Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers and support staff urge board to raise pay as draft budget offers 1% and higher health premiums
Summary
At a public work session and budget hearing, dozens of teachers, education support personnel and union representatives urged the Washington County Board of Education to increase the draft 1% pay raise amid rising health-insurance costs and recruitment concerns; the board's budget committee outlined a $125.59 million funding request to county commissioners and recommended seeking additional local funding.
Dozens of teachers and educational support personnel told the Washington County Board of Education on March 17 that a proposed 1% across‑the‑board pay increase in the draft FY2027 budget would not keep pace with rising costs and threatens staffing stability.
“At 2.5% plus inflation and rising minimum wage, as teachers we deserve more than what is being offered,” said Shauna Mahalo, the union representative who read a series of anonymous statements from school staff, saying many teachers work more than 40 hours a week and pay classroom expenses out of pocket.
Multiple speakers described how a 1% raise combined with an expected 10% health‑insurance premium increase would leave many employees with lower net pay next year. “A 1% increase is effectively a salary reduction,” said Kyle Munley, a Northern Middle School teacher, adding that neighboring districts are offering larger increases that risk luring experienced educators away.
The board’s Budget Advocacy and Review Committee (BARK) presented its analysis of the superintendent’s draft, noting an enrollment decline of 71 students and a request to the county commissioners for $125.59 million — about $5.18 million more than the FY26 allocation and aligned with Maryland’s Blueprint funding requirements. Committee materials showed the draft budget includes $7.44 million for a 1% salary increase and an assumed 10% rise in employee health premiums; those two items account for roughly half of the new revenue in the plan, the committee said.
Speakers suggested options to increase the salary pool, including reallocating funds from programs some commenters characterized as cost‑inefficient (one speaker questioned the per‑pupil cost of an online program) and asking county government to assume recurring costs such as school resource officers and school nursing previously funded by the school system. “Request additional funding from the board of county commissioners that would implement shared funding of health nurses and school resource officers,” said Roger Stenderson of Rising toLearn.
Board members repeatedly thanked speakers and said they will continue budget deliberations. Several trustees signaled openness to exploring additional revenue or reallocations but also noted legal and practical constraints on the district’s authority to raise funds. The board reserved policy decisions and final budget votes for later public meetings and committee work sessions.
Next steps: the draft budget will proceed through the board’s public process and the county funding request will be considered with county commissioners. The board also scheduled follow‑up work sessions to discuss compensation strategy and possible county funding reassignments for recurring items such as SROs and school nurses.
