اینترنت

برچسب: rights

  • AI, other education technology can infringe on rights of disabled, LGBTQ students, report warns

    AI, other education technology can infringe on rights of disabled, LGBTQ students, report warns


    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    The use of education technology in schools, such as artificial intelligence, digital surveillance and content filters, poses a threat to the civil rights of students with disabilities, LGBTQ students and students of color, a new report released Wednesday warns.

    Some technology used in schools to block explicit adult content and flag students at risk of self-harm or harming others have also created serious problems for already vulnerable students, cautions the report by the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates for civil rights in the digital world.

    The report is based on a wide-ranging online national survey about the technology used by schools, students and teachers. This summer, the Center for Democracy and Technology polled 1,029 ninth- through 12th-grade students, 1,018 parents of sixth through 12th grade students and 1,005 teachers of sixth through 12th grade students in a sample the organization said was weighted to be “nationally representative.”

    According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, the surveys also indicate widespread confusion about the role of artificial intelligence in the classroom, with a majority of parents, students and teachers saying they want more information and training about how to properly use it.

    Report outlines education technology’s risks to students

    The report outlines how school technology can, often inadvertently, harm students. The Center for Democracy and Technology says these harms are felt most acutely by vulnerable students.

    Students reported incidents of LGBTQ classmates being outed by digital surveillance, a potentially traumatizing event of sharing their sexual identity or orientation without their consent.

    Students with disabilities said they were most likely to use artificial intelligence — and they were more likely to report facing disciplinary action for using it.

    One-third of teachers said content related to race or the LGBTQ community is more likely to be restricted by filters. The center said this “amounts to a digital book ban.”

    Some schools have faced pushback for the way they deployed technology. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued a school district in Texas, the district loosened a filter that had blocked the website of the Trevor Project, a website aimed at LGBTQ youth.

    “There are certain groups of students who should already be protected by existing civil rights laws, and yet they are still experiencing disproportionate and negative consequences because of the use of this education data and technology,” said Elizabeth Laird, director of equity in civic technology for the Center for Democracy and Technology.

    Although schools often have dedicated staff and other practices set up to ensure that students’ civil rights are being protected, Laird said its survey indicates that schools have not fully wrestled with how education technology is affecting the promise of an equitable education, resulting in civil rights and technology being treated as separate issues.

    “I think they’ve been kept separate, and the time is now to bring those together,” Laird said.

    Civil rights groups call for more federal guidance

    While schools have been conducting more outreach than in previous years, the survey shows an increase in student and parent concerns about data and privacy over the past year. Survey data collected in previous years shows both parents and students need more outreach and engagement on how schools are selecting and using technology.

    Last October, the White House released a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, but civil rights groups — including the ACLU, the American Association of School Librarians, American Library Association, Disability Rights in Education Defense Fund and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — signed a letter accompanying the Center for Democracy and Technology’s report, petitioning the federal Department of Education for more guidance.

    “In the year since the release of the Blueprint, the need for education-related protections remains and, if anything, is even more urgent with the explosive emergence of generative AI,” according to the letter.

    Fifty-seven percent of teachers in the survey stated they haven’t had any substantive training in AI, while 24% say they have received training in how to detect inappropriate use of AI.

    The survey also found that 58% of students have used ChatGPT or other generative AI programs, and 19% said they have submitted a paper written using AI. Students report using AI both for school assignments and for dealing with mental health issues or personal problems with family and friends.

    Students with disabilities are more likely to use generative AI: 72% said they’ve used the technology. Parents of students with disabilities are more likely to say that their students have been disciplined for their use of artificial intelligence. The report calls higher rates of discipline among vulnerable communities “particularly worrisome.”

    These students and their parents — 71% of students with disabilities and 79% of their parents — express more concern than others about the privacy and security of the data collected and stored by the school.

    Licensed special education teachers are more likely to have conversations with students and their parents about student privacy and equity issues in technology, a “promising practice that could be extended to the rest of the school population,” the Center for Democracy and Technology recommends.

    School surveillance’s long arm

    The civil rights issues can go beyond the walls of the school. Some students, particularly students of color and those from lower-income communities are more likely to rely on school-issued devices when they are at home. Monitoring and tracking can therefore follow them home.

    “Their learning environment for those students is quite different than those who can essentially opt out of some of this tracking,” Laird said.

    Students who use technology devices to charge their personal phones may also find that this technology will scan and monitor these personal devices as well. Among students who have used their school device for charging, 51% said school software began syncing with and downloading content from their personal device.

    Monitoring technology became prevalent in the pandemic-era remote learning, but it has persisted, with 88% of teachers reporting their schools use the technology. The White House named preventing the unchecked monitoring of students a priority in its blueprint. The Center for Democracy and Technology says that the use of surveillance technology can cause a host of problems for students.

    Students with disabilities and LGBTQ students are more likely to report being disciplined as a result of technology that monitors them. Laird said that sometimes students are disciplined for something the technology flagged, but other times, they are disciplined because of their reaction to being flagged.

    Schools sometimes share data directly with law enforcement — even after school hours. Fifty-three percent of special education teachers and 46% of teachers in Title I schools said data was shared with law enforcement after hours. During an interview with the Center for Democracy and Technology, the parent of a ninth grader said that law enforcement was contacted even before she was notified when something on her child’s device was flagged by the school’s monitoring technology. Her son was questioned for an hour without her consent.

    “All of those things can result in students being removed from the classroom and losing instructional time,” said Laird. “And so if those students are being disproportionately flagged and being intervened in a disproportionate way, this could also be a potential violation of [a student’s right to a free and appropriate public education], which is specific to preventing discrimination on the basis of disability.”





    Source link

  • Students with discrimination complaints left in limbo, months after California civil rights office closed

    Students with discrimination complaints left in limbo, months after California civil rights office closed


    Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

    K.D. was just starting to believe that the racial harassment her daughter had experienced at school for the last three years would finally be addressed.

    Students had called her daughter the N-word, referred to her as a “black monkey” in an Instagram post, made jokes about the Ku Klux Klan and played whipping sounds on their phones during a history lesson about slavery, according to a statement by her mother, identified in court records as K.D.

    “My daughter reported all of these incidents to teachers and was never told whether they were addressed, if at all,” K.D. stated in her declaration.

    K.D. did what many parents do when they believe a school district has violated their child’s right to an education free of discrimination: She filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in May 2023.

    In December, the office proposed a voluntary agreement to the school board of the district. The board requested more information.

    “We were so close,” said K.D., whose daughter is identified as M.W. in court records. “The board was like, ‘Hey, we just need this one last piece.’”

    While K.D. was waiting to hear back, the U.S. Department of Education announced in March that it was cutting its workforce in half. It planned to shutter and lay off staff at seven of its 12 regional branches for its Office for Civil Rights. One of those branches shuttered was in San Francisco, which handled all the cases for the state of California, including K.D.’s.

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to lay off 1,400 employees of the Department of Education, effectively putting the Office of Civil Rights in a state of limbo.

    When the mass terminations were first announced, it didn’t sink in for K.D. what this meant. The attorney on her daughter’s case told K.D. that the office was still waiting to hear from the school district’s board, which was not identified in the court records. If the case wasn’t resolved, the attorney promised to flag it when it was transferred to the Seattle office along with all the other California cases, but that would mean a much longer timeline.

    K.D. recalled: “Essentially, I would have to wait like six months to a year to even hear that someone’s picked up my case.”

    Four months later, K.D. still hasn’t heard from anyone at the Office for Civil Rights. She told EdSource that she’s been left with “a lot of questions” but “little hope.”

    ‘We were already drowning’

    Caseloads at the Office for Civil Rights reached a record high of 22,687 during the Biden administration, according to a 2024 report. That was an 18% increase from the previous year.

    “We were already drowning,” said a San Francisco Office staffer, a member of the AFGE Local 252, impacted by the reduction in force.

    Catherine Lhamon, former assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education under the Biden administration, said her department was always pleading with Congress for more staff to handle the increasing caseloads.

    “There is no universe in which we would have needed fewer people,” said Lhamon, who now serves as executive director of the UC Berkeley School of Law’s Edley Center on Law & Democracy.

    K.D. joined a national suit filed on behalf of other parents and students who have cases pending with the Office for Civil Rights, claiming that “gutting” the workforce and closing regional offices means that caseloads are two to three times higher for remaining staff, effectively halting investigations. It was unsuccessful in securing an injunction to stop the mass terminations.

    In court documents, the Department of Education reported that between March 11 and June 27, OCR received 4,833 complaints, dismissed 3,424, opened 309 for investigation, and resolved 290 with voluntary agreements.

    Lhamon said that represents a fraction of the work under the Biden administration.

    “What we see right now are performative case openings and very little case closings,” Lhamon said.

    The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals halted the mass firings, scheduled to take effect in June, through a preliminary injunction. The suit, joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claimed the terminations were “not supported by any actual reasoning” about how to eliminate waste, but were “part and parcel of President Trump’s and Secretary McMahon’s opposition to the Department of Education’s entire existence.”

    In her successful appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon denied that the terminations were related to a desire to shutter the Department of Education. Her appeal claimed the preliminary injunction represents “judicial micromanagement of its day-to-day operations.” 

    But McMahon also said in an interview that the firings were “the first step on the road to a total shutdown of the department.” A presidential administration eliminating an agency established by Congress poses a “grave” threat to the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, according to a dissent by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

    “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote.

    Cases in limbo

    M.W.’s case was one of 772 in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when the San Francisco branch was shuttered, according to a site that has not been updated since President Donald Trump took office. 

    Advocates say the office provides a venue to address a discrimination complaint, especially for those who haven’t had success appealing to their district or state and cannot afford to hire a personal attorney. 

