Vancouver Public Schools

2026-27 Budget information

Our 2026-27 Budget Challenge

As we plan for next year’s budget, our school board has identified the need for a budget reduction of approximately $24 million dollars. In February the board directed our staff to create a plan for these reductions. You can read the full resolution directing staff to create a plan here. At the March 10, 2026 board meeting, the full Reduction in Force plan was presented to the board for consideration and they approved. 

READ THE FULL REDUCTION IN FORCE PLAN

We want to provide you with relevant and timely information as we go through this budget adoption and reduction in force process. We will continue to have regular updates at board meetings, and will share information and answers to frequently asked questions here so our community is informed and part of this process as we make and then implement these very difficult decisions.

Thank you for being committed to the success of Vancouver Public School students.

Why do we need to make more budget reductions?

Even after making $34 million in reductions in 2023-24, several cost pressures have continued to grow faster than the funding we receive:

  • State revenue has increased only slightly while districtwide expenses, such as staff compensation and operating costs, continue to rise each year.

  • Enrollment has declined more than expected due to lower birth rates and more families choosing homeschool or private school options.

  • Inflation continues to be higher than historical norms for the district, as it is for individual families. 

    • Property/liability insurance premiums have increased an average of 20% over the last six years, while state funding increases in this category has averaged less than 4%.
    • Inflation—especially the rising cost of health insurance and other benefits—affects our district even more than a typical household because employee salaries and benefits make up about 85% of our budget. State funding increases help cover some employees’ salary growth, but not all, and state funding especially has not kept pace with the sharply rising cost of employee benefits, leaving us with an ever-growing gap.

  • Special education continues to be significantly underfunded, and the needs of our students have increased at a far faster rate than state support.

  • Our fund balance has dropped to nearly zero because we have needed to use savings to cover costs. We now must begin restoring it for long-term stability.

The good news is that some of these increasing costs have been somewhat offset by increasing Levy Collections. We again thank our community for supporting public schools and students.

Projected 2026–27 budget deficit

Here is a breakdown of our funding gaps for 2026-27 and our total projected deficit:

A budget breakdown lists financial pressures for the 2026–27 fiscal year, including a $7 million baseline deficit, $8 million enrollment loss, $7 million to restore fund balance, $5.85 million in unfunded salary inflation, $2 million reduction in federal Title funding, $1.5 million increase to unfunded special education costs, and $1 million MSOC inflation. An offset of $4.7 million from additional levy collections is shown. The summary concludes with projected required reductions totaling $27.65 million. A footnote explains that the baseline assumes prior budget conditions continue unchanged.

Timeline

  • February

    • Develop model scenarios to meet the $28 million reduction goal
    • Work with district, labor, school leaders, and advisory committees to refine options (see below)
    • Review possible paths with the board for feedback
    • Adjust approaches based on board input

  • March

    • Board reviews—and may approve—a recommendation outlining a path to meet the reduction goal
    • If approved, notification of reduced staff would begin
    • Depending on collective bargaining agreements, this may include possible “bumping” processes

Board meeting budget updates

Basic budget information

We’ve received a number of questions about the breakdown of how our current overall budget funds are allocated. Here are two charts that show the breakdown of the overall budget by both service and expenses:

Pie chart titled “Budget by Type of Service.” Teaching represents the largest share at 56.7% of the budget. Teaching Support accounts for 17.2%, and Other Food Service, Maintenance, Transportation, and Support Services total 16.3%. School Office and Principals make up 5.8%, and District Office Support represents 4%. The chart illustrates that more than half of the budget is allocated directly to teaching, with additional support services comprising most of the remaining expenditures.
Pie chart titled “Budget by Type of Expense.” The largest portion of the budget is Certificated Salaries at 43.3%. Benefits make up 22.2%, followed by Classified Salaries at 20.4%. Supplies and Materials account for 8%, and Contracted Services represent 6%. Travel is 0.1%, and Capital Equipment is 0.0%. The chart shows that the majority of spending is directed toward employee salaries and benefits, with minimal allocation to travel and capital equipment.

Engaging our community

We invited our community to share priorities and questions regarding upcoming budget reductions through a ThoughtExchange survey which closed on February 21. 

