In response to heightened community fear following the deployment of federal agents to the Bay Area, Superintendent Crystal Leach sent an email reaffirming the District’s commitment to protect and educate all students regardless of immigration status. However, the District has yet to provide specific and updated guidance on how to navigate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), leaving many teachers concerned.
In an all-staff email on Oct. 23, Leach referred faculty to several resources, including a letter from the San Mateo County Office of Education expressing that the County will not “collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within the extent of the law.” She then reminded faculty that the District is “committed to supporting our families in every way possible under current federal and state laws.”
Families have received little communication from the District beyond a single informational letter sent on Oct. 24.
Additional links in the email directed staff to GAMUT, the Board’s policy interface, which some found difficult to use. However, Leach provided no instruction on how to navigate the platform in order to find Board policy and administrative regulation 5145.13 Response To Immigration Enforcement.
“If it’s tedious for an adult teacher who is interested in all of these things, then I can imagine being a student or a family member, especially one who might not speak English as their first language, it [would be] incredibly challenging,” English and AVID teacher Rachael Wan said.
“The Board policies are notoriously difficult to navigate,” Sequoia District Teachers Association President Edith Salvatore said. “They’re nice, and they’re what the Board has to follow, but they’re not very clear in terms of giving specific directions. The specific instructions from the Superintendent may be backed up in Board policy, but teachers aren’t as concerned about what the Board policy is as much as the instructions that we’re given.”
Board policy 5145.13 states that the “Superintendent or designee shall develop procedures for addressing any immigration-related requests by a law enforcement officer for access to District records, school sites, or students.” Yet, Wan confirmed that teachers have not received updated training or clarification on how to respond in the case of an ICE raid.
The regulation also instructs teachers to report the presence of immigration officials to on-site administration, document the credentials of the officer, and contact the Superintendent and District legal counsel.
“I’ve heard an administrator say verbally, if [ICE is] here, you direct them to the office. You do not interact, you do not identify students, you do not hand anything over. You just send them to the office. Now, what would administration do? I have no idea,” science and AVID teacher Kari Brown said.
Additionally, regulation 5145.13 states that, “if [an] officer declares that exigent circumstances exist and demands immediate access to the campus, district staff shall comply with the officer’s orders and immediately contact the Superintendent or designee and then the district’s legal counsel.”
As defined in the Supreme Court case United States v. McConney, exigent circumstances refer to emergencies that allow law enforcement to act without a warrant or court order such as an immediate threat to life, safety, or evidence.
“In California, [ICE is] not supposed to come on school campuses, period. But the rules and the ‘should have’ doesn’t necessarily apply right now,” Salvatore said. Multiple lawsuits throughout the country allege that ICE tactics and arrests have violated the law.
On Oct. 24, Leach sent a message to parents via ParentSquare. The message outlined the District’s immediate actions regarding immigration enforcement, directing parents to California State Senate Bill 98 and Assembly Bill 49.
In the message, Leach wrote, “Senate Bill 98 and Assembly Bill 49 […] outline the requirements for school districts related to immigration. Our administrators and staff are receiving training on how these new laws affect our policies and procedures.” However, some teachers raised concerns about a lack of formal training for encountering ICE agents.
“I don’t think that on this particular instance we were trained. It was like, ‘Here’s a thing you’re required to have read, sign this paper that says you read it,’” Brown said.
Teachers also raised concerns over the length of the District policy, asking for a more concise version that could be easily displayed and circulated.
“It feels like it’s not a practical document,” Brown said. “It’s not something you have on hand, right? There are certain posters and things that we’re required to keep up on the wall. I would like there to be a one-pager of ‘this is what we do in the event [of an ICE raid].’”
“If we had easier access to one sheet of resources or instructions telling us what we can and can’t do, and what the consequences could be, that would clarify my position as a teacher a lot,” Wan said.
The District’s 2016 Resolution NO. 1587 outlines school districts’ obligations to educate every student within their jurisdictional boundaries, regardless of their immigration status, in compliance with the Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe.
“The District doesn’t collect data [regarding immigration status] because it should not impact the services that we provide to students. It is an added bonus that if the District doesn’t have the data, the District can’t turn that data over to anyone. It can’t be subpoenaed, it can’t be requested,” Salvatore said.
As outlined in the resolution, if the District does become aware of students’ immigration status, they can only release the information under limited circumstances: with permission from a student’s parent or guardian or when presented with a judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order.
The M-A Chronicle reached out to administration but did not receive a response in time for the publication of this article.
