Superintendent outlines $2.6 million preliminary ask, seeks three elementary math interventionists and other staffing in FY26 budget plan

Dr. Cromartie, superintendent of Goochland County Public Schools, presented the division’s preliminary fiscal year 2026 budget on Jan. 14 and outlined a list of requested staff additions and operating-cost increases that together would raise the division’s ask roughly $2.5–$2.6 million above current appropriations.

The superintendent said the division’s immediate ‘preliminary needs’ total $1,655,000, and funding all proposed staffing items would add another $700,000–$800,000, yielding a year‑over‑year request of about 9 percent.

The proposal includes three elementary interventionists intended to expand math and reading support K–5, one assistant principal for Goochland Elementary School, an increase in ESOL full‑time equivalents from 1.75 toward 3 FTEs, stipends for up to seven general‑education teachers to serve as 504 case managers, adjustments to coach stipends to align middle‑ and high‑school formulas, a boosted EMT teaching allocation, an agriculture teacher at the middle school, an assistant robotics coach, and a work‑based learning coordinator to be funded one‑third by the county’s Office of Workforce Development (0.33 FTE) and two‑thirds by the division (0.67 FTE).

“We solicited input from our principals and department heads to include personnel, programmatic and capital needs,” Dr. Cromartie said. He described the three interventionists as a response to expanded requirements under the Virginia Literacy Act, which this year will extend mandated additional reading support to kindergarten through fifth grade. He told board members the division’s two current academic interventionists are fully committed to literacy work and warned that without added staff mathematics support could suffer.

The superintendent presented enrollment and revenue context: the FY25 operating budget totaled $43,172,215. He said the county transfer accounted for about $29.7 million (approximately 70 percent), state sales tax roughly $4.05 million (9 percent), state grants about $6.53 million (15.1 percent) and federal grants roughly $1.68 million (about 4 percent). He noted that for FY26 some state technical adjustments are anticipated under Governor Youngkin’s introduced budget and identified a possible 3 percent SOQ compensation supplement for SOQ‑funded positions only.

Specific cost drivers highlighted: - Technology encumbrances from prior market adjustments ($270,000). - Cost to provide a 3 percent cost‑of‑living increase systemwide: $885,000. - Moving $500,000 of capital items into the operating budget per preliminary requests.

Dr. Cromartie summarized projected FY26 revenue changes the division anticipated at the time of the presentation: some indirect cost revenue from prior federal grants would be lost (about $254,560), a conservative sales‑tax budgeting assumption (97.5 percent) projected $235,496 in modest additional proceeds, and the superintendent’s estimate incorporated an anticipated state SOQ compensation adjustment equivalent to about $141,215 for SOQ positions. He also said a possible reinstatement of the Virginia Preschool Initiative cap could affect revenue by roughly $143,539.

On the three interventionists, the superintendent offered school‑level projected caseloads: under current staffing, projected K–5 intervention ratios could reach as high as 1:65 at Goochland Elementary and 1:64 at Randolph; the proposed three interventionists would reduce those projected ratios substantially (for example GES from 1:65 to 1:43 in the superintendent’s projection). He also emphasized Byrd Elementary’s Title I status as part of the rationale for the three positions.

Board members asked for data backing some of the projections and for follow‑up materials. Several board members and the superintendent discussed implementation timelines and the possibility that some positions might be temporary if data indicate decreased need after initial implementation.

The superintendent closed by acknowledging the budget was an estimate of needs rather than a guaranteed request and said he expected to make additional presentations and answer questions at upcoming budget workshops. He scheduled the superintendent’s proposed budget presentation for Feb. 4, followed by a public hearing on Feb. 11 and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on Feb. 25.

Ending Dr. Cromartie told the board he was realistic about what the division would receive from the county, and he asked board members to expect tradeoffs. He said the division would continue workshops and data sharing with the board in coming weeks so members could prioritize requests before the division formally submits its request to the Board of Supervisors.