Montgomery County schools outline FY2026 budget pressures as potential state cuts and staffing needs rise

Montgomery County Board of Education members spent a more than two‑and‑a‑half‑hour work session on Wednesday reviewing the operating budget outlook for fiscal year 2026, with administrators warning of uncertainty in state and federal funding and proposing a package of increases aimed at stabilizing benefits, maintenance and special‑education staffing.

The most immediate risk identified by administration was a governor’s proposal and parallel guidance from the state Accountability and Implementation Board to freeze funding for the Blueprint requirement for teacher collaborative planning time; staff said that freeze could reduce Montgomery County Public Schools’ (MCPS) revenue by about $25,000,000 if enacted. Staff also described ongoing Blueprint obligations and a current set of Blueprint‑related expenditures the district has already budgeted at $30,100,000.

Why it matters: MCPS officials said Blueprint is a state law that places new or expanded requirements on school systems — including expansions in full‑day pre‑K, teacher career ladders and other components — but that portions are funded only partially by the state. In Montgomery County’s case, administrators told the board the district often funds a larger share of Blueprint obligations than smaller jurisdictions, and a significant state reduction would force either program cuts or larger local backfills.

“...this is not a budget of cake. This is very much a budget of vegetables,” Superintendent Dr. Taylor said in opening remarks, stressing the budget is focused on “supporting schools, making sure that we are taking care of what happens in the classroom” while restoring fiscal discipline.

Key budget items presented - Blueprint and state risk: Staff explained Blueprint funding is layered — some specific line items are identifiable, while other costs (for example, adjustments to teacher salary scales set by prior state rules) are embedded in long‑running system costs. Administration said the governor’s proposed four‑year freeze of the collaborative planning time portion could reduce MCPS revenue by about $25 million, though outcomes depend on the legislature and the governor’s budget release.

- AP/IB/dual‑enrollment testing fees: Staff identified a projected $2,100,000 increase related to the statutory requirement that MCPS pay AP, IB and certain dual‑enrollment exam fees for eligible students; staff said the district pays amounts beyond the state allocation when actual local registration exceeds the state’s estimated register count.

- Compensation and benefits: The draft budget includes placeholders tied to negotiations, assuming roughly a 3.25 percent general wage adjustment plus step movement — a combined increase the district described as a little over 5 percent for affected employee groups. Staff also said the district’s self‑insured health plan is projecting a large shortfall and the proposed FY2026 budget includes an additional employer contribution intended to begin restoring solvency; staff described a current projected benefit‑fund deficit in the tens of millions and said the employer contributions across benefits approach hundreds of millions annually.

- Special education and paraeducator staffing: The administration proposed adding classroom capacity and staff to meet special‑education needs, including an allocation described as 188 teacher positions and 500 paraeducators (366 of those currently exist as part‑time/temporary roles and the proposal would convert many to benefited positions). Staff estimated the total compensation cost for the special‑education staffing addition at about $46,000,000 (salaries plus benefits).

- Maintenance and facilities: MCPS presented a multi‑year maintenance gap the administration estimated at roughly $179,000,000 of annual pay‑as‑you‑go needs to keep the facility portfolio in steady condition. The FY2026 ask includes $7,000,000 and a request to create a 22‑person multidisciplinary facilities team (electricians, carpenters, painters, engineers) to clear persistent work orders and accelerate preventive maintenance.

- Utilities and operating costs: Staff told the board they are budgeting for higher utility and energy costs, citing a roughly $4,000,000 increase driven by higher electric rates and a projected $2,000,000 increase tied to an energy‑savings contract adjustment.

Other details and next steps Board members asked for line‑by‑line Exhibit updates and more precise breakdowns on Blueprint costs, the proportion of Blueprint expenses the state covers, and how much of AP/IB testing fees are for students eligible for free or reduced‑price meals. Administrators agreed to provide more detailed figures and exhibits before the board’s next work session; staff also said the administration will post additional exhibit documents online to let the public drill down on specific line items.

The board scheduled follow‑up work sessions and hearings: staff said a second work session and subsequent public budget hearings are planned in January and the board is expected to take tentative action in February, pending the governor’s budget and county deliberations.

Two routine agenda motions were approved without debate: a motion to approve the meeting agenda and a motion to adjourn. Both motions carried unanimously among members present.

What was not decided Administrators emphasized that many of the proposals in the presentation are initial asks and placeholders pending negotiations with employee associations, the governor’s budget and county government decisions. Several board members pressed for more targeted, outcome‑oriented proposals — for example, specific tutoring or class‑size reductions for early grades — but administrators said those ideas would be discussed during later budget sessions that focus on discretionary spending.

Looking ahead: Staff recommended the board concentrate questions that will inform policy and budget decisions and said additional exhibits and cost breakdowns will be released ahead of the next sessions. The administration repeated that the final FY2026 budget will be sensitive to changes at the state and federal level and to county budget choices.