The early results show that your priorities remain consistent with what we heard two years ago:

  • Protect student learning.
  • Support staff who work directly with our students.
  • Be thoughtful about how resources are used.

One message also came through clearly: our community wants to stay informed and be involved in the process.

Because of the short timeline, much of this community engagement and feedback occurred through the ThoughtExchange survey, as well as through meetings with labor leaders and advisory groups that represent students, staff, and families across our district.

Here is the upcoming engagement and decision-making timeline:

January–Mid February (ongoing) – ThoughtExchange feedback platform will remain open until Feb. 21, 2026

Meetings with Advisory Groups
1/29/26 – 2nd meeting with labor leaders
2/4/26 – Student Advisory
2/10/26 – Board meeting
2/11/26 – Updates to All VPS Staff via All Staff Connects
2/11/26 – Staff Advisory
2/17/26 – Board study session
2/18/26 – Community Schools Parent Leadership Advisory
2/20/26 – Equity Advisory
2/24/26 – Board Committee of the Whole meeting
3/10/26 – Board meeting; program and staff reduction resolution submitted for approval
3/11/26 – TBD – If the board approves the programs and staffing reduction plan we will apply reduction-in-force language per collective bargaining agreements

Frequently asked questions

Through our closed budget survey, we have received a number of questions and many comments asking about, or referring to, the level of cuts at each level in our last reduction of force in 2023-24. The information about the cuts at each level is in this chart. Please note that many groups, including central office administrators, took pay cuts or unpaid furlough days to offset even more loss of positions:

Central office positions recent history

Finally, a number of people are curious about staffing for administrative support at Central Office. While there is a perception Central Office did not have deep cuts during budget reductions two years ago, the reality is that the percentage of cuts was nearly twice that of any other staffing group, and the remaining administrators had furlough days which are forced unpaid days that reduce overall pay for the contract year. The Superintendent at the time also took a 15% reduction in pay.

Overall, Central office staffing has also been reduced by 36% since 2018-19. Here is the chart of Central Office staffing numbers over the last eight years:

Table comparing VPS central office staffing to statewide averages from 2018–19 through 2025–26, including total FTE, students per FTE, and cost per student. VPS total central office FTE declines each year from 98.29 in 2018–19 to a projected 63.22 in 2025–26, reflecting a 36% reduction overall. 2023–24 is the last year with published statewide data; later statewide figures are not yet available.

Additional frequently asked questions

  • There is a statewide challenge with school funding is not unique to VPS.
  • Enrollment is the primary and largest source of our funding and it is down approximately 10% since 2019-20. This is largely due to lower birth rates, as we continue to graduate larger classes than our incoming kindergarten classes, although some of it is still due to parent and student preferences and different choices.
  • Staffing costs (especially in very competitive regional and national labor markets) have dramatically increased faster than state and federal funding increases, which are indexed to inflationary calculations. (SOURCE: OSPI) See graph
  • The cost to provide needed special education services and the complexity of the required supports have grown much faster than state and federal funding and continue to do so at a very rapid rate.
  • Inflation has caused costs for supplies, energy, insurance, and other required expenses to increase dramatically in recent years while there has been little to no adjustment in state funding for these items.

This link shows the gap between basic education state funding and what our staffing costs are projected to be based on 2025-26 budget assumptions. VPS also significantly subsidizes state and federal funding for special education. Those formulas do not delineate specific special education staffing, so we do not have a good comparison for our special education staffing levels.

Local levy funding and most recently fund balance (cash reserves) are the non-state/federal funding used to provide these necessary subsidies. Our cash reserves are now essentially completely depleted. 

The statewide transition of school employees to SEBB for employee health insurance created significant cost increases compared to the previous system. Additionally, the McCleary ruling combined with an extremely competitive job market for qualified staff have dramatically increased wage levels. While state funding has also increased at higher-than-normal levels, it has not kept up with the necessary wage increases bargained by all of our employee groups and inflation.

