Parents, students urge Leander ISD trustees to sustain two‑way dual‑language programming
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Multiple students and parents told the Leander ISD Board of Trustees that ending two‑way dual‑language instruction after fifth grade would harm language proficiency and social ties; speakers urged trustees to view the program as a long‑term investment rather than a short‑term budget cut.
Speakers during the citizen‑comment portion of the Leander ISD board meeting pressed trustees to keep the district’s two‑way dual‑language program beyond fifth grade, saying the program produces academic and social benefits that would be lost if it were cut. Students and parents said the program supports biliteracy and family communication and urged the board to weigh long‑term outcomes in budget choices.
“Dual language has really made an impact on my life,” said one student speaker, who said the program helped her communicate with non‑English‑speaking family members. At least one parent asked the board to sustain the middle‑school portion of the program so students would not “lose years of learning” by ending instruction at fifth grade.
Another public commenter warned that removing middle‑school dual language would undercut the district’s graduate profile of communicators and collaborators. A parent who identified recent MAP/Star scores for an enrolled child highlighted strong academic results and said the program builds confidence and cross‑cultural skills. Several speakers said families had moved to the district for access to this instruction and urged trustees to consider the program’s long‑term returns rather than only immediate budget pressures.
One speaker also called for clarity about the district’s rationale in cutting an advanced program at a different campus, citing year‑by‑year enrollment numbers and asking the board for transparent research to support decisions.
Board members acknowledged the budget constraints discussed by speakers and said they had received community feedback. The board did not take action on the dual‑language program in this meeting; trustees invited additional information and said many of the public comments would inform upcoming budget deliberations and planning sessions.
