Washington County Public Schools unveils FY26 draft budget as state funding shifts cut per-student aid

Washington County Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Stein presented his draft FY26 General Fund budget at a Board of Education work session, outlining proposed investments, staffing changes and cuts in response to state funding changes and enrollment growth.

The draft responds to two near-term shifts from Annapolis: a governor-requested bill that, if enacted, would pause collaborative planning time in the foundation funding formula — which the superintendent said “reduces revenue by $163 per student” — and a proposed pension cost shift to local government of $2.4 million for Washington County. Dr. Stein said those changes together substantially affect the district’s revenue picture for FY26.

The budget overview shows total anticipated additional revenue for FY26 of slightly more than $17,000,000 and estimates required local contributions will increase as Maryland moves the K–12 funding system from the maintenance-of-effort model to the “blueprint” funding model. The superintendent told the board that Washington County Government may need to contribute about $8.3 million more than in FY25 to meet the blueprint’s local share requirements.

Why it matters

Board members and staff framed the draft as a starting point for deliberation: the superintendent emphasized he limited the recommended budget to required appropriations and asked the board for feedback before the board adopts its draft. The governor’s bill and the blueprint transition could materially change the district’s final revenue and spending needs; officials said they will continue to monitor legislation during the General Assembly session.

Major proposals and requirements

- Blueprint-mandated increases: The superintendent identified several targeted areas that the blueprint requires the district to fund above FY25 levels, including technology (about $1.5 million), prekindergarten (about $500,000), multilingual learner supports (a bit over $1 million) and career-ladder/ national board certification teacher supplements (about $1.2 million). He said the total required blueprint additions above FY25 are about $4,240,000.

- Salary and benefits: The draft includes a salary resource pool of about $4.7 million intended to provide at least a 2% increase for all WCPS staff; the district also projects a 10% increase in employee health insurance premiums for FY26 that the superintendent said cannot be fully absorbed from existing funding.

- Staffing additions: The superintendent proposed hiring or retaining positions intended to address enrollment and student needs, including 17 new special education paraprofessionals (13 of which were added during the current year), one additional student intervention specialist, three contingency teachers to respond to unexpected enrollment increases, two supplemental math teachers, four assistant principals targeted to elementary schools with higher behavior needs or dedicated special education programs, and 15 additional safety and security assistants to complete the expansion at all secondary schools.

- Multilingual learners: WCPS reported a one-year increase of about 172 multilingual students and officials said the district now serves more than 1,200 ML students, up from roughly 500–600 four years ago. The budget allocates positions required by the blueprint (the superintendent cited 14 ML positions in the proposed spending) and staff described a staffing model that allocates fractional FTEs so small schools receive some services without moving students between schools.

- Student success and materials: The superintendent proposed an additional $3.2 million for instructional materials tied to student success initiatives. The district will continue to pay Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate test registration fees; the presentation showed those costs at $383,000.

- Operations and transportation: The draft acknowledges increased prices for yellow school buses and higher contract payments to bus contractors who serve rural areas. The presentation also reflected reallocated facility and maintenance funds and described a modest net increase in transportation-related lines while shifting funds between sublines.

- Cuts and efficiencies: To offset new costs, the superintendent proposed eliminating several positions that together would save about $725,000, including roughly $465,000 from positions at the Center for Education Services. The staff noted two of the eliminated positions are currently vacant, and one will become vacant through retirement. The district also expects overall savings of nearly $900,000 as a result of turnover credits and other line-item adjustments.

Contested reductions

Board members and other speakers raised concerns about two proposed eliminations: the Deputy Communications Officer and the Supervisor of Equity and Excellence. A board member said the communications deputy monitors and reports on legislation and trends and “provides regular reports… and supports the legal department by drafting, reviewing, and presenting legislative testimony,” and asked who would perform that work if the position is cut. The superintendent and other staff said responsibilities would be covered by a team approach across communications, legal and department leaders; Ms. Anderson (communications lead) and the legal office were named as key supports. On the equity position, staff said the role is not specifically required by COMAR or the blueprint and that the state-required reports and compliance work can be carried out by multiple staff members if the dedicated position is removed.

Quotes from the meeting

“This single change reduces revenue by $163 per student,” Dr. Stein said when describing the governor-requested pause to collaborative planning time.

Board member Mr. Evans said he could not support the draft as presented: “I will not be voting for this budget as it stands.”

A student speaker, Daphne, told the board, “I think that safety is the most important thing to our students right now.”

Process and next steps

Staff provided the board a three-page summary and a 41-page full budget document and explained how slides map to the summary and full budget for review. The superintendent and staff said they will return at the next work session to respond to board questions and that the board will have an opportunity to adopt the superintendent’s recommended budget as its draft at the Feb. 18 business meeting; a budget advocacy and review committee will gather stakeholder input before final board approval in April and the county commissioners’ budget action in May.

What the board asked staff to provide

Board members requested additional detail on several items, including: breakdowns of multilingual student country/language origin and updated counts; per-student costs for specialized programs; specific measures and evaluation plans for safety assistants and BCBAs; clarifications on summer-school staffing and transportation changes; and a list of positions added at the Center for Education Services over the last two years. Staff committed to returning answers at the next work session.

The board did not take formal votes during the work session; the superintendent described the presentation as an initial recommendation and invited further board input before the board adopts its draft budget.