Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multilingual Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Mateo‑Foster City trustees hear update on multilingual learner services, coaching and family programs
Summary
District leaders told the board that just over half of students are multilingual learners, described coaching cycles for teachers and family-engagement programs that expanded parent participation, and outlined targets to raise reclassification rates to 50–65%. No new policy or budget votes were taken.
Get email alerts on the Multilingual Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ala Bara Cruz, executive director of multilingual learner services for the San Mateo‑Foster City School District, told the school board the district is serving a large multilingual population and outlined steps to accelerate English proficiency and support families.
“Close to 50% or a little bit over 50% of our students are considered multilingual learners,” Ala Bara Cruz said, adding the district records 57 languages and that about 80% of its multilingual students speak Spanish as a first language. Cruz said the district’s work is guided by the California English Learner Roadmap (2017), the district strategic plan and the district multilingual learner plan (2020).
Cruz described a three-part model for support that combines professional development for teachers, instructional coaching cycles led by multilingual teachers on special assignment (TOSAs), and family engagement. “We have provided 71 professional development series for our educators,” Cruz said, and described coaching cycles that run six to eight weeks at Title I schools to co-plan, model lessons and analyze student data.
Janette Ramirez, principal and special assignment on the multilingual team, summarized classroom practice changes the district is promoting: designated and integrated English language development (ELD) and three “signature strategies” — constructive conversations, a cognitive content dictionary and explicit language-function instruction — intended to give students both language and academic access. Ramirez said classrooms receive three walkthrough observations per year and that leaders use local literacy measures and ELPAC results to track progress.
The presentation included short videos and remarks from fifth‑grade students at Leed Elementary describing specific challenges with reading, writing and speaking. “Learning English was like a little bit hard… The only thing I think I would change is teachers helping a little bit more English to kids so we could pass the LPAC test,” one student in the video said.
Family engagement was a major focus: staff described newcomer supports, a Sanctuary Task Force, parent workshops and an “English Together” volunteer mentoring program that expanded from an eight‑parent pilot to roughly 68–70 participants. Ramirez said the district also began a Seal of Biliteracy pathway in 2023, recognizing biliteracy in Spanish and Mandarin; about 170 participation awards are granted annually and roughly 54% of this year’s recipients are on track for the high‑school attainment award. The district plans a Seal of Biliteracy awards event at Bayside Theater on April 23.
Staff reviewed reclassification trends dating to 2019. They said reclassification typically takes five to seven years and noted a decline last year that they attribute in part to having reclassified many students earlier and a recent influx of newcomers. Cruz said the district’s working target is 50–55% of multilingual students reclassified, with a stretch goal of 65%, and reported a current composite progress figure near 46% with substantial variation across schools.
Trustees asked for more school‑level breakdowns (mobility, dually identified students, long‑term English learner counts) and asked to be included in ELD classroom walkthroughs. Trustees also raised teacher workload and professional development format questions; staff said they plan additional site‑driven PD and will send follow‑up surveys to teachers to guide next year’s training schedule.
No formal policy or budget decisions were made at the meeting. Board staff checked for public comment and reported none. A procedural motion to adjourn was made and seconded; the meeting ended with a verbal vote and was adjourned at 7:08 p.m.

