Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education Ell topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ketchikan school board directs superintendent to reestablish ELL department

5474846 · July 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Board of Education voted 6-0 to direct the superintendent to reestablish a district English language learners (ELL) department, after committee members and a former district ELL teacher said the move is needed to meet federal requirements and support students and staff.

The Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Board of Education on July 23 voted to direct Superintendent Ford Slack to reestablish a district English language learners department, a 6-0 vote that board members and district ELL advocates said is meant to ensure federal compliance and better support multilingual students and staff.

Board member Ally Ginter, chair of the board's ELL committee, told the board the move would restore centralized leadership and resources. "By reestablishing this department, we are directly supporting both students and staff," Ginter said during the meeting. "There's no cost to the district." That assertion prompted questions from the superintendent and other board members about staff capacity.

The ELL committee and Penny Layton, the district's most recent endorsed ELL teacher of record, described the department as organizational and supervisory rather than creating a large new program. "It's organizing and it's structuring the program so that we acknowledge that the paras at the charter schools and at Howling and the teacher are a department," Layton said. She told the board monthly meetings for ELL staff, shared training and a lead teacher to aid paraprofessionals were the committee's immediate priorities.

Superintendent Ford Slack said she supports the committee but warned the board to expect some cost or staff-time implications. "While it might be accurate that once we put it together, it may not cost additional hiring, it's not true that it's at no cost," she said, noting district-office vacancies and the risk of overloading administrators. Board members who supported the motion said they understood the staffing trade-offs but wanted the district to set up the department and then report back on needed resources.

Supporters emphasized two reasons for action: legal obligations under federal law and better outcomes for students. Ginter told the board that failing to maintain proper ELL services risks federal funding tied to compliance and called the issue "a legal obligation" and an equity issue. Layton and other educators said paraprofessional turnover and gaps in screening and training had left some students without consistent service.

The board's motion directs the superintendent to reestablish the ELL department and restore district-level coordination, including monthly meetings for ELL staff, training supports (including WIDA training), and coordination of ELL materials across sites. The motion passed on a roll call: Steve Thomas (yes), Paul Robbins Jr. (aye), Jordan Tabb (yes), Ally Ginter (yes), Melissa Reed (yes), Todd Suda (yes).

The board and the ELL committee agreed that next steps include: the superintendent reporting on a proposed structure, identification of a lead teacher with ELL endorsement where possible, a schedule for regular ELL staff meetings, and an assessment of any additional staffing or training costs. The committee asked that the board treat the direction as continuing guidance rather than a temporary project.

Board members and staff said the district will also look for low-cost training options (WIDA online modules, conference scholarships) and seek to use early-release or similar time for regular professional learning. The board did not appropriate new funding as part of the vote; the superintendent will return with implementation recommendations and any requested budget or personnel changes.

The board and committee also discussed relationships with tribal partners and other community supports during the presentation; the committee stressed working with existing district staff, the Indian Education Board and community partners as the department is rebuilt.

The item was discussed at length during the July 23 meeting and was described by supporters as a restoration of previously established district structures rather than creation of a wholly new program. The superintendent and the committee agreed to continue planning and to return to the board with a recommended implementation plan.