We have decreased the staffing level and costs at central office over the last several years. The percentage of employees in Central Office reduced during our 2024-25 reductions were almost twice the percent of any other employee group. This table shows recent trends in Central Office staffing at VPS, along with statewide averages. We have worked to repurpose previous roles such as Deputy Superintendent to positions that directly support schools with learning and operations. This analysis does not include teachers on special assignment (TOSAs) which may have desks in the Central Office as their work, and often their funding source, is dedicated to a specific instructional program.

This is difficult to directly compare as many districts have very different structures and job titles than VPS. The VPS administrative organizational chart can be found here. Our intent is to support schools with direct service from our central office administrative staff. You may be able to find the org chart(s) of other comparable districts on their respective websites, but VPS is not aware of a standardized statewide report with org chart level details or comparisons.

 We have instructional hour and day requirements in our state. We could change the calendar/week to different schedules, but would still need to meet those requirements. It is unlikely that any type of calendar/week schedule would result in significant savings given the current requirements.

We will determine reductions based on feedback we heard from the community in our most recent budget reductions in 2024-25, along with the priorities outlined by our board. We will be sharing opportunities for our students, staff and community to weigh in on whether those priorities still align with their current wishes. One of our primary goals will be to lessen the impact to staffing categories most closely serving students, but with the reality that the vast majority of our expenditures are for staff that are directly serving students.

The more detailed, program-level decisions will be informed by our strategic plan and consultation with student, staff, parent and community advisory groups, as well as meetings with leaders of all labor groups.

The board of directors is responsible for approving the final budget. VPS leadership makes recommendations to the board based on cost analyses and feedback from multiple sources. Recommendations are made after consultation with staff, labor leaders, advisory groups (staff, parent, student, and equity) and input from our community.

These decisions will all be difficult because there are no positions or expenses that are not designed to directly or indirectly support students. We use student-centric student information focused on priorities that emerged through our strategic plan to help us center our community’s feedback on what they believe offers the most value, and will prioritize supports and services that have the greatest impact on our students.

Unfortunately, the breakdown of our costs doesn’t allow for that to be a realistic approach. Salaries and benefits are about 85% of our budget. Almost all of the remaining 15% goes to non-staffing–but essential–costs for items required either for safety, business requirements or by state mandates.

This 15% is reserved for cost items like utilities, property/liability insurance, custodial supplies, software for required state enrollment and fiscal reporting, etc.

There is a small portion of ‘discretionary’ non-employee costs which is less than the amount we need to cut to balance the budget.

We have been able to maintain higher than state-allocated staffing levels the past several years. We can no longer sustain those levels. With less staff to serve students, there could be an impact on class sizes, program options, and general services.

We understand and value the goal of protecting staff, and we did consider and explore the cost-benefits of closing and consolidating some neighborhood elementary schools.

What we found is that most costs follow students and that the cost savings are not as great as it seems they would likely be. When students move, staff and many expenses move too. Because of this, the savings are smaller than many expect—about $1 million.

We also cannot use money from selling a building to pay for staff. That funding is for “capital” costs and must stay separate from our day-to-day budget.

And, important to our decision, we recognize closing a neighborhood school would have a big impact on families and would require boundary changes, community input, and careful planning over time. This type of decision would take years, not months, to implement well.

We may continue to study this option and the potential related cost savings for the future, but it is not a quick solution to our current 2026-27 budget gap.

When we have a reduction in force, most of our collective bargaining agreements require reductions to be based on seniority. This means we must issue notices to a larger group of less-senior staff first to open positions for more senior staff whose roles were reduced – but not all notices ultimately result in job loss. 

The number of staff receiving notice in this round of reductions is also higher because we have a higher than usual number of staff returning from leave, fewer staff leaving or retiring, and declining enrollment, which together reduce the number of available positions.

Full details are shared in our April 1, 2026 message to our community.

Media articles

Statewide school funding challenges: A broader issue beyond our district

Washington schools: Underfunded & overburdened, Washington Association of School Administrators

Why are WA school districts facing budget woes, and what can be done to fix it?, The Olympian, Sept. 2025

Washington state’s school funding crisis is far from over | Editorial, Tri-City Herald, May 2025

Understanding public school funding, OSPI

Funding basic education by recognizing increased operating costs, OSPI

Submit your question/concern/idea