[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6531398,"mediaKeyId","3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c","parentId",3541698,"title","Board hears proposals to convert high‑school media roles, cut paraeducators and add athletic trainers as in‑house positions","audioSeconds",1136,"startMs",1431000,"endMs",2567000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c&start=1431&end=2567","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c/thumbnail_1431000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6531398/Maryland/Board-hears-proposals-to-convert-highschool-media-roles-cut-paraeducators-and-add-athletic-trainers-as-inhouse-positions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6531398-9314b6e6cf89fff8fc4e79409926dd74/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138743&Signature=lX1AWJOzAM0LeqIxJ0jHYD1iN9V3u7poEO~DMu7dFlytgRmXOxDTb3wI3bBDiME50SJJ2Sln7sBFxg2OTKKPzCRYg3YRkK54e~Byb4gPm10~2pRYNbk9JsI5hv8oDorp7aETuroK69zPOQJa1F~MAmMt7v49E4WeZFEJw2QBuapV~Kc03SZCZ9n3w6xoT0rJpFiwySRM~F7YUvBF4itYfU2AbaMCUY-claB9Nusm8yto9RmxmPvPU0Id8I1FYpUyeLHtu-P880dCRwTVs-NiLN8q6v5iIrmXNlS8JVG~dYxvy6W9ZzvNflAhRWUlAFlP2sb2zl5POyLFYqJ4pAGeBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Howard County Public Schools","date","2025-05-27T00:00:00Z","article","The board and staff discussed specific school-based and non-school-based personnel changes proposed to help balance FY26.

Proposed school-based changes summarized by staff included: converting one of two high-school library media specialist positions to a paraeducator role (staff said the remaining high-school media specialist would continue to provide certified media services while a paraeducator would provide support), elimination of elementary media paraeducator positions (42 positions noted in the presentation), reduction or conversion of some middle-school paraeducators, and reductions in program offerings such as third-grade strings, diminished elementary gifted-and-talented (GT) resource-teacher services and reductions to dual enrollment sections. Staff said reductions to GT resource teachers would shift some services and instructional seminars and maintain curriculum extension units for grades 3-5 and GT math classes in grades 4 and 5 but would reduce the \"talent development\" work in K-2 and some seminar offerings.

Athletic trainers and contractor considerations: the board asked whether athletic trainers would be brought in-house or remain contracted. Staff said current contracted athletic-trainer costs are roughly $557,000; converting to 13 in-house trainers (to address recruitment/benefits competition) would cost about $1.5 million in salary and benefits but the net add after removing the contract would be roughly $970,000. Staff said the existing contract with the vendor (identified in discussion) renews July 1 and they would follow up on contract termination windows and obligations.

Teacher secretaries and central-office positions: staff identified reductions proposed to non-school-based positions totaling about $1.4 million (affecting about seven positions). In the comprehensive high-school cohort staff said 37 teacher-secretary positions exist; proposed reductions would be a half-time reduction in 12 of the 13 comprehensive high schools (netting the 6 FTE reduction described in the presentation). Staff said those reductions produce pressures in front-office operations but not a direct classroom cut.

Impacts and mitigation: HR said it would attempt to absorb reductions through attrition where possible and place certificated staff into vacancies when certifications align; where not possible, staff said they would consider provisional placement, training, or reduction-in-force processes. Board members pressed for specifics about how many identified positions were vacant and how many reductions could be handled administratively; staff agreed to provide vacancy lists and projected absorptions.

Ending: staff asked the board to prioritize which school-based reductions it could accept and said costed alternatives and trade-offs would be produced for June deliberations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Howard County Public Schools - DO NOT USE 8:30 a.m. Virtual Board of Education Work Session - FY26 Operating & Capital Budgets & FY27-31 Capital Improvement Program May 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The board and staff discussed specific school-based and non-school-based personnel changes proposed to help balance FY26.","taxTitle","Howard County Public Schools, School Boards, Maryland","taxId",17367,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6531412,"Howard County board hears options to close $9 million gap after county aid, staff present two cut scenarios",11623,109000,11732000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c&start=109&end=11732","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c/thumbnail_109000.jpg","/articles/6531412/Maryland/Howard-County-board-hears-options-to-close-9-million-gap-after-county-aid-staff-present-two-cut-scenarios","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6531412-59e0f2489e44dcf65c70277d9265e752/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138743&Signature=bVddPsDpukmhv9aRZcGI3-e9uJFQdpYnAV0QaoSzE8D7Eeyn7DFS~EfFXtpo2pH-xSgo7Y6Y6rhfEPsMFs89mc5pWNW~~R4xL6nWhkcu82xlLfUNj2LIQDkYvtajM6f8jCcXuzSzHhrtyw5ZWB~VmIil~Kp2Htur6dM8j12sqMxKO7Xbd~mIDxH~gRM8Fapok5MIZjLn6Z1Zes3msBQOLCDDMAjp0DJBeGB3NtnxQTPzwgb-Tzn7VgqXZ0r2g7OeogZV23zXe5vUvM1t2jKHlO6j5WO7jsIuWpqJd3JuizF8cAIzmZ69aVwcbAxfSy9PLOThgcYqnPrhAcUCiabekw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Howard County Board of Education on May 27 heard staff\u000briefing on the FY 2026 operating budget showing that, after the county executive and county council amended the county appropriation, the board\u000faces an updated shortfall of roughly $40.5 million between the board
pproved request and the final county appropriation, and $15.3 million to cover existing service commitments and negotiated agreements.

