Sarasota County Schools breaks down where they stand and actions taken to deal with the financial pressures they are facing

Sarasota County Schools Stakeholders,

Recent news has highlighted the financial challenges faced by Florida school districts. In Sarasota, we maintain a fund balance above 12%, provide top-notch employee compensation, and deliver excellent education; yet ongoing funding pressures require planning and action. While we didn’t create these challenges, it’s our responsibility to address them thoughtfully for the future of our staff and students.

These funding challenges largely stem from rising operational costs, state-level education budgets that are not keeping pace with inflation, and the evolving educational choice landscape. To navigate these obstacles, we are actively implementing strategic actions such as adjusting expenditures, seeking alternative funding, and prioritizing positions, programs, and resources that directly impact classroom learning. In light of this, it is essential to consider the current financial pressures we are facing.

Current Financial Constraints

• Student enrollment is the foundation for allocating state education funding to school districts in Florida. Each student represents a specific dollar amount in per-pupil funding. Over the past few years, Sarasota County’s enrollment has been relatively flat. For the upcoming school year, the Florida Department of Education projects a decline of approximately 300 students for our district schools.

This enrollment drop is not just a demographic trend—it’s also being driven by the expansion of the Florida Empowerment Scholarships, which now allow a broader group of families to use tax dollars for private and homeschool options. Many of the new students utilizing the Family Empowerment Scholarship are private or homeschool students, rather than students in our traditional public schools. Although every time a student leaves our district and uses one of these scholarships, funding is redirected away from Sarasota County Schools—costing nearly $45 million for the 2025-26 school year.

That means fewer dollars coming into the general fund, even as we continue to serve nearly the same number of students with the same fixed costs: school operations, transportation, staffing, and academic services. This financial pressure is becoming more significant each year, forcing difficult decisions about staffing, programs, and service levels—even when we are operating efficiently and improving academic outcomes.

• State funding has increased by just 1.3% this year, with most of that earmarked for the Teacher Salary Increase Allocation. Meanwhile, the state’s portion for the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) funding decreased by 5% for Sarasota. The FEFP is the primary way the state funds public schools, using a formula to account for various factors and distribute funding to all Florida school districts fairly. Additionally, changes to the formula for weighing certain student groups, such as ESE and ESOL, in the FEFP have resulted in a net decrease of approximately 200 weighted Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) for our district, costing the district millions in decreased revenue.

• A specific issue with the Family Empowerment Scholarships has resulted in a funding shortfall of approximately $2.5 million for our district. Nearly 250 students have been counted twice—once under private or home school enrollment and again under our district. The district should have received funding for educating these students, but instead, we are being charged as if they are being educated elsewhere. Currently, there has been no clear adjustment at the state level to correct this discrepancy.

• Costs are rising across the board. Medical insurance premiums are expected to increase by 11% this year, marking a nearly 30% three-year rise. FPL is projecting an almost 20% increase in utility costs, and we continue to see increases in food, fuel, and operational expenses.

• Property values, which help fund schools, increased by just 3% this year, down from the higher increases we’ve seen in previous years. This necessitates adjustments to align with the lower-than-expected revenue growth.

• The operating costs associated with new schools, such as Skye Ranch School and Wellen Park High School, must be fully accounted for during budget planning. While the construction of a school is funded with capital funds (which are restricted to buildings, land, and infrastructure), the costs to operate the school—such as utilities, transportation, staffing, and daily services—are paid from the general fund. These are recurring expenses that begin when the school opens and continue every year.

Opening a new school increases the district’s general fund obligations in multiple ways:

• Staffing – Each new school requires administrators, teachers, counselors, clerical support staff, custodians, food service personnel, and school safety personnel. These salaries and benefits are paid from the general fund.

It is not possible to transfer staff from other schools on a one-to-one basis. Existing schools still need to maintain operations and appropriate staffing levels, so new hires are often necessary to fully staff the new school without compromising service at others.

• Utilities – Electricity, water, internet, and other utility costs increase with each new facility.

• Transportation – New bus routes must be added or expanded to serve students attending the new school, which will increase fuel costs, driver hours, and vehicle wear.

   

• Custodial and Maintenance – Daily cleaning, grounds keeping, supplies, and upkeep for new square footage add to the workload and cost.

• Food & Nutrition Services – Each school requires food service operations, including personnel and startup supplies.

• Safety and Security – Every new school requires its security presence, including officers, surveillance systems, and access controls.