    “No one’s going to OCR if they have any other option,” said Johnathan Smith, an attorney with the National Center for Youth Law, the Oakland-based nonprofit that represented K.D. in her suit. “The reason why K.D. turned to OCR was because she didn’t have options. And so for this administration to literally pull out the rug from under families, from children who are at their lowest point of need, is beyond cruel.”

    The Department of Education updated its list of recent voluntary resolutions, which include seven cases in California during Trump’s second term.

    There were also two letters addressed to State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and the California Interscholastic Federation, involving transgender athletes’ eligibility to participate in school sports.

    The other resolutions involve agreements regarding disability cases, including those at San Diego State University, as well as the Belmont-Redwood Shores, Cupertino Union, Inglewood Unified and Tehachapi Unified school districts. Letters about the resolutions were signed by attorneys with phone numbers that contain Washington, D.C., or Seattle-based area codes.

    It’s unclear whether most of the nearly 800 cases in California pending before the Office for Civil Rights when Trump took office have been addressed. The department did not respond to requests for comment.

    Most deal with disability: the right to a free and appropriate public education, harassment or discipline.

    The office also handles discrimination claims filed by students and parents or staff on the basis of gender, race, age, nationality or language. Over three-quarters of the pending cases in California deal with the TK-12 system — the rest are postsecondary.  The office investigates discrimination claims at the state level.

    “No state is immune for the need for a federal backstop against that harm,” said Lhamon. “We have had six-decade bipartisan recognition that it is true.”

    ‘Speaking her truth does matter’

    M.W. will be a junior when she returns to school in the fall. Her mother, K.D., told EdSource that her daughter continues to be bullied by students and the issue remains unaddressed by the school district. 

    “The driving force for me has been just like her, knowing that what she has to say and her speaking her truth does matter,” K.D. said. “I want her to know, no matter how long this has taken — or will take — that it does matter.”

    Schools are where students learn about academic subjects, but also how society functions. 

    “Schools are where we teach people how to participate in democracy,” Lhamon said.

    She worries that if the federal system for addressing discrimination breaks down, students will receive the message that discrimination is allowed.

    “If you are harmed and no one speaks up for you, what you take home is that it was OK,” Lhamon said. “That’s the worst part of the lesson.”





    Source link

  • Educational rights for youth in the child welfare system | Quick Guide

    Educational rights for youth in the child welfare system | Quick Guide


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    The story has been updated to clarify that the total number of children and youth in the child welfare system.

    Over 70,000 children and youth in California have an open case in the child welfare system, according to the most recent point-in-time count, with over 51,000 of them also in foster care.

    Many come under supervision of their county Department of Children and Family Services after a reported allegation of child neglect or maltreatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation or emotional abuse; for others, it happens when a parent voluntarily requests support, often due to a child’s behavioral challenges.

    Children in an out-of-home placement in the child welfare system have access to particular educational rights. This is meant to ensure stability for them during a time of uncertainty.

    A child under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services often comes into contact with multiple individuals. Depending on the details of their case, this could include social workers, child advocates, police officers, detectives, attorneys, judges and others. If they are removed from their home, they might be placed in foster care. While not all youth in the child welfare system are in foster care, all foster youth are in the child welfare system.

    “When these rights were established, the purpose was to keep children in some kind of consistency, some kind of security, or something that felt just familiar to them,” said Jessica Gonzalez, youth justice program manager at CASA/LA, a national organization of court-appointed special advocates for youth in the child welfare system. CASA volunteers are sometimes appointed as educational rights holders for children. Even when they are not, they often advocate for education rights to be enforced, Gonzalez said.

    A child’s case might also enter the juvenile dependency court. While the primary goal for youth in dependency court is to “preserve the family” by keeping a child either in the home of their parent or a relative, they might be placed in foster care or adopted.

    Child welfare cases are complex, and outcomes depend on a multitude of factors, including the caretaking ability of a parent, whether a relative is able to take in the child, if an appeal is filed, and more.

    This story includes information on whom the educational rights apply to as well as general insight into some of these rights. Many were implemented with the enactment of AB 490 in 2003 yet remain difficult to understand for many families due to the complexity of the child welfare system.

    How many children are in the child welfare system?

    There were 51,339 children and youth with an open case and in foster care as of April 1. The count was published by the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, a data and technical assistance collaboration between the University of California at Berkeley and the California Department of Social Services.

    This point-in-time count includes those who are under the age of 1 up to age 21 and who have “an open child welfare or probation supervised placement episode” in California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System. The count peaked in 2016, with nearly 63,000 open cases. The lowest number of open cases occurred this year.

    Allegations of child maltreatment are much higher, however; between April 2022 and April 2023, there were more than 442,000 reported allegations.

    Which children in the system have access to particular educational rights?

    Youth in the child welfare system and in an out-of-home placement have access to specific educational rights. An out-of-home placement can include foster homes, group homes, shelters and hotels through the Department of Children and Family Services, and other similar placements.

    The purpose of these rights is to accommodate the child’s education as much as possible during a time of instability.

    What are some of the educational rights for those in the child welfare system?

    A child in the welfare system and in an out-of-home placement has access to the following rights, among others:

    • School stability. This includes the right to remain enrolled at their school of origin, which is the school they were enrolled in at the time their child welfare case began, and the right to be transported to that school.
    • Enrichment access. Youth have the right to access the same type of enrichment activities as their peers. This can include academic resources and extracurricular activities.
    • Placement in the least restrictive setting. Students have the right to be placed in the academic setting that’s least restrictive, or least strictly controlled, for them to be able to achieve academic progress and success.
    • Immediate enrollment. Regardless of whether a student has all the enrollment documents ready, or has had contact with the juvenile justice system, or has any outstanding fees — they have the right to be immediately enrolled in school.

    Each of the rights above are nuanced and dependent on each child’s case and the decisions of their educational rights holder.

    Additional information for families and children can be found by contacting the county Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program (each county’s contact can be found here) or at the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.

    What does it mean to place a child in the ‘least restrictive’ academic setting?

    While a least restrictive academic setting depends on age and whether a student has disabilities, it’s often considered the academic environment that’s least strictly controlled.

    For a high school student, the least restrictive setting might be a traditional public school where students walk from one classroom to another on their own, with sports and special events such as prom and field trips. A more restrictive academic setting is often a nonpublic school that provides a more strictly controlled environment in an effort to assist students who have specific behavioral, emotional or academic needs.

    As Gonzalez described, students are often pushed out to a more restrictive setting if they exhibit ongoing behavioral challenges — which, she says, are often a result of trauma in that child’s life.

    But students “have the right to be in a setting they feel safe in, they feel comfortable in, and they’re able to learn in,” Gonzalez said. “And so, if the child has demonstrated that they’re able to do this in a very restrictive setting, we have to give that student the opportunity to then be able to practice those skills in a less restrictive setting.”

    Who holds the educational rights for youth in the child welfare system?

    Every child has an educational rights holder with decision-making authority regarding their education. A parent often continues having the right to make educational and developmental decisions for their child even if they lose physical custody. Biological parents lose educational decision-making power only if they are explicitly limited or restricted by the juvenile court, if parental rights have been terminated (i.e., the child is up for adoption), or if the child is in a legal guardianship.

    Parents “are not always encouraged to continue to be a part of their child’s educational journey, so a lot of times what we do as CASA when we’re appointed to a case is facilitate that engagement with a parent to preserve their involvement in the child’s education,” Gonzalez said.

    Most often, organizations like CASA encourage relatives to hold educational rights. This is because once a child welfare case is closed, CASA is no longer the rights holder. Advocating for the biological parents or other relatives to remain as educational rights holders helps provide continuity in the child’s life, according to Gonzalez.

    In the absence of parents or relatives, the educational rights holder role is often filled by a court-appointed special advocate, which is where CASA’s name comes from.

    The person assigned as the educational rights holder is entitled to have “all of the educational decision-making rights normally held by a parent or guardian,” according to a recent fact sheet compiled by the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.

    How are educational decisions made?

    All educational decisions should be made with the child’s best interest in mind.

    For example, a child can remain in their school of origin if they prefer to. But if they’ve been placed far from that school and they would need to spend hours on the road to reach it, then it may be in their best interest to be enrolled in a new school.

    The educational rights holder can request a best-interest determination meeting that would include school district personnel, such as the school psychologist, before finalizing any educational decisions.

    How can an educational rights holder avoid roadblocks in advocating for a child?

    While educational rights are outlined, the rights holder may experience roadblocks in enforcing them.

    For example, information about a child, like academic assessments and individualized education programs, might not have yet been finalized at their school of origin and a new educational rights holder might face pushback from the new school.

    In such cases, children, their families and educational rights holders can contact an education attorney through the Educational Advocacy Unit at the Children’s Law Center. If the child is also in the juvenile justice system, they can contact a juvenile resource attorney through the public defender’s office.

    A significant barrier is that while foster youth liaisons at schools are designated staff members who support students in the child welfare system, they are often overwhelmed by the number of students they serve.

    Gonzalez said, “It’s a lot of just constantly showing up to the school, advocating, contacting, emailing, you know, all of those follow-ups to make sure that we’re getting the right support for each child that we serve.”





    Source link

  • Jan Resseger: Trump Is Obliterating Civil Rights Laws

    Jan Resseger: Trump Is Obliterating Civil Rights Laws


    Jan Resseger is a social justice warrior who worked for the United Church of Christ. In retirement, she writes lucid, carefully researched articles about social policy and its effect on the nation’s most vulnerable people.

    I should post everything she writes but I miss some. Here is Jan on Trump’s Big Ugly Bill and how it will hurt the neediest children and families.

