By Adam Pagnucco.
As the county council ponders funding MCPS at tens of millions of dollars beneath its requested FY27 operating budget, Superintendent Thomas Taylor has issued a warning to both the council and MCPS employees. His position is that depending on the council’s decision, MCPS’s adjustments could be painful.
Taylor put it bluntly to the council in an email sent today: “I implore – please don’t do this.”
First, some background.
MCPS is requesting a $180 million increase in the county’s appropriation this year. The county council has divided that amount into ten equal tranches of $18 million each for its consideration. The council could allocate all ten of them, none of them or any number in between. Today, the council has published a “priority block list” including four of them. At this point, I’m not sure about what that means – but a whole lot of folks are trying to find out!
According to council staff, MCPS’s tax-supported compensation is due to increase by $150 million this year. So let’s do some rough math. If MCPS were to get up to $30 million less than its request (a little more than a tranche and a half), they could avoid going into personnel costs. But if the amount below request is greater, personnel costs may have to go on the table. Personnel costs are positions (full-time equivalents), salaries and benefits.
MCPS would like to add 84 positions. (Consider that MCPS has more than 25,000 positions and it’s not a big increase.) This is one possible place to go for savings – just don’t add new positions. Another possible place is lapse, which involves leaving vacant positions unfilled to save money. After that, filled positions and/or collective bargaining agreements become factors.
In his communications to the council, Taylor indicates that he has relatively few vacancies, making lapse savings less relevant than in the past. He has now sent them a list of potential position reductions associated with each tranche below MCPS’s request.
But he has gone further than that. In a video message to MCPS employees sent this morning, Taylor said, “An email message has been sent to some of our teammates to let them know that their position or job classification might be listed and considered for a potential reduction. These messages are also by no means final or comprehensive as to where we will ultimately land at the end of this process. There may be more to come.”
Taylor is deadly serious and MCPS’s employee unions are mobilized for action. However, he faces the legacy of two years ago, when his predecessor’s administration threatened to implement layoffs and instead used vacancies, turnover and transfers to save money. These council members have seen MCPS cry wolf before.
Who will cry this time? MCPS employees? Students and their families? Taxpayers? Politicians? Or maybe some combination thereof?
Three documents follow: Taylor’s email to MCPS employees from today, Taylor’s communication to the council today and Taylor’s communication to the council on May 7. All are heavy reading, but collectively, they demonstrate the magnitude of the budget showdown occurring this week in Rockville.
*****
Taylor’s email to MCPS employees today
*****
From: Taylor, Thomas W <Thomas_W_Taylor@mcpsmd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026
Subject: [EXT]Important Update About Our Operating Budget for Next School Year
Dear MCPS Employees,
I am writing today to share extremely serious concerns about operating budget proposals currently under consideration by the Montgomery County Council for the 2026–2027 school year. You may have heard on the news or from others about the budget shortfall the County is facing.
What is currently being discussed has the potential to significantly impact Montgomery County Public Schools, you (our teammates), and the services we provide to students and families every single day. So please watch the video message from me, and read the rest of this message for more specifics on what we can expect in the coming days.
Watch Video https://mcpsmd.info/3Rz8SQw
I do want to acknowledge that this is a difficult fiscal environment for our county government funding partners. We understand the challenge of balancing many competing priorities across Montgomery County. None of this is easy.
Last week, I spoke directly to the County Council during a work session about what “less” would actually mean for MCPS. I spoke honestly about the consequences any reductions would have on our students, our staff, and the daily operation of this school system. They have asked me to share more details about what this will look like and I have provided them with a scenario about what potential reductions could look like – it looks awful.
The MCPS recommended operating budget was not built around expansion or excess; it was built around what is necessary to maintain our negotiated employee agreements, sustain services for students, address rising operational costs, and continue to strengthen the work happening in classrooms every day. It also reflects ongoing obligations that cannot continue to be deferred, including investments in aging facilities, failing HVAC systems, maintenance needs, and long-standing financial obligations related to employee benefits.
The reductions being considered range from $30 million to as much as $90 million (or more) below the MCPS proposed and Board of Education approved request. To be very honest with you, reductions on this scale are not manageable through “efficiencies.” They are not minor adjustments. At every level, they are significant. The possible reductions may be viewed here.
We are a system of people, not things. Approximately 90% of the MCPS operating budget is personnel costs, salaries and benefits for the people who make this school system work every day. And in our budget, there are only two places where reductions of this magnitude realistically occur: the number of people employed and what they are paid.
To put this into perspective, every $10 million reduction roughly equates to 100 full-time positions in MCPS.
MCPS has not experienced potential workforce reductions on this scale in many decades.