Unlike one-time construction expenses covered by capital funds, these operational costs must be sustained on an annual basis. As general fund revenue growth is slow, particularly due to enrollment declines and increased diversion of state funds, these new recurring expenses create a long-term strain on district budgets. Careful planning is required not just to build a school, but to fund the full cost of running it.

• The expiration of federal ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) funds, which temporarily helped districts like ours respond to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts, has further tightened our budget. While we knew this sunset was coming and began planning for it, the reality is that these funds were previously used to temporarily support 182 positions across the district—positions that were never intended to be sustained long term without a new, ongoing funding source.

ESSER enabled us to hire additional staff to address student learning loss, expand mental health services, enhance safety measures, and provide urgently needed academic interventions and support during and after the pandemic. However, now that ESSER has ended, the cost of maintaining those 182 positions—across instructional, support, and administrative roles—must be absorbed into the general fund or eliminated.

Given the flat or declining enrollment, inflationary cost increases, and revenue diversions, it is not financially feasible to maintain all these positions. The expiration of ESSER has effectively removed a temporary financial buffer, forcing difficult decisions about which services can be preserved and which must be scaled back. This is not a reflection on the value of these roles, but rather on the unsustainable funding structure under which they were introduced.

• There is a growing strain on our Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) program. During the pandemic, federal meal reimbursement rates were temporarily increased, allowing districts to stabilize and expand meal services without relying on general fund support. However, those rates have now returned to pre-pandemic levels, and the financial pressure on local food service programs is becoming more apparent across the state—and here in Sarasota.

To maintain meal quality and service levels for students, we plan to allocate funds from the general fund to support the FNS program in the upcoming fiscal year. This step is necessary to absorb the funding gap created by lower reimbursements and rising operational costs.

Just as the expiration of ESSER funds has forced difficult but strategic choices across our district, the shift in federal meal funding is another example of how pandemic-era supports are fading. At the same time, the costs of running schools continue to climb.

• The investment in increasing compensation for our employees has resulted in one of the most competitive total compensation packages for teachers in Florida. This investment, as deserved as it is, has come at a cost of over $70M since 2023. The last two years have resulted in nearly a 15% increase in compensation through the 2025-26 school year:

These raises are meaningful and necessary in honoring the hard work and dedication our staff brings to our students every day. We are proud that, for the upcoming school year, Sarasota County Schools will offer the second-highest starting teacher salary in the state, $60,000.

Upholding the 2025-26 commitment we have made to our employees isn’t just a financial decision; it’s a reflection of who we are as a district. Our staff have earned these raises. They deserve them. And keeping our promise is essential to maintaining the trust that fuels our shared mission: to engage, empower, and elevate every student, every day.

Recognizing this combination of factors, we have acted thoughtfully and strategically. Our goal has been clear: minimize direct impacts on classroom instruction and student learning, while taking meaningful steps to protect the district’s financial stability.

Some of these actions are already complete. Others are ongoing. Additional actions will be taken as we determine how enrollment and funding evolve.

So, what actions have we taken?

Cost Containment Measures

The district has taken a series of direct and targeted steps to control costs, including:

Procurement Restrictions

• A pause on out-of-county travel, unless mandated or mission-critical, with Superintendent approval.

• A reduction in discretionary budgets at both the district and school levels, ensuring essentials remain intact.

• Transfer of allowable expenditures from our General to Capital fund.

• A review of all contracts, attempting to negotiate lower rates, eliminating redundancies, and prioritizing proven tools.

• Discontinuing districtwide funding for targeted supplemental instructional software programs due to consistent underutilization across the district. Usage data indicate that many of these tools have not been effectively integrated into classroom instruction or have experienced declining engagement over time. While these resources may offer instructional value when used consistently and with fidelity, continuing to fund them at the district level is not a fiscally responsible use of limited resources. Moving forward, schools that have effectively implemented these tools and wish to continue using them may do so by purchasing site licenses using their discretionary budgets.

• We will be maintaining all core, intervention, acceleration, blended learning, special programs, and highly utilized supplemental instructional software for the upcoming school year

Programs being discontinued from districtwide funding:

• Accelerated Reader (Grades K–5)
• BrainPop/BrainPop Jr (Grades K–12)
• DBQ (Grades 6–12)
• Flocabulary (Grades K–12)
• Packback (Grades 9–12)
• TumbleBooks (Grades K–5)
• Writable (Grades 6–8)

Staffing Actions

• A districtwide hiring freeze is in place to preserve current vacancies for potential staff reassignments following adjustments to student enrollment after the 5th day student count. However, specialized positions that are not expected to have surplus staff available for reassignment will remain open for hiring. These include, but are not limited to:

• Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs), and Clinic Aides
• Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) and Occupational Therapists (OTs)
• Bus Drivers
• Skilled Trades: HVAC, Maintenance, Electricians, Plumbing
• Grounds Crew
• Substitute Custodial Staff
• Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)
• Others are identified on an ongoing basis

• This approach ensures we prioritize existing staff placement while continuing to fill critical service positions essential to daily operations.

