Board hears staff and community justify FY26 operating request focused on special education, compensation and infrastructure

Superintendent Dr. Rogers presented the proposed FY26 operating budget during a Feb. 11 work session and answered board members’ questions about major drivers of the request, including compensation, special education costs, energy prices and multi‑year technology upgrades.

Dr. Rogers summarized the largest components of the FY26 request: year-two compensation adjustments for five bargaining units, a request to “right‑size” special education related services (including occupational, physical and speech therapies) and non‑public placements, increased projected costs for gas and electric, and ongoing multi‑year investments in enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other infrastructure. Rogers told the board that the system requested roughly a 6.2% operating increase from the county (part of a larger 21.7% package that includes capital components) and outlined roughly $23.2 million in special education budget increases and roughly $56 million for year‑two compensation steps, plus associated benefits and other costs.

Community speakers urged full funding of the proposed budget. Cindy Sexton of TABCO said the 3‑year contract’s commitments must be funded so staff can remain in classrooms. Wendy Stringfellow of the Student Support Network described rising poverty levels in BCPS and requested increased funding and flexibility for essential items in community schools. Marietta English for the NAACP and Clarissa Taylor Jackson of Sigma Gamma Rho urged full funding for community schools, early childhood expansion and special education.

Board members pressed staff about specific line items and implementation details. Questions included whether the district could avoid part of the Open Court K–3 purchase by delaying purchases of student consumables (staff said some consumables were required but they were seeking savings where possible), whether portrait/photo services contracts included technical standards for photographing darker skin tones (staff said they would follow up), and if some infrastructure investments could have been funded from federal ESSER grants in prior years (staff said prior funding decisions were made earlier and that some current items are one‑time capital or security upgrades).

Board members also asked for additional transparency on staffing shifts. Staff reiterated that staffing allocations are driven by enrollment and that teachers affected by school-level changes are placed on the spring priority transfer list; school staffing ratios were not changed in this FY26 request. The superintendent said the district will continue to meet with the county executive and county council as budget deliberations proceed; the board is scheduled to vote on the FY26 operating budget request at the Feb. 25 board meeting.