    This article about Trump’s assault on civil rights law was posted by the National Education policy Center.

    She writes:

    On Wednesday, April 23rd, President Donald Trump released an executive order banning the use of disparate impact when the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights investigates disparities in school discipline under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    Under the concept of disparate impact, officials in the Office for Civil Rights have been able to document discrimination by measuring the effects of a school’s or school district’s discipline practice on the mass of the  school’s or school district’s students even when there is no proof that staff members intended to punish some students mores severely due their race or ethnicity or sexual orientation. Staff at the Brookings-Brown Center on Education Policy, Rachel Perera and Jon Valant, define “disparate impact”: “Disparate impact is the idea that school discipline policies that disproportionately harm students of color may constitute illegal racial discrimination even if those policies are… applied in an evenhanded way.”

    Academic researchers have been examining unjust school discipline policies for decades. In 2014, the Civil Rights Project at UCLA described groundbreaking work to define “the school-to-prison pipeline” as a metaphor for disparate impact in discipline policies across many U.S. public schools. Researchers documented differences in the kind of punishment imposed on students based on their race or ethicity or disability: “The Civil Rights Project has been working on the school discipline issues since 1999, under the leadership of Daniel Losen. Research from CRP’s Center for Civil Rights Remedies… finds that far too many districts suspend students in droves, while many others have little or no racial disparities and adhere to the common sense philosophy that suspensions, expulsions and arrests are strictly measures of last resort.”

    In her new book, Original Sins, sociologist Eve Ewing describes how a punitive, prison-like, school culture, including systemic disparate impact, can infuse a school’s treatment of different groups of students because individual teachers and staff just get caught in the system in which they operate every day: “As sociologist Carla Shedd has written, the ‘routines and rituals’ created by carceral logic—everything from interacting with police officers in schools to strict uniform codes of conduct—become integral to the way a school functions, and can ultimately undermine the ostensibly educational purpose of the school building by making students feel unsafe… From within the space of the school, such regimes of discipline can become so routine that they escape notice by those who are accustomed to them.” (Original Sins, pp, 156-157)

    For decades, disparate impact in school discipline has been at the heart of many of the complaints filed and consent decrees established between school districts and the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. But on April 23, as the NY Times’ Erica Green reports, “President Trump has ordered federal agencies to abandon the use of a longstanding legal tool used to root out discrimination against minorities, a move that could defang the nation’s bedrock civil rights law. In an expansive executive order, Mr. Trump directed the federal government to curtail the use of ‘disparate-impact liability,’ a core tenet used for decades to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by determining whether policies disproportionately disadvantage certain groups… ‘This order aims to destroy the foundation of civil rights protections in this country, and it will have a devastating effect on equity for Black people and other communities of color,’ said Dariely Rodriguez, the acting co-chief counsel at the Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights Under Law….”

    Green explains: “The disparate-impact test has been crucial to enforcing key portions of the landmark Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. For decades, it has been relied upon by the government and attorneys to root out discrimination in areas of employment, housing, policing, education and more. Civil rights prosecutors say the disparate-impact test is one of their most important tools for uncovering discrimination because it shows how a seemingly neutral policy or law has different outcomes for different demographic groups, revealing inequities… Mr. Trump’s order resurrects a last-ditch effort made in the final days of his first term to repeal disparate-impact regulations through a formal rule-making process… Now the Justice Department’s embattled civil rights division has halted the use of disparate-impact investigations altogether, officials said.”

    It is important to note that the Trump administration has not attempted, so far, to change the law itself, but instead to amend the federal guidance and rules that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has used in its investigations.  The Washington Post‘s Kim Bellware explains: “Trump’s order directs federal agencies to ‘deprioritize enforcement’ of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability, which has long enabled courts to stop policies and practices that unfairly exclude people on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, gender, and disability.”

    When disparate impact is cited, the disparities are regularly documented with large data studies.  For example, back in 2008, in his powerful book, So Much Reform: So Little Change, the University of Chicago’s Charles Payne described national data indicating the widespread disparate impact of discriminatory school discipline: “According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Education for the 2004-2005 school year, African American students nationally are suspended or expelled at nearly three times the rate of white students. In Minnesota, Black students are six times as likely to be suspended as whites, but that seems downright friendly compared to New Jersey, where they are almost 60 times more likely to be expelled. In 21 states, the percentage of Black suspensions is more than double their percentage in the student body. These disproportions affect middle-class as well as working-class Black students and there is no reason to believe that they can be reduced to actual differences in student behavior. At least some of the discrepancy seems to be about teachers interpreting similar behaviors differently when they come from students of different races… We shouldn’t be surprised to learn that African American students perceive school climate less favorably than white students or staff.” (So Much Reform: So Little Change, p. 112)

    In 2014, in its own “Dear Colleague Letter,” the Obama administration announced a formal policy affirming the use of “disparate impact” as evidence in school discrimination cases. Here is constitutional law professor, Derek W. Black, in a 2016 book, Ending Zero Tolerance: The Crisis of Absolute School Discipline: “On January 8, 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice went beyond individual enforcement actions and formally announced their policy on school discipline moving forward… The policy guidance distinguished between disparate treatment (treating minority students and whites differently in terms of discipline) and disparate impact (facially neutral policies that result in racially disparate outcomes). It came as no surprise that schools cannot suspend an African American student for fighting and only send his white classmate to study hall. But the (formal policy) guidance on racial disparities was significant.” (Ending Zero Tolerance, p. 84)

    In 2018, the first Trump administration tried to end the use of disparate impact as a way to measure civil rights violations by ending Obama’s rules and guidance. Perera and Valant reported: “When the Trump administration rescinded the Obama Dear Colleague Letter in 2018… it dropped any reference to disparate impact theory and defined much narrower conditions (for) OCR investigations.”

    Perera and Valant add that the Biden administration did, in another Dear Colleague Letter, try to restore Obam’s rules and guidance, but they write that Biden administration’s “letter lacks a definition of illegal discrimination, information about how the federal government will enforce civil rights law, guidance for school districts on mandated data collection, or suggested practices and policies to prevent discrimination.”

    Nevertheless, despite the weak Biden policy statement, President Biden’s Department of Education continued to investigate and enforce civil rights violations in school discipline based on disparate treatment.

    Here we are now in 2025 with President Trump’s new executive order that attempts to cancel the use of disparate impact in civil rights enforcement altogether. Fortunately Trump’s new executive order will likely face lawsuits.  Erica Green explains why: “Mr. Trump’s executive order, which is likely to face legal challenges, falsely claimed that the disparate-impact test was ‘unlawful’ and violated the Constitution. In fact, the measure was codified by Congress in 1991, upheld by the Supreme Court as recently as 2015 as a tool in the work of protecting civil rights, and cited in a December 2024 dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.”

    In the meantime in late March 2025, a month before Trump’s new executive order banning the use of disparate treatment in civil rights investigations, Trump’s Office for Civil Rights, in a move demonstrating Trump’s view of civil rights enforcement using “disparate impact,” dismissed a consent degree established in the Biden years to address discriminatory school discipline. The Washington Post‘s Laura Meckler describes what happened in Rapid City, South Dakota: “For years, Native American students in the Rapid City, South Dakota, school district were more likely to be disciplined and less likely to enroll in advanced courses than their White peers. In 2010, the Education Department opened an investigation to see if racial discrimination was to blame… The original investigation found that Native American students in the district were twice as likely as White students to be referred for discipline, more than four times as likely to be suspended and more than five times as likely to be referred to law enforcement officials.”

    Meckler continues: “The effort lingered until last year, when investigators came to a voluntary agreement with the district. In a 28-page letter signed last May, the federal government outlined its concerns that Native American and White students had been treated differently. The school district, which is the second-largest in South Dakota, agreed to take a number of steps, including staff trainings, better communication with parents and ongoing monitoring.”

    At the end of March 2025, reports Meckler, “the Trump administration told the Rapid City Area School District it was terminating the agreement.”  But school district personnel in Rapid City did not consider the termination of the consent agreement to be a victory: “The Trump administration letter, sent March 27, came as a shock to the Rapid City Area School District, which did not ask for a change, a district spokeswoman said. She said the district plans to continue to abide by its terms, even though federal officials will not be monitoring to see if it does so. ‘While political priorities may shift, our core educational values remain steadfast,’ Cory Strasser, the district’s acting superintendent said in a statement. ‘Our mission remains to provide a safe, positive, and nondiscriminatory learning environment where all students can achieve their full potential.’ “



    Source link

  • Debate over parental rights vs. student rights to gender identity privacy comes to Clovis Unified

    Debate over parental rights vs. student rights to gender identity privacy comes to Clovis Unified


    Nearly 100 parents, former students and educators filled the Sept. 20 Clovis Unified school board meeting to voice their opinions on the prospect of a parental notification policy.

    Credit: Lasherica Thornton / EdSource

    Recent Clovis Unified school board meetings have been filled with posters bearing contrasting messages. “Support parental notification in schools. Stop keeping secrets from parents” as well as “Stop forced outing.”

    With those starkly different messages in the background, nearly 100 people spoke at the Sept. 20 board meeting, joining a debate that’s sweeping the state: parents’ right to know how their children identify at school versus students’ right to privacy about gender identity and expression.

    The contentious discourse came to Clovis Unified not because of a proposed school board policy — as has been the case in other school districts, including Chino, Temecula, Anderson Union High, Murrieta Valley and Rocklin — but because of a Student Site Plan, an optional form that, some say, could undermine students’ right to privacy by outing them to their parents. The district says it uses the form to gauge students’ needs for access to facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms.

