Washington County budget team warns 75% "follow-the-student" rule will force school-by-school spending shifts

Washington County Public Schools officials told the Board of Education at a work session that increases in state per‑pupil funding tied to the state's Blueprint program will require the district to shift spending so that at least 75% of state and local aid for major aid programs "follows the students to the school in which they're enrolled." Dr. Svine, the district superintendent, and members of the budget team said that requirement will drive significant school‑level reallocation in the coming fiscal year.

The district's budget presenter explained that the 75% rule applies to major state aid categories, such as foundation funding, multilingual, compensatory education, special education and pre‑K, and that special education is tracked differently because of state reporting. "Seventy‑five percent of the state and local share of those funds of the major aid programs must follow the students to the school in which they're enrolled," the budget presenter said. He added that the concentration‑of‑poverty program currently must be spent 100% at the school level.

Why it matters: the rule can force the district to move funds from one school to another even when staffing and other costs are largely fixed. Budget staff showed a pair of anonymized school examples to illustrate. In the example used at the meeting, "School A" had 640 students, 559 eligible for free or reduced‑price meals and 84 multilingual students; 75% of its projected revenue was roughly $7.8 million while projected FY25 spending was about $7.2 million, leaving an estimated shortfall of at least $500,000 that the district said it must address. By contrast, "School B" had 661 students, 213 eligible for free or reduced‑price meals and two multilingual students; 75% of its projected revenue was about $5.4 million while projected spending was nearly $6.2 million — roughly $800,000 above the minimum requirement.

Budget staff cautioned that shifting $800,000 out of a school is difficult because roughly 75–85% of the district's budget is staffing. "When you look at how we're going to get funding from School B to School A, if it was a direct shift, you also have to consider that 75% of, or close probably closer to 85% of our budget allocation across the entire budget is staffing," the presenter said.

District leaders outlined likely FY26 cost drivers and staffing price tags. Examples provided at the meeting included: an average cost for a new teacher of about $87,000 (salary plus benefits); a paraprofessional about $50,300; an assistant principal about $115,000; an athletic director roughly $106,000; and a 1% across‑the‑board salary increase costing about $2.1 million for all unit members. A single full step increase for all unit members was estimated at about $5.05 million. Other items listed were 20 new safety and security positions (budgeted at about $1.2 million in FY25 startup funding), an estimated $1.1 million in additional multilingual staffing and program expenses for FY26, $325,000 in additional pre‑K spending tied to increased per‑pupil allocations, a required second year of technology spending phased at $1.4 million, and a projected roughly $175,000 increase in pension costs.

Officials also described how the district calculates counts for program schools: students attending specialized sites (for example, Antietam Academy or the technical high school) are counted at their home school for state reporting, and the district journals costs back to home schools on an allocation basis.

State funding outlook and risks: budget staff said preliminary readings of the governor's budget books led them to expect the district will be in the state Blueprint funding formula this year. Staff estimated state funding "in the blueprint formula" at roughly the low‑to‑mid‑tens of millions and county funding in the mid‑single‑digit millions, producing a combined increase they estimated in the range of about $15.5 million to $19 million (staff said they expect the higher end of that range). The presenter cautioned these are staff projections pending the governor's formal release and the legislature's actions.

Board members asked whether parts of the state Blueprint might be paused. District leaders said some components — for example, parts of the career ladder expansion and growth of the concentration‑of‑poverty program — were being discussed for delay in later years, but staff said FY26 funding appeared to be in place. The district also explained the Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) role: local systems report monthly spending, and the AIB can withhold up to 25% of state payments if it finds an LEA is not making required progress on Blueprint obligations. "If they don't see that we're making growth and we're trying to meet the 75% rule, they can choose to withhold up to 25% of our state funding," the presenter said.

Discussion, direction and next steps: Dr. Svine told the board the superintendent's recommended budget would first be presented in a work‑session format on the 28th of the month, followed by a follow‑up meeting a week later; staff will then take the superintendent's recommended budget to the county board of commissioners and work toward a board adoption timeline. Board members asked for efficiency options, redistricting context and whether pre‑K, early childhood and dyslexia training could be included under allowable pre‑K spending.

The board did not take formal votes during the work session. District staff said they would present the superintendent's draft budget as scheduled and continue to refine revenue and spending estimates after the governor's formal budget release.