Orange County Public Schools previews large pay-scale increases and new staff in FY26 budget outline

ORANGE COUNTY, Va. — The Orange County School Board heard a detailed preview of proposed priorities for the FY26 budget during its Jan. 27 meeting, with Superintendent Doctor Hornick urging the board to prioritize competitive pay and to shield employees from rising health-insurance costs.

Hornick told the board the division’s top priorities are raises for classroom teachers, targeted increases for instructional assistants and administrative staff, and a range of new or expanded positions the division says it needs to meet instructional and special-education requirements. “If at all possible and at all costs, try to absorb health insurance increases to not pass those along to our employees,” Hornick said during the presentation.

The proposal would rework the teacher salary scale to move Orange closer to the regional median. Hornick’s presentation showed a model that attempts to align steps with the median plus an additional buffer and described an overall targeted increase for teachers of roughly the low double digits on some steps; the presentation included a slide that described a 13.32% increase for part of the scale and an administration estimate that the teacher-scale salary impact would be on the order of about $3.1 million (administration cautioned that the number is preliminary and will depend on state funding and final step structure). Hornick also said teachers with a master’s degree currently receive a $3,000 differential and that the division’s target salary points for master’s teachers would rise (the presentation listed an example figure of $60,617 at an early step for teachers with a master’s degree).

Beyond teacher pay, the presentation listed targeted increases and minimums for other job categories: custodians (current starting wage cited at $14.56 per hour, with a proposed minimum target of $16.00 per hour), building administrative assistants (current starting wage cited at $14.23 per hour, proposed target $17.50 per hour), and revised head-custodian stipends tied to building enrollment (additional $400 increments by school size were proposed). Instructional assistants across the division were included in a proposal that Hornick characterized as “over 9% on average” across that pay band.

Hornick also outlined staffing additions the division expects to request in the proposed budget: another first-grade teacher and a reading specialist at Locust Grove Primary; a self-contained special-education class at Locust Grove and at Unionville with accompanying instructional-assistant positions; additional ELL staffing to meet service-time metrics (the administration said the division likely needs at least one ELL teacher at several schools and possibly more); two math specialists (elementary and secondary); additional counselors/coaches for behavior and self-contained programs (including a suggested additional behavior specialist/coach); a fourth school social worker (the division currently has three); and long‑requested positions such as a school psychologist and a speech-language pathologist. The administration also proposed adding some career-and-technical-education offerings (criminal-justice and TV/video-media broadcasting teachers) and recommended adding middle-school coach stipends to expand opportunities for girls (volleyball and girls’ soccer were named).

Funding and timing remain uncertain. Hornick repeatedly cautioned that state funding decisions, new statutes or standards (including any changes tied to the Virginia Literacy Act, SOQ formulas or the state’s funding tool), and anticipated increases in retirement and payroll taxes will affect the final local cost. “Much of what we can accomplish on here will be dictated on the funding, how much the state is going to come forward,” Hornick said. The superintendent noted some positions could be funded partially through grants and that some programs (for example, head-start and school nutrition) are funded or partly funded through federal or state streams and therefore require separate consideration.

Board members who spoke praised the administration for laying out priorities and urged urgency. Board member Jack Rickett said the recommendations were student-focused and supported an aggressive approach to compensation: “Everything you prioritized was had had an impact on students. Thank you,” he said. Several members asked for more detail on survey response rates and on the mechanics of step changes; Hornick and staff acknowledged the division’s community survey had fewer than 100 responses and said more outreach will continue as the budget process advances.

Next steps: the board will hold a public-comment session dedicated to the FY26 budget at an upcoming meeting and will receive a formal proposed budget in the weeks ahead. Hornick’s timeline calls for a public hearing on March 3 (a hearing required by law) and for board work sessions in March to reconcile the proposal before sending the package to the county for consideration.

The superintendent’s presentation and the board discussion did not authorize final budget decisions; the board will consider formal adoption at a later meeting after more detailed revenue estimates are available.

Ending — The administration said it would return to the board with specific dollar figures and recommended language for changes to salary schedules and new position requests as the revenue picture becomes clearer. The board scheduled additional budget work sessions and a statutorily required public hearing in March.