    Under a 10-year-old law known as Assembly Bill 1266, students in California have the right to access school facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, regardless of what’s listed on their school record.

    The district spokesperson said that while the form could help facilitate a conversation with parents, students can opt out of completing it.

    “While there is no hard and fast ‘yes’ or ‘no’,” about whether parents must be notified for students to access facilities aligned with their gender identity, said Kelly Avants, spokesperson for the district, “in general, we would work with the student about parental notification.”

    Internal Clovis Unified guidance for administration details notifying parents if students want to access a facility aligned with their gender identity, but officials would not deny them access because of AB 1266.

    “Access will be provided while informing those with educational rights (typically parents/guardians for minors),” according to the district guidance documents.

    “They’re notified whether or not the SSP (Student Site Plan) is in place,” said Drew Harbaugh, chapter president for PFLAG Fresno, an organization that supports and advocates for LGBTQ+ people and their families, including many Clovis Unified parents.

    What’s on the Student Site Plan form?

    The Student Site Plan asks students for their legal and chosen names, pronouns, gender assigned at birth, gender identity and gender expression.

    Students provide information on their programs and activities and indicate whether they want to access restrooms and locker rooms by their gender at birth, gender identity or a gender-neutral space, such as the nurse’s office.

    Parents or guardians must consent to or participate in completing the form.

    “The SSP is our district’s process by which a student and parent have the opportunity to sit down with school staff and arrive at a plan to support the student,” the guidance documents say.

    Though the process for facility usage has changed over time to meet state laws and requirements, the Student Site Plan was first established in the school district last school year, Avants said.  According to the district’s internal document, the form replaced the Gender Acknowledgement Plan, which had involved parents, but only at the student’s discretion.

    Clovis Unified, Avants said, created the form in an attempt to address the “complexities of meeting the unique needs of individual students and families.”

    What’s the process for accessing facilities if students do not complete the form?

    For students who want to access different facilities but do not want to complete the form, they’d inform the school, Avants said. Trained school staff and the student then discuss how to accomplish that.

    Using a gender-neutral space doesn’t require parental notification. However, “parents must be informed,” district guidance says, if a student seeks the use of a facility that’s different from the gender assigned at the student’s birth or what’s listed on records. Such students are granted access in either event, the guidance states.

    “The student is allowed access in accordance with AB 1266 and California Education Code, but not at the expense of or superseding parents’/guardians’ educational rights to be informed,” the district guidance states.

    So, “the guidance still directs staff to out them,” even though students have the right to access their preferred facilities, Harbaugh said.

    If telling their parents causes students to be concerned about their safety, the district guidance spells out how staff should report suspected child abuse to Child Protective Services — if evidence exists. While the guidance directs staff not to complete the Student Site Plan in that scenario, it instructs staff to offer the student a meeting with the school’s psychologists or safety team about those concerns and to help the student communicate with their parents or guardians. The guidance also tells staff to attempt to facilitate the Student Site Plan with students and parents, if that’s appropriate.

    Legislation isn’t ‘well-established’

    AB 1266 is “silent” on practical application and implementation, Avants said, so the Student Site Plan attempts to balance facility access, parent rights to information, student needs and parental involvement.

    “We do look at every child individually and work to make sure they’re supported and safe at school,” said Clovis Unified Superintendent Corrine Folmer, emphasizing the “balance” of the site plan.

    “It’s not an area of law that’s well-established,” said Maiya Yang, Clovis Unified in-house counsel, adding that current lawsuits are proof of that.

    In July, a federal judge in Sacramento ruled that California is not violating parents’ rights by not informing them of students’ gender identities. The California attorney general filed a lawsuit in August against Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, requesting a stop to its policy; a judge blocked the policy in early September.

    Proponents of notification have also had some success in court. In August, two Escondido Unified middle school teachers in San Diego sued the school district and the California Department of Education for a policy prohibiting teachers from discussing students’ gender identity with parents. In that case, a San Diego federal judge recently ruled that parents have the right to be told how students identify, conflicting the July ruling from the Sacramento federal judge.

    Avants said other districts’ policies seem to be “a black-and-white treatment of a nuanced topic.”

    And comparing Clovis Unified to those districts that have adopted parental notification policies is a “miscategorization of our process,” she said. “Our process is individualized, customized (and) looks at every child individually.”

    Even though Clovis Unified hasn’t proposed a policy, people are already advocating for or against the prospect of one.

    On one side of the issue, many Clovis Unified parents and other members of the school community urged the school board to adopt a parental notification policy to involve parents in the decision-making of their children’s education and to provide them access to all information that affects student well-being.

    “My rights matter,” said Ashley Williams, parent of two Clovis Unified students. “I’m a parent, and my rights to my children trump people’s concerns” about possible abuse by parents and self-harm of students who are outed.

    Many other parents, former students and educators say the school district should allow students to come out in their own way, when they’re ready, while protecting students who don’t feel safe to do so.

    “While I value the parent-child relationship and would hope children feel safe to share this part of themselves with their parents, it remains a reality that that is not the case for many CUSD students,” said Clovis Unified teacher Laramie Woolsey.

    According to the National Network for Youth, a lack of parental acceptance, causing family conflict, is a leading cause of homelessness for LGBTQ+ youth, who are disproportionately impacted. The LGBTQ mental health nonprofit Trevor Project also found that 41% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered killing themselves in the past year.

    Woolsey said many of her students told her about their sexuality and gender identity, rather than their parents.

    “Many of these students struggled with suicidal thoughts because they imagined that death would be easier than being someone other than who their parents wanted them to be,” Woolsey said. “Why did these students come to me and not to their parents? Because they knew I was a safe person to talk to who wouldn’t judge them, invalidate them or otherwise harm them.”

    “ I earned their trust.”

    In Clovis, there is no policy and won’t be one anytime soon

    At a Sept. 13 meeting, where two dozen people also spoke and the Sept. 20 meeting, neither the site plan form nor a proposed policy was on the agenda, so board members could not address community members on the topic.

    But Clovis Unified School District and its board do not and will not have a policy until there is legal clarity, Avants said.

    “They (the school board members) have said, publicly several times, they have no interest in putting on their agenda a policy that is under legal challenge,” Avants said. “We’ll visit this when there’s more legal clarity.”

    Concerned community members, such as Harbaugh, say that the district’s insistence that the Student Site Plan is not a board policy makes it impossible to address the subject.

    “By not making it a policy, they take away any options we have for recourse,” Harbaugh said. “But if they’re still putting it in place regarding these students … whether or not they’re calling it a policy, they’re implementing it as a policy.”

    Because legislation is developing and evolving, Yang, the district’s general counsel, said it will take several years for local, state and federal courts to give school districts guidance on handling situations where the rights of students and parents conflict.

    “Unfortunately, for school districts like us that are trying to navigate this very important issue,” Yang said, “we don’t have a lot of guidance.”





    Source link

  • Jan Resseger: Trump Guts Civil Rights Laws

    Jan Resseger: Trump Guts Civil Rights Laws


    Jan Resseger reviews Trump’s vigorous crusade to eliminate civil rights laws by inverting their meaning. These laws were passed to break the monopoly held by white men in hiring and promotions. But now, any program that favors women and nonwhites is treated as a crime. Universities and corporations that once featured their efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion are now warned by the federal government that these efforts discriminate against white men and must be abolished.

    Resseger writes:

    When it comes to President Trump’s threatened tariffs and his foreign policy demands, we have all been reading about the phrase coined by a Financial Times reporter: “Trump always chickens out—TACO.” But when it comes to Trump’s attack on civil rights and racial justice in the nation’s public schools, the President has been doggedly persistent.

    On May 22nd, The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser mused about the President’s Oval Office ambush of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa as capturing how things are going in “Washington a hundred and twenty-one days into Trump’s second term: a manufactured scene of outrage about a nonexistent ‘white genocide’ ” and “a reminder of how explicitly Trump has, in his second term, defined the goal of his Presidency as a sort of racial-justice quest for white people.” Glasser describes “a President who has terminated affirmative-action decrees that have been in place for the federal government since the nineteen-sixties, unleashed a wave of arrests and deportations aimed at illegal migrants of color, gutted federal civil-right-enforcement offices, and blamed D.E.I. for just about every evil at home and abroad.”

    New York Times reporter Erica Green summarizes the Trump administration’s consistent work since the winter to attack racial justice and twist the meaning of the protection of civil rights: “In his drive to purge diversity efforts in the federal government and beyond, President Trump has expressed outright hostility to civil rights protections. He ordered federal agencies to abandon some of the core tenets of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that they represented a ‘pernicious’ attempt to make decisions based on diversity rather than merit. But in recent weeks, Mr. Trump has turned to those same measures—not to help groups that have historically been discriminated against, but to remedy what he sees as the disenfranchisement of white men. The pattern fits into a broader trend… as Trump officials pick and choose which civil rights protections they want to enforce and for whom. Across the government, agencies that have historically worked to fight discrimination against Black people, women and other groups have pivoted to investigating institutions accused of favoring them.”

    Beginning on Valentines Day,  when Trump’s Acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Craig Trainor sent all public school officials a “Dear Colleague” letter threatening their federal funding if they did not remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion from their schools, the Trump Administration turned its sights on U.S. public schools. In March, the administration closed seven of the nation’s twelve regional Office for Civil Rights locations that have traditionally investigated complaints filed by parents and families. At the same time the Office for Civil Rights abandoned its traditional practice of carefully investigating complaints and working with school districts to end discriminatory practices. Trump’s OCR turned to directed investigations aimed at punishing school districts failing to comply with the administration’s priorities and threatening loss of federal funding. In early April, the Department of Education threatened K-12 public school districts’ Title I funding unless school leaders (and statewide officials) signed a certificate that they were in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as well as in compliance with the administration’s broad, and many believe mistaken, interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which specifically banned affirmation in college admissions. The Trump administration has declared that the Students for Fair Admissions decision instead bans all DEI programming and policy.

