Howard County's school district will face a budget shortfall despite last-ditch efforts
The Howard County Public School System is still facing a budget shortfall after the county's fiscal year 2026 budget was approved on Wednesday.
The county council voted to approve more than $2.7 billion in operating and capital funds after tense debates, primarily about funding for public schools.
The school district received more than what was originally proposed, however, it's still not enough to fill the school district's gap to balance its budget.
Overall, the county's FY26 operating budget is $2.35 billion, while the capital budget is $365 million.
The final totals
Before approving the budget, some county councilmembers tried some last-ditch efforts to increase HCPSS's allocation in the county operating budget.
Initially, Howard County Executive Calvin Ball allotted around $800 million to the school district. Ball then filed emergency legislation to increase the share by $14.5 million from surplus funds.
It came after hours of public testimony asking for the county to increase school district funding, and after HCPSS said it needed a minimum of $29.2 million more to pay for existing services and employee compensation, and benefits.
Overall, HCPSS is slated to get $816 million in the budget, which means the school district is anticipated to make at least $13 million in cuts for the next school year.
Howard County Councilwoman Deb Jung tried to increase HCPSS's share by more than a million, but the amendment failed to pass.
Council chair Liz Walsh also said she tried to find $8 million to give to public schools.
"I worked very hard to make sure that every cut I did make to our county budget was surgical; it would not hurt any of the departments," Jung said.
Council vice chair Opel Jones and councilwoman Christiana Rigby consistently voted down attempts to increase public school funding.
Jones noted that if the school district got more money, there would have to be cuts made elsewhere.
"Any red cent that we come up with, we're pulling from somewhere else," Jones said.
Rigby said she recognizes the need to increase public schools' funding, but adds there have been other factors, like federal funding uncertainty and the state deficit, to consider this cycle.
"It's been very challenging because the local conversation is not taking into account what is happening outside of it," Rigby said.
Overall, even though the approved HCPSS funding is higher than what the county's legally obligated to give, Walsh still isn't pleased.
"I feel like this budget, as proposed and passed today by the majority of my colleagues, is a grave disservice to the Howard County Public School System," Walsh said in her closing remarks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
27 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Direct pay to college athletes starts July 1. Some key dates tied to implementation of settlement
It took five years for the $2.8 billion antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA and five major conferences to reach a settlement. Now comes the process for implementing it. Following are significant dates: Settlement approved; settlement-related NCAA rules are effective, as adopted by the NCAA Division I Board on April 21, 2025. NIL Go portal launches. Opt-in deadline for non-defendant schools to fully commit to revenue sharing. First date for direct institutional revenue-sharing payments to student-athletes. Opt-in schools must 'designate' student-athletes permitted by the settlement to remain above roster limits. With the exception of the 'designated' student-athletes, fall sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition. With the exception of 'designated' student-athletes, winter and spring sports must be at or below roster limits by their first day of competition or Dec. 1, whichever is earlier. ___ AP college sports:
Forbes
29 minutes ago
- Forbes
Musk Follows Harvard In Biting The Hand That Feeds
Elon Musk and Harvard Both Bite the Governmental Hand that Feeds Them From an early age, children are taught essential lessons: do not play with fire, do not pet strange dogs, and if one cannot swim, stay out of the deep end. Another timeless rule—often forgotten by those in positions of immense wealth and influence—is this: do not bite the hand that feeds you. This lesson, while simple, has profound implications in the real world. It applies just as readily to billionaires and institutions as it does to children on a playground. Yet recent actions by both Elon Musk and prominent academic institutions—most notably Harvard, but also Columbia, MIT, and others—suggest that even the most successful individuals and organizations are capable of ignoring foundational wisdom. Harvard set the tone. Amid growing political scrutiny and a shifting cultural landscape, the university has drawn intense criticism over its handling of campus protests, particularly those involving slogans such as 'from the river to the sea.' The administration's decision to defend even the most controversial speech—widely viewed by many as antisemitic—has triggered investigations and jeopardized billions in tax-exempt status and government research funding. This raises a critical question: is this truly the hill worth dying on? Is preserving the right to controversial protest slogans worth risking Harvard's institutional future? It is doubtful that most students and faculty would knowingly trade funding, grants, and prestige for this fight. Elon Musk, the world's richest man, has now followed suit—this time turning his attention toward President Donald Trump, with whom he has launched a high-profile and personal feud. What makes this move especially striking is that President Trump is not a distant figure or a fading influence. He is once again sitting in the White House, wielding executive authority over regulatory agencies, defense contracting, and infrastructure initiatives—all areas that directly affect Musk's companies. Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI have flourished in part because of government partnership. SpaceX alone holds multibillion-dollar contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense. Tesla has benefitted from years of energy subsidies and EV tax incentives. Picking a fight with the sitting president—regardless of personal conviction—puts this entire ecosystem at risk. And again the question must be asked: is this battle worth the damage? Whatever principle Musk may be defending, the consequences extend far beyond himself. Shareholders, employees, and retail investors—many of whom placed their trust and savings in his leadership—are the ones left exposed. The parallel between Harvard and Musk is striking: both have been immensely successful, aided in large part by government funding, favorable regulation, and public goodwill. And both have, for different reasons, chosen to confront the very institutions and leaders that have helped sustain their growth. There is precedent for how this ends. Jack Ma, once the most powerful entrepreneur in China, famously criticized the Chinese government. The backlash was immediate and absolute. His companies were dismantled. His IPO was cancelled. His wealth and influence evaporated almost overnight. Even in less authoritarian systems, the lesson holds: those who antagonize the systems that support them may not survive the consequences. While Musk's personal net worth has dropped from nearly $450 billion to approximately $300 billion, the impact is more symbolic than practical for him. But for millions of investors, employees, and stakeholders, these battles matter. Market volatility, regulatory backlash, and reputational risk all come with tangible financial costs—costs borne not just by Musk himself, but by those who have trusted and invested in his vision. The same applies to Harvard and peer institutions. Their leadership may believe they are standing on principle, but the price of alienating government agencies and key financial backers could reshape the long-term trajectory of these universities. The erosion of public trust, the loss of bipartisan support, and the potential withdrawal of federal funding pose existential threats. Leadership—whether in business or academia—requires more than conviction. It requires judgment, timing, and the discipline to separate personal ideology from institutional responsibility. Founder-led companies often outperform when leaders are focused, visionary, and measured. But when ego replaces strategy, the consequences can be swift and severe. No one is demanding absolute political alignment or silence in the face of controversy. No one is asking Elon Musk to wear a MAGA hat. But his recent actions have been so volatile, so self-destructive, that investors may soon be tempted to hand him something else entirely—a MEGA hat: Make Elon Great Again. In today's polarized environment, the margin for error has narrowed. And for those who owe much of their success to public support—whether in Silicon Valley or the Ivy League—biting the hand that feeds is not just unwise. It is unsustainable. ---------------------------------- Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Please refer to the following link for additional disclosures: Additional Disclosure Note: The author has an affiliation with ERShares and the XOVR ETF. The intent of this article is to provide objective information; however, readers should be aware that the author may have a financial interest in the subject matter discussed. As with all equity investments, investors should carefully evaluate all options with a qualified investment professional before making any investment decision. Private equity investments, such as those held in XOVR, may carry additional risks—including limited liquidity—compared to traditional publicly traded securities. It is important to consider these factors and consult a trained professional when assessing suitability and risk tolerance.
CNET
33 minutes ago
- CNET
Stay Hydrated With Stanley Drinkware, Now Up to 40% Off for Father's Day
If staying hydrated is on your list this summer (as it should be), you need a water bottle that's not just big enough but also keeps your water cold for hours on end. Stanley's drinkware is a solid choice, and with current discounts, you don't have to spend a fortune. The brand is currently running its Father's Day sale, with up to 40% off everything from tumblers to pitchers to flasks (lunch boxes too). As someone who's just started taking hydration seriously -- thanks to her Stanley tumbler -- I highly recommend not missing out on these steep discounts. All the deals are around only for a limited time. We don't know how long the sale or the stock is going to last, so you might want to hurry. Some of our top picks from the sale include the 30-ounce Stanley IceFlow 2.0 flip straw tumbler, which comes with an easy-carry handle. This one keeps your drinks cold for up to 20 hours, or iced for up to three days, making it perfect for those long days when you're out and about. It can be yours for just $26 after a 25% discount right now, and you can choose from multiple colors. If you're after a bigger size, consider the 40-ounce tumbler with the same features, now for $34. For people who can't part with their hot coffee or tea even in the summer, the 12-ounce stay-hot camp mug is now available for just $20. And why stop at drinks when you can also grab the 14-ounce Stanley classic food container at a 14% discount? It can keep your food hot or cold for up to 7 hours. Why this deal matters Stanley products are known for their durability and that classic minimalist design, but they often come with a higher price tag. This sale lets you grab some of the top-rated options at a discount of up to 40%, making it a great time to invest in your drinkware or related items for a lot less.
