South Washington County Schools outlines language-access plan to meet new state requirement

South Washington County Schools officials told the school board on Aug. 7 that the district is finalizing a language-access plan required by recent state legislation and federal civil-rights law and expects to present a complete plan for board approval this fall.

Sean Hogendorf, director of communications, told the board the plan is “in the final stages” and will follow Minnesota Statute 123B.032 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He said the board must approve the plan and that, after the first approval, the board will reconsider it every two years.

“The purpose of the plan is to document the language access tools, our processes, our procedures, our tools,” Hogendorf said. He described the plan as largely documenting practices the district already uses and said it will be posted on the district website and included in a handbook for families.

The presentation said the district’s website currently offers machine translation in eight languages for mass communications, while important documents such as individualized education programs, legal notices and placement information would use trained, certified interpreters and professional translation vendors. Hogendorf and Dr. Megan Hickey, executive director of student support services, named vendors the district uses: LanguageLine, Inco International and university-based language services.

Board members asked how the district serves families who speak languages not covered by the eight supported website languages. One board member noted the district’s higher language diversity and asked what happens for “the other, like, 77 languages.” Hogendorf and Dr. Hickey said mass communications rely on the top languages, and the district relies on contracted vendors for less-common languages and for written translations when requested.

Dr. Hickey described the district’s approach to interpreter use and said certified interpreters are used instead of relying on children as ad hoc interpreters. “LanguageLine honestly has I’ve never come across a language that LanguageLine did not have,” she said, describing that vendor as a broad resource. She also said the district intends to prioritize in-person interpretation when possible.

Hogendorf and staff described several operational details the board asked about: an on-demand iPad interpreter pilot that will be available in each school next week to provide remote, face-to-face interpretation; cost structures (LanguageLine billed by the minute, in-person interpreters by the hour and translations by document/word count); and staff guidance the plan will include on using digital translation tools and on when not to use machine translations for legal or special-education documents.

Hogendorf said the plan will include guidance on (1) when to use professional interpreters versus translators, (2) how to work with families whose preferred language is oral rather than written (for example, Hmong or Somali), and (3) staff training and best-practice guidance. He said the district hopes to present the finished plan in October or November and that the board will formally approve it for the 2025–26 school year.

Board members and staff emphasized that the plan’s aim is to document existing practice, reduce delays in services and ensure families can access information and meetings in a language they understand.

The board did not take a formal vote on the plan at the meeting; staff said the draft will return to the board later this fall for approval.