    School districts and state departments of education, along with teachers unions and civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU, have put the consequences of almost all of these threats on hold by filing injunctions, which have yielded temporary stays in most of these cases, but Education Secretary, Linda McMahon and her Department of Education keep on persisting by conducting more investigations and threatening punitive consequences for school districts persisting in efforts to help particular groups of students.

    In mid-May, by executive order, President Trump banned the use of disparate impact as a standard for investigating Civil Rights investigations.  For ProPublica, Jennifer Smith Richards and Judi Cohen reported: “Remaking the Office of Civil Rights isn’t just about increasing caseloads and reordering political priorities. The Trump administration now is taking steps to roll back OCR’s previous civil rights work. Last month, Trump issued an executive order that directs all federal agencies, including the Education Department, to stop enforcing cases involving policies that disproportionately affect certain groups—for example when Black students are disciplined more harshly than white students for the same infractions or when students with disabilities are suspended more than any other group even though they represent a small percentage of student enrollment.”

    Smith Richards and Cohen examine how the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has reduced its capacity to process complaints and changed its procedures in ways that bias investigations to reflect the Trump administration’s priorities: “The OCR, historically one of the government’s largest enforcers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has been known for being a neutral fact-finder. Its investigators followed a process to determine whether complaints from the public met legal criteria for a civil rights claim, then carried out investigations methodically. The vast majority of investigations were based on discrimination complaints from students and families, and a large share of those were related to disability discrimination… Investigations being publicized now have largely bypassed the agency’s civil rights attorneys… McMahon and OCR head, Craig Trainor created what amounts to a shadow division. The Trump administration has ordered more than a dozen investigations in the past three months on its own, not initiated by an outside complainant. These ‘directed investigations’ are typically rare; there were none during President Joseph Biden’s administration. The investigations have targeted schools with transgender athletes, gender-neutral bathrooms and initiatives that the administration views as discriminatory to white students.”

    The ProPublica reporters spoke with OCR attorneys who anonymously describe what they believe are serious violations of departmental protocol: “McMahon and Trainor created ways to divert complaints and investigations away from the OCR’s legal experts entirely. The administration made an ‘End DEI’ portal that bypasses the traditional online complaint system and seeks only grievances about diversity, equity and inclusion in schools. Unlike the regular complaint system, the diversity portal submissions are not routed to OCR staff. ‘We have no idea where that portal goes, who it goes to, how they review the cases… said the attorney who said he struggles with being unable to help families.”  In other instances, “Conservative groups with complaints about diversity or transgender students have been able to file complaints directly with Trainor and get quick results… America First Legal, a group founded by Trump deputy chief of staff, Steven Miller… emailed Trainor a few days after Trump’s… executive order… (that) directs schools to stop teaching about or supporting diversity, equity, and gender identity. ‘AFL respectfully requests that the Department of Education open investigations into the following public school districts in Northern Virginia for continuing violations of Title IX,’ the letter read, listing five districts that have policies welcoming to transgender students. Senior leadership in Washington opened the cases the following week. America First issued a press release headlined ‘VICTORY!’ “

    Education Week‘s Brooke Schultz reports: “The U.S. Department of Education has announced or confirmed at least 100 investigations into school districts, colleges, and universities, and other entities as it emerges as a prime enforcer of President Donald Trump’s social agenda.” Here are some of Schultz’s examples: “(F)our school districts have drawn investigations from the department over a Black student success plan in Chicago, a students of color summit in New York, racial affinity groups in Illinois, and a selective Virginia high school’s admissions policy that the education Department says appears to be racially discriminatory… The first investigation Trump’s Education Department announced was a probe into the Denver district over a high school’s all-gender bathroom, which the agency suggested was a violation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in schools that receive federal funds.”

    Last Friday, in “Trump Administration Gives New York 10 Days to End Its Ban on Native American Mascots,” Education Week‘s Brooke Schultz reported on a Department of Education demand that clearly represents the Trump administration’s twisting and tangling the purpose and meaning of civil rights protection in public schools: an attack by the Trump Department of Education on a New York law banning Native American mascots in public schools. “The (U.S.) Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights argues that the state’s mascot policy, enacted in 2022, violates Title VI because it prohibits the use of Native American imagery but ‘allowed names, mascots, and logos that appear to have been derived from other racial or ethnic groups, such as the ‘Dutchmen’ and the ‘Huguenots.”… McMahon said in a statement Friday that the department would ‘not stand idly by as state leaders attempt to eliminate the history and culture of Native American tribes.”

    Although McMahon seems to believe that the logo New York has banned in the Massapecqua School District connects with the history of American Indians in the region of the school district on Long Island, J.P. O’Hare of the New York Department of Education explained that neither the logo nor the term ‘Chief,’ was used by Native Americans in the area.

    Schultz lets the president of the National Congress of American Indians, “the largest nonprofit representing Native nations which has long tracked and challenged the use of Native American mascots, Mark Macarro” correct Education Secretary McMahon’s bizarre misconception of racial justice and civil rights law: “Native people are not mascots… We have our own languages, cultures, and governments—our identities are not anyone’s mascot or costume.  No political endorsement or misguided notion of ‘honoring’ us will change the fact that these mascots demean our people, diminish the enduring vibrancy of our unique cultures, and have no place in our country.”

    Schultz adds: “Research has found that, for Native students, exposure to Native American mascots reduces self-esteem, their ability to imagine future accomplishments, and their belief that Native American communities can make a difference. For non-Native people, research shows that mascots are associated with negative thoughts and stereotypes about Native Americans… The portrayals are often outdated, whitewashed stereotypes, and aren’t grounded in realistic portrayals of Native people.”



    Source link

  • Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights

    Short of signatures for fall, organizers target California’s 2026 ballot for tightening transgender rights


    Conservative groups and LGBTQ+ rights supporters protest outside the Glendale Unified School District offices in Glendale on June 6, 2023. Several hundred people gathered at district headquarters, split between those who support or oppose teaching that exposes youngsters to LGBTQ+ issues in schools.

    Credit: Keith Birmingham/The Orange County Register via AP

    California activists seeking to rein in transgender children’s rights to care and self-expression failed to place a trifecta of restrictions on the November ballot.

    The organization Students First: Protect Kids California started too late to consolidate their three separate initiatives into one, and its signature-gathering came up short of the 546,651 verifiable signatures that had to be collected within six months to make the presidential election ballot. The goal was to collect 800,000 signatures to be safe.

    But battles over transgender issues will continue to burn bright in courts, school districts and the Legislature. Despite a setback, initiative organizers were buoyed by the 400,000 signatures that thousands of volunteers collected. They are confident that they will attract more donations and enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot two years from now — and find more support than leaders in heavily Democratic California assume exists.  

    “We’re very confident that voters would pass this if it gets to the ballot box,” said Jonathan Zachreson, a Roseville City school board member and co-founder of Protect Kids California. “We gathered more signatures for a statewide initiative than any all-volunteer effort in the history of California.”

    The three-pronged initiative would:

    • Prohibit transgender female students in grades seven and up from participating in female sports while restricting gender-segregated bathrooms and locker room facilities to students assigned that gender at birth. The initiative would overturn a decade-old state law that requires schools to accommodate a student’s gender identity in their choice of sports and activities.
    • Ban gender-affirming health care for transgender patients under 18.
    • Require schools to notify parents if a student identifies as transgender through actions like switching a name or to a pronoun associated with a different gender, joining a sports team or using a bathroom that doesn’t match the student’s sex assigned at birth or school record.

    The last issue has sparked a firestorm within the past year.

    Last week, a Democratic legislator introduced a late-session bill that would preempt mandatory parental notification. Assembly Bill 1955, by Assemblymember Chris Ward, D-San Diego, would prohibit school districts from adopting a mandatory parental notification policy and bar them from punishing teachers who defy outing policies of LGBTQ+ students.

    Last year, Assemblymember Bill Essayli, R-Corona, introduced a bill that would require parental notification, but AB 1314 died in the Assembly Education Committee without getting a hearing. Committee Chair Al Muratsuchi, D-Torrance, reasoned the bill would “potentially provide a forum for increasingly hateful rhetoric targeting LGBTQ youth.”

    Ward cited surveys of transgender and gender nonconforming youths that found most felt unsafe or unsupported at home. In one national survey, 10% reported someone at home had been violent toward them because they were transgender, and 15% had run away or were kicked out of home because they were transgender.

    The California Department of Education has issued guidance that warns that parental notification policies would violate students’ privacy rights and cites a California School Boards Association model policy that urges districts to protect students’ gender preferences.

    But Zachreson argues that even if children have a right to gender privacy that excludes their parents, which he denies exists, students waive it through their actions.  “At school, their teachers know about it, their peers and volunteers know about it, other kids’ parents know about it —  and yet the child’s own parent doesn’t know that the school is actively participating in the social transition,” he said.

    In some instances, he said, schools are actively taking steps to keep name changes and other forms of gender expression secret from the parents.

    “What we’re saying is, no, you can’t do that. You have to involve the parents in those decisions,” he said.

    Ward responds that many teachers don’t want to be coerced to interfere with students’ privacy and gender preferences. “Teachers have a job to do,” he said. “They are not the gender police.”

