Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Impact On Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Principals and staff warn blueprint funding and student-based budgeting will force teacher cuts; boardists seek clarity
Summary
Principals and educators told the board that the district's shift to the state blueprint funding formula and student-based budgeting has produced large school deficits that may force elimination of teachers and intervention staff; board members sought more detail and asked administration for clearer communications.
Principals, teachers and district staff used public comment and committee reports at the May 8 meeting to describe how the county's implementation of Maryland's blueprint funding formula and student-based budgeting is producing school-level deficits and staffing losses.
"As I enter my seventh year as the principal of Hillcrest Heights Elementary, this will be the first year when I will be unable to bring back eight staff members," David Brown, principal of Hillcrest Heights Elementary, told the board. He said roughly 100 of his 415 scholars (about 20 percent) would lose intervention supports in reading and math if positions are eliminated.
Lakeisha Struthers, principal at Kettering Middle School, said the new baseline staffing formula leaves her school with a deficit of over $900,000 before adding any new initiatives. "This is not sustainable," she said, adding that her school protects instruction and used efficiencies to meet past deficits but that the new formula threatens those gains.
Multiple public commenters — including classroom teacher Cara Robinson and ESP representative Essence Hinder — described a bargaining standoff and a recruitment and retention crisis. "We are in a recruitment and retention crisis," Dr. Donna Christie said. "The district's proposed starting salary is not even a living wage in this county." Teachers urged the board to prioritize salary and retention to avoid deepening vacancies.
Board members repeatedly asked administration for school-by-school analyses, written communications previously sent to principals, and clarity on how locked central-office allocations (for example the 12-month assistant principal position discussed during contract votes) interact with school budgets. Several board members said they had heard conflicting messages from principals and requested the exact language the administration used when notifying schools of changes.
The administration said it would supply written language and work with area offices to clarify which schools will receive centrally provided positions, and how the student-based budgeting allocations will be applied in FY26.
Next steps: Board members asked the superintendent and budget office for school-level staffing impact reports, lists of schools receiving locked positions, and further explanations of the blueprint funding calculations before finalizing the district's FY26 budget.