In the presentation, a staff presenter said the county executive, Dr. Calvin Ball, committed an additional $14.5 million that the county council unanimously approved, moving the district closer to balance. The presenter said, however, updated cost information (about $725,000 for pension changes, national board certification costs and planning for the blueprint career ladder) and other adjustments have pushed needs higher and left a remaining funding challenge.

Why it matters: the board must adopt a balanced FY26 budget by the scheduled June 12 adoption; staff said final decisions need to be made by the June 4 work session to permit payroll, hiring and schedule changes before many staff leave for summer break.

What staff recommended and why: staff recommended a layered approach rather than a single source of savings. The recommendations included removing nonessential new priorities from the board
nd superintendent\u000budget requests, modest use of the unassigned fund balance, a limited draw on the health fund balance, modestly higher investment income assumptions, and a $1 million transfer from a special revenue account (Learning Together) moving into the operating budget. Staff warned these steps carry risk to reserves and long-term financial stability if overused.

Key budget figures cited in the work session:
- County executive/council additional allocation: $14,500,000 (approved by county council).
- Updated total shortfall (board request vs. county appropriation): $40,500,000.
- Gap to cover existing service commitments/negotiated agreements: $15,300,000.
- Recent cost increases cited: roughly $111,000 (pension), $113,000 (national board certification adjustment), $500,000 (planning/support for the Blueprint career ladder), totaling about $725,000.
- Proposed fiscal stability measures that increase needs: raise the substitute teacher wage budget by $2,000,000 and reduce assumed turnover savings by $3,100,000 (adding $5,100,000 to needs). Staff said those items are necessary to address recurring cost pressures.

Revenue and reserve options discussed:
- Investment income estimate: staff proposed increasing the FY26 estimate from $2,000,000 to $4,500,000, a $2.5 million reduction to the gap while noting investment income is largely outside district control.
- Unassigned fund balance: projected unassigned balance about $6,900,000; board policy 40-70 indicates a 1% target (about $12,000,000). Staff recommended using $2,000,000 of unassigned funds but noted that would leave the district below policy.
- Health fund balance: audited balance as of June 2024 about $17,900,000; $9,000,000 was identified as incurred but not yet reported (IBNR). Gallagher (actuarial consultant) projected claims for FY26 to be about $5,600,000 higher than previously estimated; staff recommended, with reservations, using $3,000,000 from the health fund balance.
- Transfer from Learning Together special revenue: $1,000,000.

Taken together, staff said the three approaches (higher investment income, use of $2 million unassigned fund balance, $3 million from the health fund) plus the $1 million special revenue transfer would reduce the gap by about $7.5 million and leave an approximate remaining shortfall of $9,000,000 to be closed with base reductions.

Two reduction scenarios presented:
- Scenario 1 (includes class-size increase at secondary): $7.5 million in school-based cuts impacting about 94.8 positions and $1.4 million in non-school-based cuts affecting about 7 positions. This scenario increases middle- and high-school class sizes by one (with exemptions for high-FRM schools and pre-K/kindergarten) and leaves fewer non-school reductions.
- Scenario 2 (no class-size increase): $8.6 million in school-based cuts impacting about 107 positions and the same $1.4 million in non-school-based cuts. This scenario preserves class-size levels but eliminates additional programs and allows the board to fund priorities such as bringing athletic trainers in-house if it chooses.

Staff repeatedly emphasized the difficulty and impact of the choices. \"These considerations are very impactful and not decisions to be made lightly,\" a staff presenter said, and urged that any restorations of positions would require offsetting reductions elsewhere.

Board reaction and next steps: board members asked detailed questions about how proposed cuts would affect special education, gifted-and-talented services, media/library staffing, summer programming and transportation contracts. Staff said they would return with more granular costings and that the board should provide prioritized alternatives so staff can model trade-offs in time for the June 4 work session.

