in the absence of knowing what happens behind the scenes. For example, bus late = bad value.

22. Reasonable perceived value

23. School fees math Parents do a variety of simple math equations and conclude that the fees charged are unfair, poorly managed and even unethical. Here at our school, last year we started talking about the inequity around the fees. We had 99 students out of 400 that paid for lunch fees. So here, the kids paying the fees are subsidizing all other students who are having lunch at the school. Some of these kids didn’t pay for transportation or lunchroom fees, so they paid nothing. We had some paying for transport, some paying for nothing, and 99 subsidizing the lunch for over 400 kids. Significant inequity among what is being paid among whom. Parent

24. School fees math Noon supervision does not appear to deliver value for money to a number of parents. When they do the math, it doesn’t add up. It’s simple math, you look at the amount of kids in the room, the amount each is paying, it just doesn’t add up. Parent

25. Larger context While the initial purpose of the parent engagement was to discuss the principles and values by which fees should be set, parents expanded the discussion to include how fees are managed. As well, many of the key issues within the fees discussion were deeply connected to the role and purpose of alternative schools within CBE. While we did not attempt to solve “alternative schools”, we report on those issues related to alternative schools that significantly affect fees.

26. THE FOUNDATION OF TRUST

27. The principles of which fees are calculated rest on a foundation of trust. If CBE is not trusted, its application of the principles will not be accepted. If they are telling me this money is for this specific service, but it’s not all going towards that. Then, they spend the money on something else, necessary or not, it gets people aggravated. It makes you wonder what else are they mismanaging. Parent This issue of trust extended to concerns about this consultation: PS – concerned this process has a hidden agenda to justify increasing fees. Parent comment

28. A model of values and principles

29. Support for principles

30. An integrated model Principles rest on a foundation of putting children first and beliefs about the (free) public education system. The principles that guide how fees should be set are distinct from the principles about how fees should be communicated and how the fee-based services should be managed. The outcome of a disciplined and consistent application of the principles is earning trust.

31. Communicating Fees Put children-first in an (as free as possible) public education system.

32. Consistent User-pay • Communicating Fees Choice vs. necessity Accountability Stewardship Community- subsidized Transparency Clarity Simplicity Put children-first in an (as free as possible) public education system.

33. Consistent User-pay • Communicating Fees Choice vs. necessity Accountability Stewardship Community- subsidized Transparency Clarity Simplicity Put children-first in an (as free as possible) public education system.

34. THE FOUNDATION

35. Children-first Aka accessibility. The highest ranked value through the staff engagement sessions was also echoed back through the parent sessions. Since education is basic, everyone should be able to take it. Whoever cannot pay should be supported by the rest of those who can. Parent There should be an equalization structure so that all kids in all families should have the same chance. The neighbourhood that a child is in shouldn't impact their future success in life and their current choices on education. Parent We need to be focused on what is best for the students, what constitutes a “good education”. Where ever is the best fit for them we need to let them go there. Admin

36. Public education should be as “free” as possible Some participants believe that there should be no fees at all.Other parents accept fees, but believe they should be minimized. Public education should be free. If you want to pay the money, then send them to a private school. Parent Should be accessible education for all. Public education should not be a hardship, which it easily could be now. Parent You choice of community shouldn’t limit your access to an education. Parent

37. PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDESETTING FEES

38. User-pay If you choose to use the service, you should pay for the service. The services rendered needed to be the services paid so no one gets a free ride. Parent So no hidden subsidies. Why boost the transport fee artificially so you can cover through the back door lunchroom supervision? Parent The fact that bussed students do not pay supervision fees – it feels as though non-bussed students are funding for bussed kids. Parent But, user-pay should not cause an unreasonable hardship, nor should it make public education inaccessible.

39. Anti-subsidization One of the big drivers of a user-pay system is the strong rejection of one group of users subsidizing other users. Bussing kids don’t pay for lunch room, so then I am paying for all the kids who bus and stay at lunch. That’s appalling. In my school, it seems a majority of kids take the bus. I feel like I am the 20% paying the fee for 80% of the school. Parent It’s wrong I haven’t paid lunch supervision when my kids stay at the school for lunch. Parent

40. Setting transportation fees The majority of parents in alternative programs believe they should pay additional fees rather than be subsidized by other families. The provincial government’s funding formula does not provide for additional funding for the increased transportation costassociated with alternative programs. Should the transportation fees for students who attend alternative schools be:

41. Community subsidization, not user subsidization Costs should be borne by the system, and not by the parents who pay fees. i.e., waivers should be funded by CBE. All kids should have access to schools and if they don't have the money for it it should come from the government … shouldn’t be the parents. Parent

42. Correspondence An important aspect of user-pay (that ties into accountability and transparency) is the very strong belief that the money you pay should go only towards one specific service or item. When I am at work, and I take something to a stakeholder, they want to see how every penny was spent. I would like to see that with a fee structure from the CBE. That’s how successful businesses works. Parent My money needs to go towards what they say it is. And what my kids are getting. Parent

43. Implications of user-pay Anyone who uses noon-supervision should pay for noon-supervision. Noon supervision should not be “included” in the transportation fee. The transportation fee should be changed to not include “noon supervision”, but everyone pays noon supervision.

44. User-pay and noon supervision While the quantitative study shows a strong support for bussed students not paying for noon supervision, the qualitative engagement came to a much different conclusion.

45. School admin concerns with user-pay It is feared by some schools that a shift to a user pay model may have a significant impact. If we were to charge additional fees to students who choose alternative programs, they would only be a program of choice for those who could afford it. This would lead to segregation and impact our enrollment significantly. Admin Bus receiver schools will not be able to afford adequate noon supervision going forward if we began to charge students transported to school a noon supervision fee. [Because it will be more expensive,] people won’t pay it. Then where will the money come from? Admin

46. Consistency across the system People are confused by inconsistencies from school to school. i.e., noon-supervision ratios. All the parents I know with children in different schools – we all pay different fees. Parent This perception is balanced by a few parents who very strongly believe that user-pay should be school specific – noon-supervision fees should be based on noon-supervision at each individual school. This position did not reflect the majority of parents.

47. Choice As parents discussed the application of a user-pay model, the issue of choice arises in two distinct ways.They differentiate between an educational necessity and personal choice. An educational necessity includes children with exceptional needs attending a necessary program or school. Other definitions were unclear and debated.

48. A personal choice includes Most children attending alternative programs (see discussion below). Moving into a community without a local school Choosing to leave your child at school for lunch Choosing to bus your child to school rather than drive (whether or not you live within or beyond the bus limit). I can drive my kid to school everyday but I bought a bus pass for my kid for my convenience so I should absolutely have to pay for this. I choose to leave my other kids at school during lunch, so should I pay the lunch fees, yeah. If they are there then I should. Parent

49. Personal choice = additional fees

50. For parents, most alternative programs are personal choice