• Reductions through attrition and no backfilling of vacancies from resignations or retirements for targeted positions.

• As part of our effort to streamline operations and protect resources for direct student services, we conducted a thorough review of all school and district-level administrative positions. This analysis focused on whether the work tied to each position could be redistributed, automated, or absorbed without negatively impacting core functions.

As a result, the following existing administrative positions were eliminated:

• Supervisor – Student Services
• Parent and Family Engagement Admin
• Chief of Staff
• Federal Grant Budget Specialist
• Manager – Safety & Security Technology
• Transportation Area Manager (2)
• Transportation Training Supervisor
• Strategic Planning & Special Projects Manager
• Safety and Security Coordinator (2)
• Program Manager
• Family Navigator
• Assistant Director of Vo Tech
• Assistant Principals (3)
• Manager – Marketing & Communications
• Business & Financial Services Administrator
• Police Sergeant

This targeted reduction in administrative staffing helps ensure that our limited funds remain focused on supporting students and classrooms, not overhead. It reflects a commitment to fiscal discipline while maintaining the quality and continuity of essential services.

• As part of our broader effort to align staffing with actual needs and preserve funding for direct instructional services, we also conducted a detailed review of classified (non-instructional) positions across the district. This review focused on the utilization of roles, workload demand, and the capacity of schools and departments to maintain essential functions despite certain roles being discontinued.

Following that review, the district eliminated the following existing classified positions:

• Registrars (3)
• Registrar Assistants (4)
• Bookkeeper Assistants (7)
• Middle School Career Advisors (9)
• Technology Support Professionals (25)
• Custodians (10)
• Cafeteria Aide (1)
• Media Monitorial Aides (6)
• Print Services Technician (1)
• Truancy Workers (2)
• Executive Secretary (1)
• Purchasing Buyer (1)

These reductions were based on a combination of factors, including:

• Duplicated responsibilities or overlapping support functions.
• Declining workload or reduced service demands.
• Shifts in technology that allow existing staff to perform duties more efficiently.
• Low usage or underutilization of support in specific jobs.

Where feasible, duties from eliminated roles are being absorbed by existing staff or addressed through updated systems and scheduling efficiencies.

The restructuring of the Technology Support Professionals (TSP) model will better align with the service needs and available resources. Previously, TSPs were assigned directly to schools, with most campuses receiving support from one to two support staff, regardless of workload, ticket volume, or the complexity of technological needs. The district is shifting to a regional support model, reducing the number of TSP positions from 52 to 28.

Under the new structure, TSPs will be assigned to regional clusters of schools, allowing for more balanced coverage and response times. Staffing decisions are based on data, including ticket volume, device counts, and response times, rather than uniform distribution. The new regional approach preserves quality service delivery while reducing staffing overhead.

• To maintain financial stability while protecting direct instruction and student outcomes, we implemented reductions in targeted instructional positions. These decisions were guided by enrollment trends, program usage, and an evaluation of which roles can be sustained without compromising the quality of services to students.

The following instructional positions were eliminated:

• Middle School Testing Coordinator/Data Coaches (9)
• Schoolwide Behavior Coaches (32)
• School Psychologist (1)

• The Schoolwide Behavior Coach positions, many of which were only added in the last few years using temporary ESSER (federal COVID relief) funding, could not be sustained with the expiration of those funds. As a result, the district reduced 32 positions. However, this does not eliminate all behavior support services.

• All Title I schools will continue to have a behavior coach.
• Select non–Title I schools will also retain behavior coaches based on behavioral data and student needs.
• This ensures support is maintained where it is most needed while aligning staffing with available funding.

• Reductions in Middle School Testing Coordinator/Data Coach positions reflect the district’s capacity to integrate those support functions into school-based leadership teams. This mirrors the longstanding practice at the elementary level, where administrative

   

  teams have effectively managed assessment coordination and data responsibilities without the need for separate, dedicated positions. As enrollment declines and operational costs rise, consolidating these roles within the administrative structure is a sustainable approach that maintains accountability and support without duplicating personnel.