    A half-dozen school districts with conservative boards, including Rocklin, Temecula Valley and Chino Valley, have adopted mandatory parental notification policies. Last fall, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, arguing its policy is discriminatory. A state Superior Court judge in San Bernardino agreed that it violated the federal equal protection clause and granted a preliminary injunction. The case is on appeal.

    Last July, a judge for the U.S. District of Eastern California threw out a parent’s lawsuit against Chico Unified for its policy prohibiting disclosure of a student’s transgender status to their parent without the student’s explicit consent. The court ruled that it was appropriate for the district to allow students to disclose their gender identity to their parents “on their own terms.” Bonta and attorneys general from 15 states filed briefs supporting Chico Unified; the case, too, is on appeal.

    While some teachers vow to sue if required to out transgender students to their parents, a federal judge in Southern California sided with two teachers who sued Escondido Union School District for violating their religious beliefs by requiring them to withhold information to parents about the gender transition of children. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the district and then ordered the return of the suspended teachers to the classroom.

    No California appellate court has issued a ruling on parent notification, and it will probably take the U.S. Supreme Court for a definitive decision. Essayli pledged to take a case there.

    The national picture

    Seven states, all in the deeply red Midwest and South, have laws requiring identification of transgender students to their parents, while five, including Florida and Arizona, don’t require it but encourage districts to adopt ther own version, according to the Movement Advancement Project or MAP, an independent nonprofit.

    Two dozen states, including Florida, Texas, and many Southern and Midwest states ban best-practice health care, medication and surgical care for transgender youth, and six states, including Florida, make it a felony to provide surgical care for transgender care. Proponents cite the decision in March by the English public health system to prohibit youths under 16 from beginning a medical gender transition to bolster the case for tighter restrictions in the United States.  

    California has taken the opposite position; it is one of 15 like-minded states and the District of Columbia with shield laws to protect access to transgender health care. They include New York, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Massachusetts.

    Twenty-five states have laws or regulations banning the participation of 13- to 17-year-old transgender youth in participating in sports consistent with their gender identification.

    Not one solidly blue state is among those that have adopted the restrictions that Protect Kids California is calling for. But Zachreson and co-founder Erin Friday insist that contrary to the strong opposition in the Legislature, California voters would be open to their proposals. They point to favorable results in a survey of 1,000 California likely voters by the Republican-leaning, conservative pollster Spry Strategies last November.

    • 59% said they would support and 29% would oppose legislation that “restricts people who are biologically male, but who now identify as women, from playing on girl’s sports teams and from sharing facilities that have traditionally been reserved for women.”
    • 72% said they agreed, and 21% disagreed that “parents should be notified if their child identifies as transgender in school.”
    • 21% said they agreed, and 64% disagreed that “children who say they identify as transgender should be allowed to undergo surgeries to try to change them to the opposite sex or take off-label medications and hormones.”

    The voters surveyed were geographically representative and reflective of party affiliation, but not demographically: The respondents were mostly white and over 60, and, in a progressive state, were divided roughly evenly among conservatives, moderates and liberals.

    Two versions of protecting children

    Both sides in this divisive cultural issue say they’re motivated to protect children. One side says it’s protecting transgender children to live as they are, without bias and prejudice that contribute to despair and suicidal thoughts. The other side says it’s protecting kids from coercion to explore who they aren’t, from gender confusion and exposure to values at odds with their family’s.

    Zachreson and Friday wanted to title their initiative “Protect Kids of California Act of 2024.” But Bonta, whose office reviews initiatives’ titles and summaries, chose instead “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth. Initiative Statute.” Zachreson and Friday, an attorney, appealed the decision, but a Superior Court judge in Sacramento upheld Bonta’s wording, which he said was accurate, not misleading or prejudicial.

    Zachreson is appealing again. A more objective title and summary would make a huge difference, he said, by attracting financial backing to hire signature collectors and the support and resources of the California Republican Party, which declined to endorse the initiative. That was a strategic mistake in an election year when turnout will be critical.

    ”The people who support the initiative are passionate about it,” he said.

    Political observer Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University, agreed that the gender debate could have motivated Republicans and swing voters to go to the polls. 

    “There’s no question that the Attorney General’s ballot language had a devastating effect on the initiative’s supporters, and it could have almost as much of an impact on Republican congressional candidates this fall,” he said.





    Source link

  • Arkansas: Supporters of Abortion Rights Meet, Protestors Don’t Show Up

    Arkansas: Supporters of Abortion Rights Meet, Protestors Don’t Show Up


    Arkansas is deep-red, so of course the Legislature banned abortion. Supporters of abortion rights gathered enough signatures to put the issue to the voters, but the politicians knocked their referendum off the ballot. But the issue has not gone away.

    I thought readers might like to read about the persistence of abortion right supporters.

    The Arkansas Times is a dissident website that keeps readers informed about events like this one. If you want to know what Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders is doing, this is a great source.

    Austin Gelder wrote about the annual planned parenthood Garden Party:

    For proof of the sorry state of reproductive rights in Arkansas, consider that for the second year in a row, no protesters even bothered to show at the annual Planned Parenthood Garden Party.

    It’s been a brutal run here since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision of 2022 whipped away the national right to abortion access,  pulling the trigger on an Arkansas law primed to ban virtually all abortions in the state as soon as our blood-red state government officials could get away with it.

    Since then, the annual Planned Parenthood fundraiser still goes on. But the protesters who used to hoist their placards of bloody, dismembered fetus parts in view of the wine sippers and bidders at the silent auction tables aren’t a problem anymore. Transgender people and immigrants have displaced abortion care providers as the right’s new bogeyman, leaving reproductive rights advocates to regroup in peace.

    Anti-abortion groups tout Arkansas as the “most pro-life state in the nation.” To the crowd at the Planned Parenthood Garden Party in Little Rock Wednesday night, other superlatives – worst maternal mortality rate in the country, vying with Mississippi for the highest rate of teen pregnancy, among the worst states for child well-being – are more apt. 

    Planned Parenthood Great Plains Executive Director Emily Wales was in town for a party nonetheless. And while she didn’t sugarcoat the status report, it wasn’t quite as bitter as you might expect. 

    “Arkansas has paved the way for some pretty awful policies, not just for abortion access, but also excluding us from the Medicaid program and then continuing to pass anti-abortion billswhen there is really no abortion that is accessible for people,” Wales said. “That is not about health care, it’s about messaging and fear.”  

    Arkansas’s consolation prize for winning this race to the bottom is that we’re down here pioneering tips and tricks to share with other states who find themselves shut off from access to necessary medical care. A decade ago, then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson blocked Planned Parenthood clinics in Arkansas from collecting Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion services. (Federal reimbursements for abortions generally were banned even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.) Now, Planned Parenthood affiliates in other states are facing similar threats, and the Trump administration maintains a chokehold on the Title X federal funding that once helped cover the cost of family planning consultations, prescriptions and procedures.  

    “I don’t want to lean into our trauma or say that we’re resilient, because we’ve always been under attack,” Wales said. “But we have learned lessons about how to adapt and change and meet the moment. And right now, we have sister affiliates in Planned Parenthood who are trying to figure out what happens if they lose Medicaid, or if their Title X funding that was recently cut for many Planned Parenthoods doesn’t come back, what do they do? And for places like Arkansas, we are now in the position of advising other Planned Parenthoods on how you keep your doors open.”

    Doesn’t seem like much to brag about until you consider that Arkansas’s two Planned Parenthood clinics – one in Little Rock and one in Rogers – are seeing increasing numbers of patients each year, even with the state’s abortion ban in place. The number of patients served by Planned Parenthood in Arkansas rose nearly 45% from July 2023 to July 2024. Turns out they really do provide lots of other medical services after all!

    Iffy weather necessitated a change of venue for this year’s garden party, from the grounds of a historic home in the Quawpaw Quarter to the decidedly less garden-themed Next Level Events in the Union Station basement. The regulars showed up anyway, their numbers weighted toward people old enough to have a glimmer of memory of the pre-Roe days, but a three-dozen-strong corps of young volunteers organized the nametag table and passed out hors d’oeuvres. 

    Speakers skipped those apologetic qualifiers that used to precede seemingly every statement about abortion. None of that tired and defensive, “Nobody likes abortion, but …” anymore.

    Instead, speakers leaned into the freedom that comes with having little to lose. The din of a chatty, tipsy crowd packed into a subterranean space helped, too. “I feel like I could say anything and you wouldn’t know,” Wales said. “I could be wildly offensive about, perhaps, the current administration, and no one would ever know.”

    Other speakers laughed about the time Lori Williams, longtime clinical director at Little Rock Family Planning Services and the night’s winner of the Brownie Ledbetter Award, helped torpedo a 2013 bill to require ultrasounds for abortion access at six weeks by pulling out an alarmingly phallic vaginal ultrasound probe during a legislative committee hearing. 

    Sarah Thompson, a leader with Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights and winner of this year’s Christina Mullinax Persistent Spirit Award, lamented progress made and lost.

    “When I needed abortion care in Arkansas, I had to leave the state, and it was a long time ago. And now young women still have to leave the state to obtain abortion care,” Thompson said. “I’ll never stop doing this work. It’s part of who I am for the rest of my life.” (It should be noted that many Arkansas women still do access abortion services without leaving the state thanks to the prevalence of mail-order medication for early term abortions — though many Republicans want to put a stop to that as well.)

    Arkansas is part of Planned Parenthood of Great Plains, a consortium that includes Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri. Abortion is legal in Kansas, and last year, Missouri voters reinstated abortion rights, although state lawmakers there are angling to repeal them again. That kind of heartache is familiar to the 100,000+ Arkansans who signed a petition to give the state a chance to vote on reinstating abortion rights in 2024, only to see that opportunity smothered by dubious legal shenanigans.

