Arlington Public Schools proposes $845.4 million FY2026 budget, prioritizes staff pay while closing $41.4 million gap

Arlington Public Schools on Friday presented a proposed FY2026 operating budget of $845,400,000, an increase of 2.31% from the prior year, that centers on staff compensation while identifying $22.36 million in reductions and a $41,400,000 forecasted budget gap it must close before final adoption.

The proposal, delivered during a joint Arlington County and School Board work session, would invest about $23,730,000 in compensation adjustments — a combination the district describes as step increases and a 2% cost-of-living adjustment — and aims to keep class sizes from increasing even while phasing in staffing changes recommended by a 2024 planning-factor study.

Why it matters: The budget frames compensation and student-facing services as the district’s top priorities as it seeks to balance long-term competitiveness in staff pay with immediate fiscal constraints. School leaders said shortcomings in state funding mean the division must make trade-offs that will affect central office staffing, some school-level positions and certain programs.

Highlights of the proposal - Total proposed operating budget: $845,400,000 (up 2.31%). Dr. Duran said, "As you'll see in this year's fiscal year 26 budget, our total is $845,400,000 which is an increase from last year of 2.31%." - Forecasted deficit at start of process: $41,400,000. - Compensation investments: $23,730,000 total, including a step increase for eligible employees costing about $11,490,000 and a 2% COLA costing about $12,240,000. Dr. Duran said those compensation choices were intended to keep APS "market competitive and sustainable." - Staffing investments and phases: the district proposes about 23.3 new teaching positions tied to enrollment and demographic changes (roughly $5,500,000), plus phased implementation of the planning-factor study adding positions for English learners and students with disabilities (cited as 29.6 new teaching positions supported in part by converting some assistant roles; the line-item cited $2,290,000 related to that conversion). - Student well-being and safety: six new school safety coordinator positions (three assigned to elementary clusters, three to aquatic centers) and additional athletic training staff. - Reductions and efficiencies: roughly $22,360,000 in proposed reductions, including optimizing student–teacher ratios (identified by an outside consultant as up to $8,000,000; APS proposes $5,500,000 and 56 positions), elimination of about 27.5 central-office positions from the operating budget (about $5,000,000), moving the extended‑day program to a self‑sustaining fee model (removing about $3,000,000 from the operating fund), a $1,600,000 reduction in the annual contribution to the other post‑employment benefits trust fund, and other targeted cuts (exemplary project teaching positions, reductions to general‑education library aide hours and a cap on paid AP tests and Thomas Jefferson High School slots).

Integration Station and pre-K services A recurring subject during the discussion was Integration Station, APS's inclusive early‑education program. Board members and school staff described ongoing work to map services delivered at Integration Station to other pre‑K programs and neighborhood schools. Dr. Duran and school board members said no staff supporting the students would be eliminated as part of the current proposal; the primary change under consideration is where tuition and some program costs reside and whether individual students can be served in neighborhood settings.

School Board member Ms. Clark said the division has multiple pre‑K program models and is assessing whether Integration Station’s services can be met elsewhere while preserving inclusion and peer models. Clark stated that Integration Station "is not a magical place" for every child but meets most students’ needs and that the district is working with families on short‑ and long‑term placement options.

County budget context and federal uncertainty Arlington County Manager Mark Schwartz presented the county’s proposed FY2026 operating budget framework and flagged uncertainty tied to federal employment and potential impacts on local revenues. Schwartz described a proposed increase in the county’s economic stabilization reserve to 2% as a first‑line buffer and said the county was proposing a 1% increase in the meals tax (from 4% to 5%) as a revenue source; under existing revenue‑sharing principles, a 1% meals‑tax increase would provide approximately $6,200,000 to schools.

Schwartz also described an analysis showing that a forward payment from the county capital reserve (he used a hypothetical $10,000,000 example) could reduce future debt‑service obligations and produce operating‑budget savings over a 10‑year window. He and school leaders said both jurisdictions are watching potential federal funding changes closely.

Process, timing and public engagement School leaders said the FY2026 proposal came after an extended review process that began last July. The school board plans a final budget approval vote on May 1; presenters noted the full budget book and supporting materials had been posted online and that the work session materials include board questions and staff responses posted for the public.

What was not decided The joint session did not adopt the budget; it was a presentation and discussion. No formal motions or votes on the APS FY2026 budget were recorded during the session. Several Board members pressed for further details — including capital costs to retrofit neighborhood classrooms for younger preschool children if Integration Station slots are relocated — and asked for follow‑ups on items such as the number of community‑based students served by Integration Station.

Voices from the meeting Dr. Duran, presenting the school budget, said the board "began the FY 2026 budget with a forecasted $41,400,000 deficit" and described the district's strategy to prioritize compensation and student‑facing resources. County Manager Mark Schwartz said the county was increasing stabilization reserves and “we will have to come back to this table and discuss how we manage” any material impacts from federal funding or local revenue shocks.

Next steps APS and county staff will continue budget refinements with public engagement and detailed follow‑up answers to board questions. The school board indicated it will continue to consider community input on Integration Station and other program changes before its May 1 vote.

Ending School and county leaders framed the work session as the continuation of a multi‑month budget process: the district has outlined investments aimed at supporting educators and student services while proposing targeted reductions and reserve uses to close a multi‑million‑dollar gap. The final budget will depend on continued county–school coordination, the General Assembly and governor’s actions on state funding, and developments in local revenue and federal funding during the next weeks.