• Moving forward, we will shift from a blanket assignment model to a more strategic, data- informed approach for deploying literacy coaches and interventionists. In the past, schools received one to three literacy coaches and an interventionist, but there was no clear alignment with student data.

Under the new model:

• Elementary Title I and K–8 schools will receive two allocations:

   

  • 1 Literacy Coach and 1 Interventionist

• Elementary non-Title I schools will receive one allocation:

   

  • 1 Literacy Coach and 1 Interventionist

• Secondary schools will receive either one Literacy Coach or share a coach with another secondary school based on school-specific data.

In addition to these on-site allocations, all schools will continue to benefit from the support of district literacy specialists, who will provide coaching, modeling, and technical assistance aligned to district priorities and school-based goals. These specialists will help ensure continuity of best practices, monitor implementation, and provide targeted expertise that complements the work of site-based coaches and interventionists.

This change supports a more effective use of personnel by aligning resources with schools that have the greatest instructional needs—ensuring staffing is based on actual student performance, rather than preset formulas. Schools will now be better positioned to target interventions where they’ll have the greatest impact on reading achievement.

• We have adjusted the number of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Liaisons from 35 to 16 as part of a shift to a more targeted, regionally based support model. This adjustment will not reduce the direct services we provide to English Language Learners (ELLs). It reflects a change in how support is coordinated, not a cut to the services students receive.

• The ESOL liaison’s primary responsibility is not directly working with students. Their primary responsibilities include:

   

   

  • Supporting communication between schools and families who speak languages other than English.
  • Assisting with translation and interpretation needs, often coordinating rather than performing the service themselves.
  • Assisting school staff in understanding and complying with state and federal ESOL requirements.
  • Facilitating access to community resources for multilingual families.
  • Serving as a liaison between families and school staff to help navigate the school system.

• By organizing liaisons regionally, each will serve a defined cluster of schools. This increases consistency, avoids duplication, and ensures support is distributed more evenly based on needs. The new model aligns staff based on data, such as student caseloads and language needs.

• The adjustment does not impact ESOL-certified teachers or instructional support staff who work closely with ELL students daily. Instructional support and language acquisition services remain unchanged.

• Following a comprehensive review of our Exceptional Student Education (ESE) department in 2024, Sarasota County Schools revised its ESE staffing model to better align with both student needs and operational sustainability.

Before 2024, our inclusion/resource staffing ratio was approximately 1 ESE teacher for every 37 students, a model that lagged behind best practice recommendations. In response, we implemented a more aggressive ratio. For example, in elementary schools, our allocation was a 1-to-20 ratio, exceeding the recommended standards to rapidly expand student support. While well-intentioned, the model proved impractical:

• It created far more positions than the labor market could realistically fill, resulting in widespread vacancies.
• The inability to fully staff these roles led to gaps in service continuity, despite an increased number of allocated positions on paper.
• The imbalance placed unnecessary strain on existing personnel and created inefficiencies in resource use.

To address these challenges, the district is adopting a revised inclusion/resource staffing ratio. By level, this means:

• Elementary: from 1:20 to 1:25
• Middle: from 1:25 to 1:27
• High: from 1:27 to 1:30

This adjustment remains within the recommended range outlined by the 2024 departmental review and reflects a more realistic outlook. It supports long-term sustainability, provides a stable and predictable framework for schools to plan support, and preserves service quality.

For VE/Self-Contained classes, the new ratio is set at 1:15. While this represents a slight adjustment from the previous 1:12–15 range, it reflects how we’ve consistently staffed toward the top of that range already—particularly when student needs warrant it.

All specialized ESE programs (IND, ASD, EBD) remain staffed at a ratio of 1:10, and these ratios have not changed.

21.6 allocations reduced ESE Instructional Facilitators (EIF). All schools continue to have an ESE Instructional Facilitator (EIF) assigned to them. Allocations range from a minimum of 0.5 to as much as a full 3.0. The EIF allocation formula prioritizes PreK–12 specialized programs and high school deferral programs.

As part of this realignment, the district has reduced 31 ESE paraprofessional positions. This reduction was based on a review of current student enrollment and IEP-driven staffing needs, including students who have exited the system or no longer require aide support. Staffing continues to be adjusted based on verified student-level need, not position counts.

• Adjustment to Safety and Security allocations:

• House Bill 1473 (2024) added additional requirements for training, reporting, and staffing “while students were on campus.” This terminology required us to hire additional after-hours safety and security personnel to ensure compliance, including evening activities.