    “Care in Arkansas does not look the way we want it to, and eventually it will return to what it needs to be, but we’re going to keep working on that,” Wales said. “Until then, we will be creative and thoughtful, and we are not about to be intimidated by what’s happening at the federal level, because we are really, really good at undermining authority.”



    Source link

  • Lawsuits charge antisemitism, civil rights violations at California charter school and high school district

    Lawsuits charge antisemitism, civil rights violations at California charter school and high school district


    Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood City.

    Credit: Flickr

    The parents of a former student of a San Jose charter school and six families in a wealthy Bay Area high school district have filed separate lawsuits charging “rampant” civil rights violations resulting from bullying, taunting, ostracism and other forms of antisemitic conduct. In the lawsuit brought against the Sequoia Union High School District, the families claim school officials ignored and showed “a deliberate indifference to the problem.”

    Both lawsuits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, say the discrimination escalated following the October 2023 attack on Israeli communities by Hamas and the Israeli retaliation and invasion of Gaza. 

    The lawsuit against the Sequoia Union High School District also reflects tension over how the ongoing conflict in Gaza has been taught in two Sequoia Union high schools as well as other districts engulfed in investigations and litigation. 

    The Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education is investigating whether Berkeley Unified failed to respond to rising incidents of antisemitism in its schools. Last month, several Jewish teachers in Los Angeles filed a lawsuit to overturn collective bargaining laws that they said force them to belong to a teachers union that helped create an ethnic studies curriculum that “is patently antisemitic.”

    Next month, an Orange County Superior Court judge will consider two nationally known Jewish legal groups’ motion to void an ethnic studies curriculum in Santa Ana Unified. They claim it was written by teachers and staff members who privately expressed antisemitic remarks and excluded Jewish community members from participating in the curriculum process.

    In their lawsuit, filed Friday, the six Sequoia Union High School District families named Woodside High Principal Karen Van Putten and three administrators of Woodside High, where five of the students attend, as well as Menlo-Atherton High School Principal Karl Losekoot, Sequoia Union Superintendent Crystal Leach, two district administrators, all five district board members, and Gregory Gruszynski, a history teacher at Woodside High.

    Placing the lawsuit in a wider context, lawyers for the Sequoia Union lawsuit said “leftist academics” have spread an ideology that “falsely portrays Jews as oppressors, engaged in ‘exploitive capitalism’ in the West and or ‘colonialism’ in the Middle East.”  

    “The result is not only a reprehensible failure of pedagogy but a hostile learning environment for Jewish students” — including in some Sequoia Union classes where the ideology is taught, the Sequoia lawsuit said.

    It cites as a relevant party but not a defendant the Liberated Ethnics Studies Model Curriculum Consortium, whose member groups are selling curriculum and training teachers in dozens of California districts. 

    Curriculum issues are not directly at issue in the lawsuit against University Prep Academy in San Jose. In that case, student Ella Miller, 13, and her parents filed the lawsuit on Oct. 23 against the charter middle and high school and its executive director. After months of abuse during which students taunted her as “the Jew” or “Jew,” Miller withdrew from the school and now attends a private school, the lawsuit said.

    The lawsuit also named as defendants the Santa Clara County Office of Education, which approved and oversees the charter school, and the California Department of Education, including State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond. The lawsuit claims county and state officials failed to respond to the family’s formal complaint that Ella’s rights had been violated or to intervene after learning of her mistreatment.

    The 55-page filing does imply some teachers were hostile to Israel. Ella’s father, Shai Miller, an Israeli, said he noticed on back-to-school night that Israel was erased from maps of the modern Middle East in Ella’s history class.

    Ella, who identifies as an Israeli American and speaks fluent Hebrew, has spent summers in Israel with cousins, the lawsuit said. The Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, in which 1,200 Israelis were slaughtered, distressed her and her family. She was visibly upset in history class on Oct. 9, the first day back in school after the attack, the lawsuit states. But before allowing her to go to the bathroom to collect herself, her teacher told her she had to read aloud something he had written “to the effect that, in the past, Palestinians and Jews had gotten along.”

    The lawsuit alleges that “this requirement to publicly espouse a position that was at odds with present-day reality was overwhelmingly oppressive and humiliating. It also further identified Ella as ‘the Jew’ to her classmates.” 

    Did history teacher show bias?

    Allegations of prejudiced classroom instruction that included antisemitic materials are a central element of the lawsuit against Woodside and Menlo-Atherton, two of four high schools in Sequoia Union, a demographically diverse, 10,000-student high school district. 

    Of Woodside High’s 1,646 students, 50% are Hispanic, 42% are white, 4% are Asian and 1% are Black. Only 28% were identified as low-income. Its students include low-income sections of Redwood City, and Woodside and Atherton, which are among the wealthiest ZIP codes in the United States.

    The lawsuit claimed that Gruszynski, a Woodside High history teacher who currently chairs the bargaining committee for the Sequoia District Teachers Association, “singled out and harassed L.K. (all plaintiff students are identified with initials), the only openly Jewish student” in his 10th grade world history class.” Gruszynski displayed a “Free Palestine” bumper sticker on his classroom wall. The lawsuit stated that he “mocked her beliefs, undermined her attempts to provide factual information to classmates, and coerced her into endorsing his biased and ahistorical views to achieve satisfactory grades on exams.”

    On a multiple-choice test, for example, the correct answer to the definition of Hamas, which the United States government has designated a terrorist organization, was a “Palestinian political party which is continuing to fight against Israel.”

    “In this way,” the lawsuit said, “Gruszynski forced a Jewish student to condemn Israel and disavow her beliefs in order to receive a passing grade.” The lawsuit said that L.K. returned home in tears after Gruszynski’s classes and decided she could not participate in any further classroom discussions “without inviting further harassment.”                       

    L.K.’s father, Sam Kasle, filed a complaint against Gruszynski, who refused to meet with him. Kasle requested to see Gruszynski’s course materials, which he, like other parents, had a right to review, but the district rejected that request. In response to the complaint, the vice principal disputed that Gruszynski made L.K. feel “uncomfortable” or “browbeaten,” and considered the case closed without reporting any action taken.

    Student handbook guarantees civil rights

    David Porter, University Prep Academy’s executive director, said the school’s attorney advised him not to comment on the lawsuit because it is an ongoing complaint. However, he did say that as the case proceeds, “what actually happened will come forward.”

    He added, “Our student handbook’s policies around bullying and discrimination are strict, and we follow them as written.”

    The school’s staff and student handbook for 2023-24 was expansive on protecting students’ civil rights, and the lawsuit extensively quotes from it. “The University Preparatory Academy Board and Staff commit to raise our voices against racism, unconscious bias, intolerance, injustice, and discrimination starting by reflecting on our own policies and actions,” it read.

    Another section that the lawsuit cites states that, “To the extent possible, UPA will make reasonable efforts to prevent students from being discriminated against, harassed, intimidated and/or bullied, and will take action to investigate, respond, and address and report on such behaviors in a timely manner.”

    David Rosenberg-Wohl, the family’s attorney, said the anti-discrimination language “is obviously important to the school, and so if the school does not honor it, that’s relevant because it suggests that one group does not count.”

    “Everybody talks the talk,” he said.

    In the days following Hamas’s attack, the discrimination against Ella intensified, the lawsuit said. This was before the Israeli army’s counter-attack and continued occupation, in which Gaza health officials say more than 40,000 Palestinian people, including many women and children, have been killed, and hundreds of thousands of Gazans have been displaced.

    The lawsuit further alleges that two girls, who said they were Palestinian, told Ella, “Jews are terrorists,” and asked her, “Do you know your family in Israel is living on stolen land?” Of dozens of girls who had been friendly to her, only one girl would speak to her.

    Students began to call her “White Ella,” progressing to “White Ella’s family are terrorists;” two boys chased her around the school, yelling, “We want you to die,” the lawsuit said.

    During the three months between Oct. 7, 2023, and Jan. 9, 2024, when Ella withdrew from University Prep Academy, the family had multiple meetings with school administrators, including Porter, the school’s executive director, but felt that the school failed to acknowledge and address the bigotry and harassment she faced. 

    Complaints with no response

    On Jan. 22, Ellla’s mother, Elisa, filed a formal complaint with the Santa Clara County Office of Education, the charter school’s authorizer. By law, the office had until March 24 — 60 days — to respond. On May 6, according to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the Bay Area Jewish Committee met with May Ann Dewan, then county superintendent, to request that she intervene and answer the complaint. In its answer on May 14, the county said the complaint does not fall within its oversight of University Prep Academy, and the complaint could be filed instead with the California Department of Education.

    Miller did that, and, on June 10, the department notified her that the complaint had been forwarded to Porter, who had until July 13 to respond.

    Since then, the lawsuit said, there has been no response from Porter, the school, the county office, or the state Education Department. “Doing nothing … despite knowing of the anguish of Ella and her family, was deliberate indifference,” it said.

    The family is seeking damages for Ella’s emotional and physical stress, the cost of a private school, and her lost access to educational opportunities.

    Long-standing ‘antisemitic sentiment’

    The lawsuit by the Sequoia Union families also cited “deliberate indifference to anti-Jewish harassment,” which it said started well before the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack. In one incident, according to the lawsuit, a long-term substitute teacher, who continues to teach at Menlo-Atherton High, asked plaintiff W.K. about his background. Told that his family is Jewish, the teacher allegedly shared jokes about the Holocaust with a group of students: “How do you fit 10,000 Jews in a Volkswagen?” she asked. “In the ashtray.”

    After the start of the Israeli-Hamas conflict on Oct 7, however, antisemitic incidents “surged,” the lawsuit said, citing several examples.

