Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Cheshire presenters outline multilingual learner plan, cite 180 ML students and new success plans for newcomers
Loading...
Summary
District staff presented a two-year review of K–12 multilingual learner services, reporting roughly 180 current ML students (about 4% of enrollment), newly implemented student success plans for Level 1 newcomers, and steps to improve family-language access and teacher training.
District staff presented results of a two-year review of the Cheshire School District's multilingual learner (ML) program, telling the curriculum committee they will expand student success plans, improve family communication in home languages and continue professional development grounded in state frameworks.
Azra Redzik, a member of the district's ML team, said the review used the Connecticut English Learner and Multilingual Learner frameworks and emphasized asset-based, culturally responsive instruction and high-quality Tier 1 teaching. "We really wanna focus on the acquisition of language for those students," she said, adding that Universal Design for Learning and Building Thinking Classrooms guide classroom scaffolds.
Kristen Castellano, the reading specialist and literacy-support teacher at Dodd, said the district currently identifies about 180 multilingual learners, roughly 4% of the student population. She also described a group of "former ML students" who have exited per the district's proficiency assessment; Castellano gave a breakdown used in the presentation: about 24 former ML students at the elementary level, 22 at the middle school and 32 at the high school (a cited total of 78 in that category).
The presenters explained that identification begins with a home-language survey and that families reporting a language other than English at home do not automatically trigger services. Committee discussion clarified the difference between the larger set of families who speak a language other than English at home (staff cited 658 families) and those currently receiving ML services.
Staff described exit criteria tied to the district's proficiency assessment, which evaluates speaking, listening, reading and writing by grade-level standards. Castellano said the district has piloted student success plans for Level 1 (newcomer) students and intends to expand those plans to every ML student; the plans document background (years in country, family needs, strengths) and academic goals and will be reviewed by teacher teams.
Presenters said student voice informed the review. Citing focus groups of about 10–12 ML students per grade band, they said students prioritized peer discussion, small-group collaboration, opportunities to practice English in safe spaces and explicit academic vocabulary instruction. "When they have frequent opportunities for peer-to-peer discussions and small-group collaboration, that's key," the presentation reported.
The district also flagged family-communication work: presenters recommended improving access to translated communications, promoting the Language Line and better use of tools like ParentSquare translation so families can engage as partners. Staff acknowledged some teachers report discomfort communicating about student progress with multilingual families and said professional learning (including CELP rubrics/standards and the SIOP model) will be part of ongoing work.
The committee asked about budget implications; presenters said some costs are for instructional supplies and language services and that staffing requests (for specialized ML roles or consultants) are being considered in the context of limited funds.
The presentation concluded with three major goals: strengthen teacher capacity for scaffolding and UDL, improve family communication and ensure a student success plan for every ML student. Staff said slides and final goals will be posted with committee materials and that they will work with principals on resource reallocation after the budget is finalized.