• Because of the vagueness of the language in 2024, Senate Bill 1470 passed this year (2025), defining the timeframe that all school safety measures must be in place as 30 minutes before the start of school until 30 minutes after the school day ends. This eliminates the need for 10 after-hours security aides, five after- hours SROs, and one after-hours sergeant.

• SB 1470 also centralized many reporting requirements and shifted some of the compliance responsibilities. This reduces some of the administrative burden, such that the number of additional staff hired to manage, including 6 School Safety Officers and 2 Safety and Security Coordinators, was reduced.

• These reductions do not compromise any of our existing safety measures for our students.

• School counselor-to-student ratios for the 2025–26 school year reflect an adjustment to staffing formulas due to budget constraints and the expiration of temporary federal funding (ESSER). These adjustments are designed to maintain services while aligning staffing with available recurring revenue.

• Comparison to Pre-ESSER (2021–22): The 2025–26 ratios remain in line with the pre-ESSER levels (which were 1:750 for elementary and 1:450 for high or middle).

• Current (2023–25): Elementary and Middle schools were staffed at a base ratio of 1:400 and 1:450, respectively. Additional fractional or full positions were added as enrollment increased above those thresholds.

• New (2025–26): The base ratio shifts to 1:699, with tiered staffing increases:

   

   

  • 2 counselors for 750-999 students (Elementary School)
  • 2 counselors for 700–999 students (Middle School)
  • 3 counselors for 1,000+ students
  • High schools will continue to be staffed at a 1:400 base ratio, with add- on positions funded separately as needed.

What is the result of all these adjustments together? Every employee in an impacted position is being offered a suitable position within the district. I would like to thank SC/TA for their partnership in this process, which has unfolded over the summer months. Their collaboration has helped ensure we focus on solutions that support both our staff and students.

Instead of postponing tough decisions until fall, we acted in the summer to give employees more time and options, minimizing disruption for students and schools.

Overall, these adjustments have fallen more heavily at the district level than at the school level proportionately.

To date, here is a breakdown of adjusted positions on our general fund:

• School-based reductions for instructional, classified, and administrative staff have been 4% for each of those classifications.
• District-level instructional staff have seen a 2% reduction.
• District-level classified staff have been reduced by 6%.
• District-level administration has been reduced by 10%.

What’s Next

So, what’s next?

As we do every year, we’ll closely monitor student enrollment through the 5th day of school. This is standard practice across Florida school districts. These 5th-day adjustments often result in shifting staff from schools with lower-than-projected enrollment to those with higher-than- projected enrollment. When fewer students enroll at a school than expected, some teachers and staff are surplussed and placed where enrollment is higher—ensuring staffing aligns with actual student demand.

By acting throughout the summer, we’ve already absorbed much of the disruption that typically comes during this adjustment window. If further changes are needed, we’ll approach them thoughtfully and in alignment with our collective bargaining agreement. Our goal remains to have all staff settled into their permanent roles by Labor Day.

I wish I could say that this is the last time we need to make budget adjustments, but the reality is that we’re likely to face ongoing impacts to education funding. One clear example is the upcoming opening of the new high school in Wellen Park in August 2026. While it’s an exciting milestone, it also brings added costs that must be balanced against our projected revenue. The bottom line is this: managing the district’s budget is a continuous cycle. It requires constant monitoring, planning, and adjusting as conditions change. We’ll continue to make the necessary decisions to stay financially responsible while keeping student needs at the forefront.

We’ve created a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) resource below to address many of the concerns we’ve heard so far. If you don’t see your question there, you can also submit it directly using this link. Please check back regularly for updates and new information as they become available.

In times of change, misinformation is bound to spread. Our job is to lead with transparency and stick to the facts. That’s why I’ve laid them out clearly—so when something doesn’t sound right, you have the facts to verify it.

We are more than capable of meeting the challenges ahead, and we will. Sarasota County Schools remains firmly committed to providing a premier education for our students and outstanding working conditions for our staff.

That commitment guides every decision we make. While adjustments have been necessary, they have been thoughtful, strategic, and rooted in data. We are operating from a position of strength, not crisis, and our actions are designed to maintain that strength in the long term.

We’re not just reacting to the moment; we’re planning for the future. And with the people we have in this organization, we’ll continue to do what Sarasota does best: deliver excellence to every student, every day.

I’m more than excited for the year ahead. We have strong schools, dedicated staff, and a community that cares deeply about education. Together, we’re positioned to make 2025–26 our most successful and rewarding year yet.

We look forward to welcoming everyone back for what we know will be an outstanding school year.

Respectfully,

Terry Connor
Superintendent of Schools