Rochester board holds required hearing on language access plan; plan returns for vote Oct. 21

The Rochester Public Schools Board held a public hearing on the district’s new language access plan, required under Minnesota Statute 123B.32 subdivision 1, and directed staff to return to the board for a formal vote at the October 21 meeting.

The hearing opened with a presentation from district staff who developed the plan. Miguel Benjamin, coordinator of interpretation services, explained why the district created a standardized request process and discussed tools and protocols the plan proposes, including in‑district interpreters for Arabic, Bosnian, Khmer, Chinese, Lao, Somali, Spanish, and Vietnamese; a partnership with Global Interpretation Services for less common languages; and simultaneous interpreting headsets trialed at recent graduations.

The plan matters because state law requires a district hearing and because Rochester serves many families that need interpretation or translation to access school programming. Benjamin and colleagues told the board the district has implemented a Google request form to track language service usage. The form opened in August and, to date, staff reported almost 500 total requests: 484 total requests, about 440 interpretation requests and 50 translation requests. Staff said that data will guide future staffing and technology investments.

Board members asked several substantive implementation questions during the hearing. Director Whitehorn raised literacy concerns, noting that sharing translated written materials will not help families who are not literate in their home language; Benjamin and colleagues described alternate approaches such as audio messaging, TalkingPoints (a two‑way messaging tool with text‑to‑voice and voice‑to‑text), QR codes linking to audio or video, and in‑person follow up by interpreters. Staff said headsets for simultaneous interpreting were piloted at graduations and that some sites — Mayo High School was cited — had roughly 20–25 families use headsets in Spanish and Arabic during the trial.

Board members also pressed about scale and interpreter workload. Director May asked how the district would expand services when multiple events occur simultaneously. Staff said they are identifying bilingual staff within the district via Skyward and are exploring training and compensation for bilingual staff and for paid high‑school student interpreters at events. Superintendent Kent Pickell agreed staff must balance efficiency with service and said the district will use the request data to allocate resources and consider volunteer recruitment and a relaunched volunteer program in 2026.

Questions about measuring success and getting family feedback also emerged. Director Waisman asked how the district will collect family input; staff said they will incorporate feedback loops when the plan returns for action and will include evaluation measures in the plan update. Board members discussed whether to place any restrictions on future vendor/real‑estate transactions tied to interpretation facilities; staff replied those are separate decisions and advised against listing prescriptive limits in initial sale listings because restrictions can slow transactions and reduce value.

No public commenters spoke during the hearing. The hearing closed with board members agreeing they had enough information to proceed; staff will bring the full plan back for a board action vote on October 21.

Ending: The hearing established the procedural requirement under state law and focused board discussion on implementation questions — literacy and technology access, interpreter capacity and data collection — that staff said they will address before the October 21 vote.