Some of you may remember that in past years, staffing adjustments could be managed through retirements, resignations, vacancies, and what is known as lapse and turnover savings. We don’t have that option now. Enrollment is declining, vacancies are fewer, and many positions require specific skills or certifications.
If the worst of these funding proposals become our reality, the impact would extend across the district and could affect all aspects of the work we do, the work you do for Montgomery County Public Schools.
The budget process will move quickly in the coming weeks, and we will continue to share information with you as we have it. I also ask that we support one another during this difficult time and extend empathy and compassion to colleagues who may be affected by these discussions and potential decisions. Thank you for continuing to support the students, staff, and families of Montgomery County Public Schools.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Taylor, Ed.D., M.B.A.
Superintendent of Schools
*****
Taylor’s communication to the council today
*****
To County Council this morning (May 12)
Good morning Councilmembers,
You have asked, both publicly and privately, for a detailed list of how we would reconcile the MCPS budget to a lower funding level than the Board’s request. I am writing to share my initial recommendation to the Board with you, and to inform you of the process we must initiate to implement reductions of this magnitude, should our funding levels be reduced.
In addition to advocacy for the school system’s needs, my responsibility is to make a proposal for the Board of Education’s consideration, and that is what I am sharing with you today. Linked HERE is a list of proposed reductions summarized by tranche of $17.9 million each (or as close as we could get it at this preliminary state), as you requested. These tranches are prioritized 1-5, with tranche 1 being the first set of proposed reductions, and tranche 5 being the last set of proposed reductions, depending on the level of funding from the Council. Please note the following:
- Position reductions do not reduce the MCPS funding associated with benefits. This is to prevent further exacerbating the damage already caused to our employee benefits fund.
- Each tranche includes a restoration of funds to account for lapse and for severance that will be owed by contract to employees who are reduced in force. These restorations do not necessarily reflect the full cost but will create fiscal capacity to address these requirements. As noted in my last email to you, the lapse and turnover concern is a real issue that cannot be taken lightly and could jeopardize the solvency of the school system.
Let me emphasize that this is a serious proposal. It is not possible to achieve budget savings on the order of tens of millions without major position reductions.
As we have noted before, the previous MCPS response to budget reductions was to make short term decisions to paper over the impact–decisions that led to long term consequences that we are working to address. I will not put forward a budget that creates a precarious fiscal condition for the district. Our reduction framework is made, reluctantly, from a strategic lens of focusing on access to core instruction, operational continuity, and fiscal stability.
I implore – please don’t do this. Not only will significant reductions negatively impact hundreds of County employees who live, work, and pay taxes here, but significant reductions to our funding request will have a substantial impact on the services that those hard working teammates provide. This will take years to repair. Our budget request reflects the immediate needs of the school system to turn things around for MCPS – please give me and the Board of Education the tools (resources) we need to get the results our community expects.
Next Steps:
In addition to advocacy for our needs, as the superintendent, I have a moral and professional obligation to let our employees know that their positions may be impacted in the coming weeks. This process must begin this morning.
- Employees in position groups or job classifications that may be impacted will receive a message sharing that possibility; and all employees will receive a message sharing the larger context of the budget process and potential reductions.
- Once the Council has identified the final funding amount for MCPS, we will refine this proposed framework to match the level.
- I will make a final budget reconciliation recommendation to the Board of Education based on the funding level that Council identifies.
- The Board of Education is scheduled to discuss budget reconciliation in its business meeting on May 21, and take final action on the FY27 Operating Budget on June 4.
- Due to the short time frame of these decisions, we will continue throughout this process to implement our contractual responsibilities to notify and place employees whose positions are or may be reduced.
This set of recommendations is designed to keep the impact as far away from direct classroom instruction as possible. None of the options are desirable (actually, they are all horrible and dishonor the positive impact that many of our hard working teammates have given to the County’s children and families). Again, I implore you to consider the gravity of drastic reductions to school services.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
Thomas
*****
Taylor’s communication to the council on May 7
*****
Subject: MOE, Vacancies, Involuntary Transfers, and Lapse
Dear Madam President and Members of the County Council,
Thank you so much for the opportunity to present the Board of Education’s FY 27 Budget to County Council. I know that the Council has difficult decisions to make this year (and all the time) and just like every other County agency, please know that our role is to make clear for you the ramifications of those difficult decisions. Though I am sure it doesn’t feel like it sometimes, we really are here to help and make clear that understanding. As promised, here is the follow up to the requests from Council. If there is additional information you need, please don’t hesitate to ask. We continue to be proud to be your partners.
Best,
Thomas Taylor
Superintendent of Schools
First – Vacancies, Involuntary Transfers, and Lapse. Here is a brief summary of our current standing.
This link is a spreadsheet with tabs for vacancies and employees in “involuntary transfer” status. Involuntary transfers are the immediate pool of potential people to fill vacancies.