No formal actions or votes were taken during the work session; staff presented recommendations and scenarios for board deliberation and asked members to submit scenario requests for costing. The board and staff agreed to continue refining options before a formal budget adoption vote.

Ending: the superintendent and staff reiterated the timeline: decisions needed by the June 4 work session to permit score sheets and final documents for the June 12 adoption.

","The Howard County Board of Education on May 27 heard staff\u000briefing on the FY 2026 operating budget showing that, after the county executive and county council amended the county appropriation, the board\u000faces an updated shortfall of roughly $40.5 million between the board\npproved request and the final county appropriation, and $15.3 million to cover existing service commitments and negotiated agreements.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6531403,"Board presses staff on special education funding, reserves and substitute wages amid rising costs",63,1275000,1338000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c&start=1275&end=1338","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c/thumbnail_1275000.jpg","/articles/6531403/Maryland/Board-presses-staff-on-special-education-funding-reserves-and-substitute-wages-amid-rising-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6531403-dbd036f5f463102a7fa999c2de18dd5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138743&Signature=fJ60AkPh-Yh4S65fYSBvCO7ycBefTbbs9Fb-QcnFiwv~wHdRzW4hvE0v~PDk~gzqpqviXJo1ZFsU3htkTlOMb1q5tTWP5A5wNIj9pyL3gwbN2IDGNEul4bFqps8qVHrcFWuv1qQz~pIPyY-3DwJUpqzfBLxIMngyU9ihsZ04dX71wSfcWN--3ZvatkXhqDllpj80ghCzzcYKp~xQP9-7HHX~lbjLLakV1TtWnjn4lmGNdtB-UXQmXy0SnUhPK1VIcaOt2gsey1l8xvloYwexz5qp00V7jU~hkOPuBpTdgnMidbABro0PIwtLUx-tgLZPsIqe3mFCCMM2RRLzkXjrTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members asked detailed questions on May 27 about how proposed budget adjustments would affect special education service levels and staffing.

What staff presented: staff said the FY26 proposal includes additional budgeted amounts for special education placement and contracted services: $7,000,000 for nonpublic placements, about $1,100,000 for additional contracted services, and $1,750,000 set aside for strategic improvements in special education. A board member asked whether the budget assumes ongoing increases in identified students and Individualized Education Program (IEP) needs; staff replied the budget includes assumptions but will not staff to full formula.

Substitutes and turnover: staff recommended increasing the substitute teacher wage budget by $2,000,000, saying substitute overages have exceeded budget expectations by at least $3,000,000 in recent years and can no longer be absorbed. Staff also recommended reducing the assumed turnover savings by $3,100,000 (adding $5,100,000 to funding needs when combined with the substitute increase). Staff explained some special education turnover savings did not materialize because salary savings were redirected to contracted services needed to meet students\furrent IEPs.

Board concerns and operational answers: board members pressed for clarity on how many of the positions proposed for reduction are currently vacant, whether reductions would primarily be absorbed through natural attrition, and how human resources would minimize layoffs. Michael Carson, human resources executive officer, said staff would attempt to place affected certificated employees into vacancies when possible, consider working out-of-certification placements and use professional development and induction for provisional certificated staff. Carson also said he would provide follow-up data about annual vacancy and retirement patterns to help the board assess how many reductions might be absorbed without layoffs.

Reserve policy and health fund: staff explained general fund balance projections (unassigned balance about $6.9 million) and board policy 40-70 target at about $12 million (1%). Staff said they recommended using $2 million of unassigned balance, acknowledging this would leave the district below the policy target. On the health fund, staff described about $17.9 million in balance with approximately $9 million already reserved for incurred but not reported claims and an actuarial projection from Gallagher that FY26 claims could be about $5.6 million higher than previously estimated. Staff recommended a $3 million draw from the health fund with \"reservation,\" citing the county\u000executive's verbal support if the health fund runs short.

Legal and compliance limits: board members repeatedly reminded staff that special education is a legally mandated service and that cuts must not reduce legally required services. Staff replied they were proposing reductions to requested additions rather than to core base services and that targeted additions for nonpublic placements and contracted services remained in the proposed budget.

