Worcester County board hears FY27 budget input as Maryland Blueprint shifts funding to school level

Worcester County Board of Education members heard a public input session focused on fiscal-year 2027 budget priorities and the local impacts of Maryland’s Blueprint for Education, including a shift that requires revenues to "follow the student" and more detailed, school-level reporting.

Superintendent Dr. Wallace opened the hearing by saying the budget process will keep students "at the center of every decision" and thanked families and staff for participating. Physical operations director Mr. Tolbert framed Pillar 5 of the Blueprint—the governance and accountability pillar—as the most operationally disruptive change, telling the board the Blueprint "is going to be phased in over a 10 year period with estimated cost between, local and state of about $3,900,000,000" and that revenue and expenditure reporting must now be done "by school."

Tolbert highlighted several compliance and cost items the district must absorb. He reminded the board that the Blueprint’s statutory schedule includes a $60,000 starting-teacher salary requirement effective July 1 and said Worcester County currently starts teachers at about $55,079, leaving "over $4,000 to get from where we are today to $60,000 to meet the requirement." He also described how NBCT (National Board Certified Teacher) supplements are intended to be split 50/50 between state and local shares but that a wealth-based formula reduces Worcester’s state share ("we get about 20% of that $10,000").

Mr. Tolbert gave a budget overview for the current year and the near term: "Our current year budget totals $140,485,350" and the operating budget is heavily labor-driven—"86.2% is salary and fixed charges." He noted specific mismatches between state aid and expenses: "for dual enrollment in '25, we actually saw a decrease in state aid for dual enrollment of about $42,000 while expenditure increases related to dual enrollment was $224,000," and "under special education, the total revenue increase was $354,000 but we saw expenditures and increases in special ed of $917,000." He also flagged rising health-insurance costs as locally borne.

Speakers from 14 schools and parent-teacher groups used the hearing to press overlapping priorities. Common requests included maintaining small class sizes, ensuring competitive teacher and support-staff compensation, regular technology replacement and infrastructure, and restoring funds for instructional materials. Edwin Blanco of Buckingham Elementary asked the district to "maintain smaller class sizes," while several SCIAC representatives and parents cited class-size counts and staffing needs at elementary and middle grades.

Beth Shockley Lynch, president of the Worcester County Teachers Association, summarized a teacher survey and said an "overwhelming priority, 90% of those responding said salary and compensation was their number 1 priority." Multiple speakers tied competitive pay to retention concerns, noting neighboring counties offer higher starting pay and that the Blueprint requirement will be a central negotiation topic.

Board members and staff framed the fiscal constraints the district faces. Board member Dr. Andes and Superintendent Wallace reiterated that Worcester receives a relatively low share of state aid under a wealth-based formula and that the county local share must carry most operating costs—Tolbert put the county local share at roughly 79.8% of operating revenue for the year presented. The administration asked the public to review posted PowerPoint materials on the district website and said all comments would be considered as the administration drafts budget proposals.

What happens next: board members said the input will inform FY27 negotiations and budget work with the county. Dr. Wallace listed upcoming calendar items, including a regular board meeting on Dec. 16; the district said the Blueprint implementation timeline requires reducing deficits by 50% during FY26 and full compliance by FY27, which begins July 1 next year. The board did not take any formal budget votes at the hearing; the session was an input opportunity and concluded with an adjournment motion that passed.

Reporting note: quotations and budget figures are taken verbatim from presentations given during the public hearing.