Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Interpreting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board questions cost of sign‑language interpreting; staff says contracting remains cheaper than hiring
Summary
Trustees asked whether the district should hire in‑house interpreters or continue contracting; staff said current contracting remains less expensive even after accounting for benefits and that demand fluctuates by student need.
Board members on Sept. 9 asked whether the district should employ full‑time sign‑language interpreters rather than continue contracting outside firms. A staff member in special services said the district had considered the tradeoff and that contracting remains less costly when benefits are included.
“We bill us per hour. And within the bill per hour, we are not picking up benefits,” the staff member said, describing the current contracting model. The staff member said the district currently uses three full‑time contracted interpreters and expected to onboard an additional provider; bringing interpreters in‑house and paying benefits would “far outweigh the cost of doing the contracting,” the staff member said.
Board members asked how many students require interpreting services. Staff said demand fluctuates; typically two to three students require direct interpreting services in a given year, and the district recently added one unanticipated student who will need services this year. Staff said the district issues competitive bids for interpreter services and monitors usage; because interpreting is often a student’s primary communication method, assignments cannot be easily faded or shared across many students without a scheduling match.
What’s next: Staff said it will continue to issue bids and monitor service usage and costs; board members requested continued review of the market and cost comparisons for future budget planning.
