The proposed budget for Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) for 2027 has taken many by surprise, not least with its timing. Some impacted communities are still unaware that their students will be affected as soon as this summer by the interim superintendent’s proposed budget that was presented with specific cuts outlined for the first time only on January 22. The timeline is in clear violation of PGCPS Board Policy 3130, which states that the superintendent’s proposed budget must be presented to the board by the last regularly scheduled board meeting of December. A waiver may be requested, notes the policy, but it wasn’t. The difference in the timeline is between a budget presentation that should have taken place at a public meeting on December 1, 2025, and the presentation that happened seven and a half weeks later, on January 22, 2026. The FY 2027 proposed budget book was not published until January 30. In addition, PGCPS administration began acting on the superintendent’s proposed budget on January 23 as if it had been adopted, prior to any public hearings or the formal adoption of the budget by the board.
Abbreviated Timeline
PGCPS Board Policy 3130 outlines that the superintendent’s presentation of the proposed budget in December must be followed by a minimum of two public hearings to allow for community engagement and feedback and then the Board of Education must adopt a budget and submit it to the County Executive on March 1. Instead of three months between a December 1 presentation of the interim superintendent’s proposal and a March 1 submission, the Board of Education is now squeezing three public hearings into the month of February – one took place on February 5 and others were planned for February 12 and February 19. The Board of Education is scheduled to adopt their budget on February 26 and then transmit it to the county on February 27. Parents complain this hasn’t given time for meaningful engagement and feedback from those impacted, who are only now hearing about what is planned for their schools, communication that was delayed further by over a week of school closures and snow taking priority. In addition, PGCPS began acting on January 23 to close programs identified for cuts in the proposed budget, just a day after its presentation to the Board of Education, including sending letters to students who had already applied to affected programs. Yet those changes remain to date only a proposal by the interim superintendent, not yet adopted by the Board of Education.
Budget Only a Proposal
School Board Member Jonathan Briggs represents District Two, which includes Paint Branch Elementary where the 50/50 Mandarin language immersion program is set to be cut; Greenbelt Middle School, where the middle school Mandarin immersion program is to be phased out; and Dora Kennedy French Immersion, from which French immersion students will no longer be able to continue immersion education into high school. The cuts are also set to impact summer programs across the county, including the long-standing summer bridge program for Science and Technology students at Eleanor Roosevelt High School. “The intention was to be as communicative as possible with the community,” said Briggs, who agreed to speak with the News Review about the budget process and its timeline. He noted the Dollars and Decisions series of telephone townhalls, meetings and communications that began in the fall. However, the full details of who and what would be impacted by the cuts only became clear at the official presentation on January 22, he conceded. “All of these things are proposals,” Briggs said on Tuesday. He noted the board had their first budget worksession on February 5. Asked about students who received letters dated January 23 telling them immersion programs they’d applied to were no longer available, even though the budget is only a proposal, he said “[that] came as a shock to me as well, when we found out that those notices went out as though they were confirmed and approved by the board; they hadn’t been.” We also asked Briggs about the timeline, making changes to high school programs, for example, in the spring, to be implemented this fall, after students’ application period for next school year already took place. “I believe that that approach and that process is indefensible,” said Briggs. “The goal was for these Dollars and Decisions discussions to … continuously engage the community,” he said. The goal was to have the superintendent’s and board’s decisions be “completely transparent” and allow the community to anticipate the changes, said Briggs. “These discussions on February 5, 12 and 19 should be the discussion with the community about the proposals,” stressed Briggs, unable to speak to why letters and announcements about cuts had already been sent. “You’re absolutely correct that we didn’t have any formal discussions about any proposed cuts before January 22.”
The Board will approve a budget on February 26 and that should be the point for notices to families about any changes, after the board has voted on a budget, said Briggs. “Just for clarity’s sake, the board has not approved anything,” Briggs stressed. “We’re still being presented with what each department is saying are their final cuts.”
Last week PGCPS Senior Public Information Specialist Lynn McCawley said the same, writing, “Keep in mind this is the Interim Superintendent’s proposed budget that will move on to become the Board’s budget before it is presented to the county – so changes could be made to his proposal for immersion programs during the budget development process.”
Policy Violations
What are the consequences for violating board policies? “I think there should be consequences,” said Briggs. However, he was unsure if budget discussions that took place in December might have met the requirements of policies. On Wednesday, February 11, the PGCPS Office of Communications responded to the News Review’s request to know if a waiver had been submitted and for a copy of it if so. “No Waiver was needed,” wrote McCawley, “the FY2027 Budget Update presented on Dec. 1 served as the first presentation of the superintendent’s operating budget,” she wrote.
However, the update at the December 1 meeting did not share specific budget cuts or a full operating budget and was listed on the agenda as “Budget Update.” In contrast, the budget presentation appears on the January 22 agenda as “Interim Superintendent’s FY27 Proposed Budget Presentation,” and the budget presentatoin is advertised as taking place on that date on the website and elsewhere. In addition, there was no published budget book until January 30.
Consequences
Briggs says anyone can report what they believe is a violation to the Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC), which would investigate. Asked about whether an OIC investigation could make any difference to the budget process now or only offer an opinion after the fact, Briggs pointed to the investigation of former board member David Murray. There were consequences tied to the OIC investigation that went to the State Board in that case, he said, though they were discontinued because Murray stepped down. Yet, we noted that example could also be used to highlight the lack of consequences since Murray circumvented further procedures by stepping down and was recently able to be appointed as a Council Administrator for the Prince George’s County Council (see the January 15 issue).
Impact
Sasha Tyukavina, a parent and PTA member at Paint Branch Elementary School in College Park, said there has been “just a complete absence of communication.” People should be able to go to hearings while the budget is still being developed and be informed of the proposed cuts, she argues. “They knew it was going to happen. Dr. Joseph and his team were preparing for a long time but they didn’t include any stakeholders,” says Tyukavina. In fact, at an employee telephone townhall on November 18, 2025, reviewed by the News Review, Joseph, in response to a question about what the tough decisions could be, did say they were looking at cuts to underenrolled programs, without naming any. Tyukavina says there was a “transition” letter shared on ClassDojo on January 23, a day after the presentation of the proposed budget and the Friday before the snowstorm. That letter was dated January 27 and contained what she believes was “intentionally vague language” and communicated the immersion program’s “transition” as a fait accompli. At the time the community received that letter the budget book had not even been published, she noted.
Tiffany Kenworthy, parent of an immersion student at Greenbelt Middle School, told the News Review those parents were informed on February 4, in a meeting with the principal and academic dean, that there would be no new sixth graders entering the program. While the current students can finish the middle school program they entered, they have been told they won’t be able to continue on to a high school immersion since it is being cut. “This came without warning or input,” says Kenworthy.
An article in next week’s issue will look at how the proposed budget cuts will impact Greenbelt in particular.
The author has two children who currently attend a PGCPS immersion program that is not among those proposed to be cut.
