Board hears FY26 budget timeline and how state 'blueprint' rules change spending — "the money follows the student," staff say

At a Dec. 16 work session the Talbot County Board of Education received a detailed briefing on FY26 budget timing, state funding formulas and the district’s spending obligations under the Maryland Blueprint for Education.

Ms. Jones, a district staff member presenting the budget overview, said the district’s enrollment this fall was “4,485 students.” She explained that the state funding system is formula‑driven: each program has a per‑pupil amount and the district receives money according to student counts in those buckets. “The money follows the student,” she said, summarizing the principle behind the allocations.

Jones told the board the district receives some revenue beyond the blueprint formulas — transportation reimbursements, nonpublic education reimbursement, interest and facility rental income — but the largest and most prescriptive funding is from state formulas governed by COMAR and the Education Article. She noted one formula the district does not receive is the comparable wage index and that about half of Maryland counties get that additional funding.

She described the district’s demographic and program counts: 4,485 enrolled (including pre‑K); about 60% of students qualify under income guidelines for compensatory education (free and reduced meals); 659 multilingual learners; 541 students receiving special education services; 424 identified gifted and talented students; and 158 students experiencing homelessness. Jones cautioned that pre‑K funding is limited to income‑eligible children and that the per‑student pre‑K grant is higher than other buckets because pre‑K students are funded separately.

A central concern presented to the board is compliance with the blueprint requirement that a high share of certain program funding be spent at the school level — the district must show progress toward spending at least 75% of specified funds in the schools themselves. Jones said the district is compliant overall in many programs but not fully compliant for compensatory education and multilingual learners at the school level and that MSDE/AIV expects to see progress year‑to‑year. She described a new MSDE/PowerSchool dashboard intended to make per‑school spending transparent; the district expects it to go live in January but said initial versions have data issues.

Jones showed district financials comparing budgeted and spent amounts by program and emphasized that special education expenditures exceed state funding in many cases; the district must use foundation and other local funds to make up the shortfall. “We are spending more on special education than we are funded for,” she said.

Board members asked whether one‑time federal COVID relief and other expiring grants had temporarily masked budget shortfalls; Jones said COVID relief largely expired and that it had both funded new initiatives and paid for devices and programs that are now back on the local funding schedule. Several members asked about the county’s wealth index and how the state calculates local versus state shares; Jones said those factors are released in the winter and can materially change the local contribution.

Jones also discussed staffing and position requests: the district is reviewing school and department submissions and will rank and prioritize requests (special education, ESOL/ML, pupil personnel support, community schools staffing). She said the district will meet with the county council in January ahead of the detailed budget presentation and will bring revenue projections and the formal FY26 budget to work sessions in January and February before the scheduled second‑reader vote in mid‑February.

Ending: The board received the timeline and asked staff to return with the FY26 budget materials, revenue projections and a prioritized list of requested positions in time for the board’s January work sessions and the public budget hearing in February.