Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multilingual Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy district reports 1,352 multilingual learners, pilots interim language assessments and explores dual‑language models
Summary
District staff told the board the multilingual program serves about 1,352 students and is piloting interim language assessments to track growth between annual WIDA tests; staff outlined co‑teaching, learning labs and a staged visit plan to explore possible dual‑language (English‑Spanish) programs.
Victoria (leading the multilingual update) told the board the district’s multilingual program serves “1350 plus” students and outlined current targets for language development and next steps toward dual‑language programming. “Our students 1350 plus strong are in all places and all spaces and all programs,” she said.
Mandy Horsell, the district’s coordinator for multilingual services, presented enrollment numbers (1,352 as of Jan. 5) and exit/monitoring data: she said 165 students exited services in the last two years and are being monitored to ensure continued progress. Mandy explained the annual WIDA assessment window and the district’s need for interim measures between annual administrations; to that end she described two small pilots (one commercially scored, one locally scored) to assess feasibility, staffing and administration for ~1,300 students.
Staff described two learner subgroups with distinct needs: multilingual newcomers (in district ≤2 years, needing foundational language and social‑emotional supports) and long‑term English learners (in program >5 years, who may appear conversationally fluent but have academic gaps in reading and writing). Mandy emphasized that both groups require targeted supports and that long‑term learners often need specialized EL courses.
Instructional staff explained classroom models that support language integration: co‑teaching/co‑planning pairs, learning labs that align content priority standards to language goals, and job‑embedded professional development with observation and rapid reteach cycles. “We co‑plan that unit together around some shared learning,” one district specialist said of the learning‑lab practice.
On dual‑language options, district leaders described a staged approach: advisory work, visits to model programs (Yakama and East Valley), and local advisory shareouts to refine recommendations. Staff discussed common program configurations (50/50 vs. 80/20 or 90/10 time splits and two‑way vs. one‑way classrooms), enrollment and staffing implications, and planned board‑involved visitations in late February and April to inform any recommendation.
Board questions addressed implementation logistics, workload for teachers in co‑teaching models, and how dual‑language enrollments and transitions would be managed through K‑12. Staff noted the district already implements many supportive mainstream practices and that the dual‑language work would build on existing collaborative planning and coaching.
Next steps: staff will complete site visits, convene the advisory group for shareouts and return with specific recommendations for program model, staffing and enrollment procedures.
