Recent federal actions have alarmed immigrant communities across California as immigration agents target a range of locations, including public schools. In response to these escalating concerns, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a new state law mandating that public educators prohibit ICE agents from entering school premises.
This legislation, known as AB 49 under the California Safe Haven Schools Act, adds crucial protections for students and outlines school staff protocols regarding immigration enforcement. Until this law was introduced, school districts lacked such requirements, creating uncertainty about how to handle potential ICE encounters.
San Francisco’s school district had already implemented similar policies since 2017. SF educators express eagerness to safeguard their students, but they share anxieties regarding the clarity and specifics of the new law. In interviews, several educators voiced that current guidelines are inadequate in addressing how to respond if ICE agents confront them aggressively.
Claudia DeLarios Morán, principal at Buena Vista Horace Mann, a K-8 Spanish immersion school, emphasized the need for clear directives.
“We have not been given information about what to do if [ICE agents] push back,” DeLarios Morán stated, highlighting the fear among staff working in a district where 88 percent of students are Latino.
The urgency of this legislation stems from the concerning statistics surrounding ICE arrests. According to reports, 83 percent of individuals detained by ICE in the Bay Area in 2023 were from Latin American countries.
AB 49 establishes several essential provisions. First, school staff are instructed to deny entry to ICE agents unless valid warrants are presented. Furthermore, it prohibits the unnecessary sharing of student records unless the individual is listed as an emergency contact.
An accompanying bill, SB 98, ensures that schools notify families whenever ICE agents appear at school sites. In light of the alarming statistics, the immediacy of this law comes as the state seeks to reduce fears within immigrant communities.
Previously, ICEs aggressive actions had intimidated educators and parents, leaving them wary of how to respond to potential encounters with immigration officials. The New York Times reported that under President Donald Trump, nearly 6,000 individuals were arrested by federal agents in California between January and June of 2023.
To ensure a swift implementation, California lawmakers included an urgency clause for AB 49, with the expectation that school districts draft appropriate policies by March 2024. In December, the attorney general’s office will provide template policies for schools lacking existing guidelines.
While SFUSD had previously established its own policy which moderately aligns with AB 49 provisions, the new state law reinforces the necessity for schools to limit ICE’s access as much as possible.
Under the SFUSD protocol, school staff must refer ICE agents to the district’s legal office for any inquiry. If ICE presents valid warrants, the district’s legal team is tasked with exploring challenges to those warrants. Despite this protective measure, uncertainty remains regarding the consequences for school personnel who might resist ICE.
ICE officials did not respond to requests for comment on this matter.
Although the SFUSD policy provides some assurances for staff regarding potential legal repercussions, funding for necessary legal assistance is still a significant barrier.
The California School Boards Association had expressed concerns surrounding the lack of specified funding in the bill to cover training and resources for school staff. Legislative director Chris Reefe highlighted that while support could be available after expenses incur, no direct allocations were incorporated into the final legislation.
Discontent over the specifics of the plans formed the background of a recent family event hosted by SFUSD’s Latinx Community Council. The event attracted around 150 attendees, revealing the community’s heightened anxiety regarding ICE’s influence on their children’s education.
Dheyanira Calahorrano, a vice chair of the council, voiced disappointment over the district’s vague responses to their concerns.
“The district officials give you answers, but they don’t give you details. They don’t give you the plan,” Calahorrano lamented, illustrating frustration from the Latinx community regarding insufficient engagement from SFUSD.
Contrary to this sentiment, SFUSD spokesperson Laura Dudnick asserted that communication efforts had been made. She pointed to a letter from Superintendent Maria Su, which was sent to families to address their safety concerns and provided links to resources and FAQs related to immigration issues.
In the letter, Su claimed SFUSD had established clear protocols for student safety. However, educators like DeLarios Morán expressed dissatisfaction with the support provided, citing the need for better coordination between school authorities and community organizations.
RISE-SF, the district’s initiative aimed at supporting immigrant families, acknowledged its constraints due to being understaffed, raising further questions about resource availability.
Community leaders such as Jacquie Zapata Chavez argued that funding should come directly from the district to support these initiatives, emphasizing the urgency of addressing these community issues.
In addition to training for staff on how to approach ICE-related situations, using allocated resources wisely can help mitigate the stress surrounding possible ICE interventions.
A recent parent meeting at an elementary school revealed that the PTA had paid outside organizations to conduct training on how to handle ICE encounters. Parents are eager to support one another but underscored the lack of direct legal expertise among school staff.
Earlier this year, the teachers union urged SFUSD for contractual negotiations to introduce more robust immigration-related supports, including mandatory training and a communication system for ICE activity. Despite these requests, the district did not prioritize such proposals, highlighting a disconnect between staff desires and administrative responses.
As absenteeism looms large in schools, AB 49 coincides with alarming statistics indicating that deportation fears have contributed to a dip in school attendance. Students from families perceived as nonauthorized may be particularly affected by this climate of fear.
According to recent claims made in the text of the bill, an increase in deportations corresponds to a rise in chronic absenteeism, causing legitimate concern among educators.
DeLarios Morán noted a drop in attendance at her school: “We have more kids that are just not coming to school, and I think that that’s because their parents don’t feel comfortable dropping them off. People are afraid to leave their homes.” With the intersection of policy and local realities threatening student safety, schools across California grapple with finding solutions to address the ongoing crisis.
image source from：thefrisc
