The questions began in the spring: should Bridgeport seek more financial oversight? Could state intervention help bring the district more funding?
The answers, officials say, were not convincing enough to move forward at the time. And school board members remain unconvinced it’s the right move going forward, they told The Connecticut Mirror.
State law allows local and regional boards of education to request that the state Department of Education develop a fiscal intervention and oversight plan. The plan would be reviewed by the Municipal Accountability Review Board, known as MARB, and would require approval from the Office of Policy and Management and the State Board of Education. Although the process could make additional state funding available to participating districts, it does not guarantee additional money.
Board of Education member Rob Traber said the district explored the program in June while working to balance its budget and determine whether MARB could provide access to additional funding. At the time, he said, the program was not yet established and did not have money available. The district also determined it did not need the program to balance its budget.
Traber said there are still unanswered questions about how MARB would work and that the district has no immediate need to pursue it.
“There are serious questions that we need to have answered,” Traber said. “But two, we have no need to proceed with MARB right now. MARB isn’t ready for anybody to pursue at this point. So for those two reasons, it’s premature.”
Board of Education member Joseph Sokolovic raised concerns that participating in MARB could limit local control without guaranteeing additional funding. He said districts would have to submit financial plans for state review and could face pressure to make operational changes, including consolidating schools or reducing staff, to qualify for potential assistance.
“You basically gotta do what they want,” Sokolovic said, describing the process of submitting and revising financial plans to meet state requirements.
Sokolovic said Bridgeport’s financial challenges are largely the result of inadequate state funding, rising education costs and the expiration of federal pandemic relief. He argued that additional state oversight would not address those underlying funding problems.
Traber said the district’s focus is instead on advocating for additional education funding through the state legislature.
Bridgeport Public Schools has faced significant budget gaps in recent years. In November 2024, the district reported an approximately $38 million gap in its 2024-25 budget. The budget had initially been adopted with a $26 million shortfall, which the district planned to cover using reserves.
A state-commissioned audit later projected an approximately $39 million deficit for the 2025-26 school year, partly tied to the expiration of more than $150 million in federal pandemic relief funding.
Interim Superintendent Royce Avery did not respond to a request for comment.
Bridgeport is already part of a separate state education intervention that began in 2025 after the district faced a multimillion-dollar budget deficit. That intervention is distinct from the fiscal oversight process. The district also completed an independent forensic audit that produced 34 recommendations to improve financial oversight and internal controls. A second team was brought in to help the district address those recommendations.
Bridgeport Education Association President Jeff Morrissey said the union recognizes the financial challenges facing the district but does not support voluntarily entering MARB oversight. Morrissey said the process could create more problems than solutions, noting that many questions remain unanswered. He also expressed concern that adding another layer of oversight could complicate decision-making as the district searches for a permanent superintendent.
For now, Traber said the district is focused on advocating for additional state education funding through the legislature.