Please note the following:
- Data pulled as of 5/6/26, and presented by bargaining unit
- Many vacancies are labeled “budget pending” as they are new position requests for FY27. Other vacancies may be reduced pending final budget action.
- Similarly, the number of involuntary transfers may increase pending final budget action.
- Currently, the number of vacancies exceeds the number of involuntary transfers for each bargaining unit, as you can see below:
IMPORTANT: Just looking at the Summary is not enough. The Summary would suggest that we have more vacancies than those that need placement. That’s why the detail in the spreadsheet is critical:
- Many of the vacant positions require specific specialization, certification, or other credential. For example, of the 52 MCAAP vacancies, 32 are principals or assistant principals (and some of which will create a domino effect). The SEIU positions include vacancies for maintenance and trades, and teacher vacancies include specific disciplines. Teachers are NOT commodities – being certified to teach Spanish is different than being certified to teach Math. This is very important.
- Placements for some employees may be complicated by these specific characteristics.
- Many of the vacancies may be reduced in the budget process; and many more filled positions may also be reduced in the budget process.
- Given all of these dynamics, we anticipate that the system may not be able to absorb all employees, particularly if additional significant position reductions result from significant budget reductions. We are close right now and at this moment, it is unlikely that we will fill every vacancy with involuntary transfers – consequently, additional changes to the Board’s adopted budget will mean real reductions in force. I feel that it is important to be very clear about this and note that these are real people and real jobs that serve kids.
Which brings us to Lapse. Our Lapse & Turnover is maxed out at $70m. As previously noted, this is not only a terrible business/accounting practice for school systems, this already dangerously too high. Given how tight our vacancies-to-involuntary transfer ratio is right now, this is a real problem that actually can’t be overlooked. Lapse only works when we have vacancies – we have and will have VERY few. If we are reduced further, this will be untenable – we will have to reduce Lapse with any position reduction just to stay solvent. This is not hyperbole – this is reality. The cost of any position reduction will actually cost more because of this. Eyes wide open, I just want to make sure you have all of the information to make the best decisions possible.
Second – MOE (School District Maintenance of Funding Effort by Localities). Our resident MCPS/Council co-historian prepared a brief history for your review. MOE has been the minimum funding requirement for public school systems in Maryland since at least the Thornton Commission’s work in the 1990s (work started in the 1980s). Prior to 2010, the law required that local governments fund schools at a per pupil amount not less than the prior year. In this framework, total school funding only increases or decreases with enrollment. The per pupil level however can only increase, and increases each time the funding exceeds the prior year’s per pupil amount. It is not sensitive to inflation, wage changes, or the addition of unfunded state, national, or local unfunded mandates – in short, the cost of doing business increases every year without the school district’s say so and they have to adjust by making reductions elsewhere when funded just at MOE.
FY10 was the first year that the Great Recession hit local government revenues, at least in Montgomery County. Given the dramatic fiscal emergency that was being experienced, all agencies agreed to reduced agency allocations. For MCPS, this included funding less than the MOE amount. MCPS and the County agreed on the funding level, and requested a waiver of MOE from the State Board. The State Board DENIED the waiver. This led to multiple years of MOE conflict, which really would not have occurred without the State Board’s denial. Prior to FY10, the County had funded over MOE by over $100 million each year for at least 15 years prior. It had literally never been a discussion. Suddenly it was an unreachable requirement. This also explains how per pupil spending fell off the mark for MCPS.
Without revisiting all the details, the County, MCPS, the State Board, and the State legislature went around and around the MOE law for 3 years. Ultimately, the following occurred:
FY11: Funding below MOE with a state board waiver
FY12: Funding below MOE without a state board waiver
FY12: Drastic changes in the MOE law prohibiting any funding below the MOE level
FY13-16: Funding exactly at the MOE level
FY17: $90 million above MOE (big jump to try to catch up to FY 10 levels, adjusted for inflation – still behind)
FY18-20: Lower amounts above MOE (around $30M above to try to catch up to FY 10 levels, adjusted for inflation – still behind)
FY20-22: Pandemic exceptions related to MOE to leverage one-time ESSER funds (this was a terrible idea for the long run)
FY23-26: Return to larger increases above MOE to catch up to FY10 levels, adjusted for inflation – still behind
Co-MCPS/Council Humble Historian’s opinion: MOE has always been an extremely dysfunctional law and a poor structure for determining funding. The original formula is so old, and not relevant to modern funding structures, let alone modern cost pressures – A LOT has changed since 2010, let alone the 1990s in terms of unfunded mandates and new expectations. Now that enrollment is declining for the first time in 40+ years, it is even less useful, since the likelihood of funding below the prior year’s level is slim and would be detrimental to the system.