Next steps: staff agreed to provide more itemized data showing vacancies, turnover patterns, the breakdown of substitute spending (long-term vs. daily), and the fiscal impacts of proposed reductions to special education-related positions. No formal decisions were made May 27.","Board members sought clarity about special education funding assumptions, proposed reserve uses, and a staff recommendation to add $2 million for substitutes and reduce assumed turnover savings; staff said additional targeted reserves and contract mixes were included but the district would still not reach full staffing formulas.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6531407,"Board questions transportation opt-in, fees and contract exposure as costs rise",169,2884000,3053000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c&start=2884&end=3053","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3541698-af966057a14d2a5beeadd05c52abf24c/thumbnail_2884000.jpg","/articles/6531407/Maryland/Board-questions-transportation-opt-in-fees-and-contract-exposure-as-costs-rise","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6531407-11fdf119560c44195b093d14871a2d9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138743&Signature=O1~pwnF~smnLGp-B23CUKixgk1hvZjIRPhEZekhyhvn4qVsCS6fkwa9-XvAaF3qkHLT5nWD0ZLLrjgllUIlXKjUCH3dV7mBYKGzXWyEac3MsAXhzVl8M5DamrV3R0m9vC11TadIBt7lIXe0bylNso-k4cfiXBXoL1Cl5AF8SSCt0CbeDxxm5oN6jMQPAQm0OOr0J6KAPylhnys8iG4qIoob1T~wzG~XP5pTzFQc7QfS5aQ9QZkm2TUyg4euMrF-d0mCvMpLrhegE~lJ4r-J5H2GHif6xX3vDtTtLOeBPCLU0xnlO5L~fv88A41A8uQm8uJkWphm9vgMQ36KEFPBICg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members used the May 27 budget work session to press staff on transportation costs and whether the district can better collect fees or enforce an \"opt-in\" policy to reduce routes and costs.

What staff said about opt-in and enforcement: student transportation staff said the district has collected \"opt-in\" transportation forms but historically has not routed based strictly on that data because the system lacks reliable enforcement mechanisms to deny a student service if a family later claims they need it. Johan Thap Siddiqui, director of student transportation, said two years ago the district achieved 92% participation in the opt-in form (97% of respondents opted in). Last year opt-in responses dropped to 79% with 21% nonresponsive; staff opted-in the nonresponsive students to avoid leaving a family without service. Staff said operational challenges (families showing up at bus stops, card/scanner limitations and multi-tier routing) have limited the district
bility to withhold service based solely on opt-in status.

What staff said about fees and an estimated price point: staff told the board a back-of-the-envelope calculation showed that, to cover general-education transportation costs for students who do not qualify for free/reduced-price meals, a fee would need to be roughly $800 to $900 per student per year in order to offset those contractual costs. The transportation director and operations staff said fixed contract costs (drivers, buses and multiyear contractor commitments) mean charging fees to families would not reduce the district\fontractual obligations unless routing and contracted service levels were also reduced.

Contract exposure and bus orders: board members asked whether expanding walk zones (so fewer routes required) was still an option. Cornell Brown, chief operating officer, and staff said they had been in recent conversations with bus contractors to assess options and discovered buses already have been ordered and some delivered. That creates exposure: if buses were ordered and contractors invested, canceling or materially changing service could carry contractual costs. Staff said they needed to quantify that exposure and would report it back; board members asked for a timeline of when staff discovered the production/shipping commitments.

Equity and operational concerns: several board members raised equity worries about fee-based transportation: staff repeatedly said any fee system would need means-testing and exemptions (for students eligible for free and reduced-price meals) to avoid imposing cost barriers on low-income families. Board members urged phased or limited-fee approaches rather than immediate full-cost recovery.

Alternatives discussed: staff said many of the district\rual enrollment shuttles and HCC routes are wrapped into existing bus routes; transportation staff noted the cost to operate those shuttles is minimal and that it is often more cost-effective to use existing buses than to add small vans billed by the mile. The district said it had previously transferred roughly $100,000 annually from dual-enrollment program funds into transportation to reflect actual costs.

Board direction: staff were asked to provide the following items at the next work session or in writing: (1) estimated contractual exposure related to bus orders and delivery schedules; (2) a more detailed analysis of opt-in form participation, ridership counts, and where enforcement could be implemented; (3) modeling of fee structures that are means-tested and partial-fee options rather than full cost recovery.

Ending: staff said they would return with details; no changes to routing or fees were approved at the May 27 meeting.","Board members pressed staff on the district\npproach to transportation opt-in data, feasibility of charging families for general-education transportation, and contractual exposure from recently ordered buses; staff said fees would need to be around $800\nnd up per student to fully offset costs and that many bus orders have been placed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board hears proposals to convert high‑school media roles, cut paraeducators and add athletic trainers as in‑house positions

Howard County board hears options to close $9 million gap after county aid, staff present two cut scenarios

Board presses staff on special education funding, reserves and substitute wages amid rising costs

Board questions transportation opt-in, fees and contract exposure as costs rise