Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials tell committee substitute costs and special‑education spending are straining the 2026 budget
Summary
District finance and pupil‑services staff reported substitute-teacher costs are running above last year and special‑education expenditures were about $1.7 million over as of Oct. 31; staff said excess‑cost reimbursements and grants may cover deficits but timing and staffing shortages pose risks.
Bristol School District staff told the Finance and Operations Committee that substitute-teacher costs and special‑education spending are placing near‑term pressure on the 2026 budget.
A finance presenter reported that, as of Oct. 31, substitute expenses were above where they were at the same point last year — weekly invoices have been roughly $5,000 higher — and that the substitute line is likely to run over budget. The presenter said savings in teacher and paraprofessional salary lines from vacancies have offset some of the pressure but recommended continued monitoring and a possible reallocation of funds.
Committee members and staff discussed causes for rising substitute use, including expanded employee leave (including Connecticut paid‑leave provisions), a national shortage of substitute teachers, lower sub pay compared with neighboring districts, and increased frequency of absences. Staff said the district's substitute provider, ESS, is preparing an estimate of the cost to increase substitute coverage; the committee also discussed hiring short‑term, one‑year building substitutes funded from reserves as a temporary measure if allowed by accounting rules.
On special education, finance staff reported a deficit of about $1.7 million as of Oct. 31, primarily driven by out‑of‑district tuitions. Largely because purchase orders and encumbrances for many high‑cost placements are already in the system, staff said they expect excess‑cost reimbursement to cover much of the deficit but emphasized the final amount depends on the state reimbursement percentage and on student movement.
Director Martino reported district special‑education counts and program growth: 1,769 students receiving special‑education services (about 22.42%), 122 students in out‑of‑district placements, and 92 students in public out‑of‑district placements. Staff described growth in in‑district program capacity (38 district program classes) and noted the lead autism program increased to seven classes, many at higher-than‑planned enrollment, creating program‑capacity and staffing pressure.
Staff said the district is pursuing state seed grants and other funding to offset program expansion and is building in‑house capacity (reducing some contracted costs) where possible. The committee asked for a future focused report on substitute pay comparisons, the ESS estimate for increasing substitute capacity, the anticipated excess‑cost reimbursement claim (staff referenced an estimated $24 million submission this year), and per‑pupil special‑education cost trends for recent years.
Why it matters: Rising substitute costs and unpredictable special‑education expenditures can force midyear budget adjustments and affect classroom staffing and services. Committee members requested further information to weigh reserve use, short‑term hires, or changes to vendor contracts.
What happens next: Staff will seek ESS cost estimates, prepare comparative pay and per‑pupil trend data for special education, and present a follow‑up to the committee; no votes or formal budget adjustments were taken at the meeting because the committee lacked a quorum.
