Of the 188 district leaders that responded, 65% were school transportation professionals, 16% were school business professionals, and 12% were school superintendents. Surveyed districts’ sizes were fairly evenly split, with 34% serving small districts (less than 2,500 students), 32% serving medium-sized districts (between 2,500 and 9,999 students), and 34% serving large districts (10,000 or more students).
The Survey in a Snapshot
Overall, the survey data suggest that most district leaders have been working diligently to maintain stability in school operations and preserve education programs and services while navigating a highly uncertain fiscal environment. Looking ahead to the next school year, districts are preparing for prolonged fuel price volatility, reassessing transportation contracts, and planning contingencies. In many states, district leaders noted that transportation funding does not automatically adjust to reflect these dynamic economic shifts. While some districts reported using reserve funds to manage rising costs and avoid disrupting student services, sustained reliance on district reserves to fund recurring transportation costs may weaken long-term financial stability and reduce districts’ ability to respond to future fiscal challenges.
Sustained reliance on district reserves to fund recurring transportation costs may weaken long-term financial stability and reduce districts’ ability to respond to future fiscal challenges.
Most Districts’ Fuel Costs Exceed SY 25-26 Budgets
When asked to compare actual expenditures with their districts’ final 2025-26 school year budget, more than half of respondents (56%) said their fuel spending was running over budget. Specifically, 20% said fuel costs were over budget by 6-10%, 22% said costs exceeded their budget by 11-20%, and 14% said spending was more than 20% over their planned budget for this school year.
To manage rising diesel prices, district leaders reported employing the following fiscal strategies during the 2025-26 school year.
· Absorbing extra costs within the district’s current transportation budget (63%)
· Transferring funding from other district funds/programs (32%)
· Using district reserves or “rainy day” funds (19%)
· Not yet covered/still planning (15%)
Meanwhile, district leaders reported making the following transportation operational changes during the 2025-26 school year.
· Consolidating bus routes and adjusting route efficiency (40%)
· Enforcing anti-idling measures (27%)
· Reducing the number of routes (25%)
· Limiting non-required trips such as field trips (20%)
· Changing fuel purchasing practices (14%)
· Increasing walk-to-stop ratios (8%)
· Moving away from yellow buses to non-diesel vehicles (7%)
· Negotiating contracts with transportation vendors (6%).
Fortunately, most respondents (55%) said they have not yet had to make financial offsets in their 2025-26 budget to account for rising diesel costs. However, of those who have had to make such offsets, those that were most commonly reported were using reserve funds to avoid cuts (17%), deferring maintenance and facilities work (16%), reducing administrative spending and staffing (13%), reducing support personnel (13%), and reducing summer instruction (12%). Very few respondents (less than 5%) reported reducing instructional staff, increasing class sizes, delaying instructional improvement initiatives, cutting extracurricular programs, and reducing spending on instructional materials.
If Costs Remain High, Tough Choices Lie Ahead for SY 26-27
When district leaders were asked to share any budget cuts they have already made for the 2026-27 school year, more than half (52%) said they were still working on their budgets and hadn’t made any cuts yet, while one-third (33%) said they were adding a contingency or reserves specifically for fuel costs. Sixteen percent are renegotiating or adjusting contracts and terms with vendors, 14% have begun drawing down reserves, and 10% are seeking additional local and/or state revenue to assist with transportation costs.
More than one-third of district leaders (37%) shared that if diesel costs remain high for the 2026-27 school year, they will likely have to tap reserve or “rainy day” funds, while another 36% are unsure about what portions the budget will likely be cut. For other respondents, 30% said they will most likely have to cut extracurricular programs, and 29% said facilities and maintenance deferrals are likely. Meanwhile, about one-quarter of district leaders said they will likely have to cut non-instructional staffing (23%), professional development and/or consulting services (22%), and technology purchases and replacements (22%). Fourteen percent said they would likely have to cut spending on supplies, materials, and textbooks, while only 6% indicated they would likely cut instructional staffing or programming.
Given that most district leaders (66%) reported that their state does not provide dedicated transportation funding that rises with fuel prices, many districts will have to identify alternative revenues or cut expenses elsewhere to manage rising costs. As districts absorb higher operational costs while experiencing declining revenues, these survey findings underscore how prolonged fuel price volatility could force increasingly difficult tradeoffs that extend beyond school transportation and impact broader educational operations.