    A group of Woodside students yelled, “Go back to where you came from!” to another Jewish student at Woodside High. No disciplinary action followed, the lawsuit said.

    About that same time, a group of Menlo-Atherton students taunted plaintiff W.K. on the way to class, calling him a “kike” and said, “All Jews should die.”

    On Nov. 1, two swastikas were etched into the pavement in Woodside High. (Swastikas had been drawn on bathroom walls in Menlo-Atherton high a year earlier.) Two days later, Woodside High Principal Karen Van Putten emailed the Woodside community that an extensive investigation by school administrators and the San Mateo Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the swastikas were actually “spiritual symbol[s] from Japanese Buddhism known as Manji popularized by anime.” 

    The lawsuit called the investigation a “sham” that, in fact, did not involve the sheriff’s department. Citing administrators’ dismissal of the swastika incident, other derogatory remarks, and the failure of Van Putten and the Sequoia school board to address incidents, Scott and Lori Lyle, parents of a 12th grader at Woodside High, filed a detailed formal complaint.

    With no answer and no action taken in response for more than 200 days, the Jewish families filed their lawsuit, citing violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, the First Amendment’s right to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, as well as protections under California education laws and the state constitution.

    Filing a lawsuit is a huge step for families, said Lori Lowenthal Marcus, legal director for The Deborah Project. “Students don’t want to embarrass teachers, risk ridicule and humiliation. All of the families went through internal procedures. They tried to speak with principals; they filed complaints to see if they could rectify their situations, but all felt let down. A lawsuit was the next option.”

    The families are seeking the court to order a dozen remedies. They include:

    • prohibiting discrimination and harassment of their children;
    • prohibiting the district from engaging in any antisemitic conduct; 
    • ordering the district to implement a comprehensive policy addressing antisemitism;
    • providing training for all teachers, administrators and staff in strategies to promote empathy and respect for Jewish individuals and their connection to Israel;
    • terminating any teachers found to have engaged in antisemitic discrimination; and
    • creating transparent requirements for disclosing course materials to the public.

    The families also call for appointing a special master to monitor compliance with the court’s orders for three years.

    The Deborah Project, a public interest law firm that defends the civil rights of Jews in educational settings, with pro bono assistance of California attorneys in the global law firm Ropes and Gray, are representing the families. The case is Kasle, et al. v. Van Putten, et al.

    Naomi Hunter, public information officer for Sequoia Union, said the district has not yet been served with the lawsuit. “We support a safe environment for all students, and we are very concerned any time we receive a complaint about a hostile environment, but we cannot respond further until we have more information,” she said.





    Source link

  • What rights do immigrant students and families have in California schools and colleges? | Quick Guide

    What rights do immigrant students and families have in California schools and colleges? | Quick Guide


    Two students share a bench during lunch at Rudsdale Newcomer High School in Oakland.

    Anne Wernikoff for EdSource

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    In the first months of the first Trump administration in 2017, a father in Los Angeles was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after dropping his 12-year-old daughter off at school.

    The ripple effect was immediate.

    “Right away there was a drop in attendance in L.A. schools because parents were thinking, ‘Oh, if I drop off my kids, ICE is going to pick me up,’” said Ana Mendoza, senior staff attorney at ACLU of Southern California and director of the organization’s Education Equity Project. “The need for safety and sanctuary policies became really salient because students weren’t going to schools or families were tentative about their participation in schools.”

    In the wake of this year’s presidential election, there is again widespread uncertainty among immigrant families in California about what is to come, given President-elect Donald Trump’s promises of mass deportation.

    State Attorney General Rob Bonta recently released updated guidelines and model policies about what K-12 schools, colleges and universities can and cannot do under state and federal law, regarding keeping immigrant students and families’ data private, when to allow an immigration enforcement officer on campus, how to respond to the detention or deportation of a student’s family member, and how to respond to bullying or harassment of a student based on immigration status.

    The original guidelines and policies were released in 2018 by then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, after California passed Assembly Bill 699, requiring schools to pass policies that limited collaboration with immigration enforcement. Bonta is now asking schools to update their policies.

    “School districts should be examining what their board policies are and to make sure they’re updated and take any measures to make sure that families feel safe,” Mendoza said.

    An estimated 1 in 10, or 1 million, children in California have at least one undocumented parent. And about 133,000 children in California public schools are undocumented themselves, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

    In California’s colleges and universities, an estimated 86,800 students are undocumented, and about 6,800 employees in TK-12 schools, colleges and universities have temporary work permits and protection from deportation under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

    “Undocumented students and faculty and staff are afraid for their safety, and this will impact their retention and enrollment in higher education if they’re not feeling safe or they’re feeling targeted,” said Luz Bertadillo, director of campus engagement for the Presidents’ Alliance for Higher Education and Immigration, a national organization of college and university leaders. “For campuses to have a strong stance on what they’re doing to support undocumented students is important, or at least letting their students know they’re thinking about them and they’re taking action. Even though they cannot guarantee their safety, at least they’re taking those initiatives to safeguard.”

    What rights do immigrant students and family members have at school and college, regardless of their immigration status?

    The right to attend public school 

    All children present in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have a right to attend public school. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Plyler v. Doe that states cannot deny students a free, public education based on their immigration status or their parents or guardians’ immigration status. Some states — including California in 1994 with Proposition 187 — and school districts have since attempted to pass laws that would either deny enrollment to students who did not have valid immigration status or report their status to authorities, but all these laws have been struck down by courts.

    California schools are not allowed to request or collect information about Social Security numbers, immigration status or U.S. citizenship when enrolling students. Students and parents do not have to answer questions from schools about their immigration status, citizenship or whether they have a Social Security number.

    “This often comes up in requests for student documents,” Mendoza said. “I had an intake once where a parent gave a passport during enrollment, and the front office person was asking the parent for a visa. No. The school has no right to ask for documents about your citizenship or immigration status.”

    Schools can ask for some information like a student’s place of birth, when they first came to the U.S. or attended school in the U.S., in order to determine whether a student is eligible for special federal or state programs for recently arrived immigrant students or English learners. However, parents are not required to give schools this information, and schools cannot use this information to prevent children from enrolling in school. The Office of the Attorney General suggests that schools should collect this information separately from enrolling students.

    Privacy of school records

    The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, restricts schools from sharing students’ personal information in most cases with other agencies or organizations, including federal immigration authorities. The law requires that schools get a parent or guardian’s consent before releasing any student information to another agency or organization, or if the student is 18 or older, schools must get consent from the student.

    However, in some cases, schools may be required to provide information without consent in response to a court order or judicial subpoena.

    Colleges are also restricted from sharing information except in certain cases. Bertadillo said her organization recommends that college leaders have conversations with all the different departments that might manage information about students’ or families’ immigration status, such as information technology, admissions, registrar, and financial aid, to review their practices for storing or sharing the data.

    “We hear some campuses have citizenship status on their transcripts and those transcripts get sent to graduate schools, to jobs, and that’s essentially outing students,” Bertadillo said.

    She said it’s important for colleges and schools to pass or revisit procedures about what to do if immigration officials ask for data or attempt to enter a campus.

    “A lot of institutions created them back in Trump 1.0. We’re recommending they reaffirm or revisit them, so that the campus knows that this is in place,” Bertadillo said.

    Safe haven at school

    The Department of Homeland Security has designated schools and colleges as protected areas where immigration enforcement should be avoided as much as possible. President-elect Trump has said he may rescind this policy.

    In the event that ICE officers do enter schools or ask to question students, the attorney general’s guidelines say school staff should ask officers for a judicial warrant. Without a judicial warrant, school staff are not required to give an ICE officer permission to enter the school or conduct a search, or to provide information or records about a student or family, the guidelines say.

    A bill introduced by state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, D-Long Beach, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond would establish a “safe zone” of 1 mile around schools and prohibit schools from allowing ICE to enter a campus or share information without a judicial warrant.

    Under California law, schools must notify parents or guardians if they release a student to a law-enforcement officer, except in cases of suspected child abuse or neglect.

    California law does not require schools to notify parents or guardians before law enforcement officers question a child at school, but it does not prohibit schools from notifying them either. California’s attorney general suggests that school districts and charter schools should create policies that require notification of parents or guardians before a law enforcement officer questions or removes a student, unless that officer has a judicial warrant or court order.

    In addition, the attorney general says if a police officer or immigration agent tries to enter a school or talk to a student for purposes of immigration enforcement, the superintendent or principal should e-mail the Bureau of Children’s Justice in the California Department of Justice.

    “Schools should retrain their staff on their visitor management policies, to make sure everyone who comes onto campus, including law enforcement, is questioned about what their purpose is, and that school staff is trained on what to do if law enforcement asks to see information about students or staff,” said Mendoza.

    Support from school if a family member is detained or deported

    If a student reports that their parents or guardians were detained or deported, California law requires that the school must follow parents’ instructions about whom to contact in an emergency. The attorney general’s guidance says “schools should not contact Child Protective Services unless the school is unsuccessful in arranging for the care of the child through the emergency contact information.”

    The guidance also suggests that schools should help students and family members contact legal assistance, their consulate, and help them locate their detained family members through ICE’s detainee locator system.

    Mendoza said it is important to note that if a student’s parents are detained or deported, and as a result they have to go live with another family member, at that point, they are eligible for support for homeless students under the federal McKinney-Vento Act.

    Protection from discrimination and harassment

    Federal law prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, national origin, color, sex, age, disability and religion. California’s law AB 699 also made immigration status a protected characteristic, meaning that schools are required to have policies that prohibit discrimination, harassment and bullying based on immigration status.

    Mendoza said it’s important for families and students who experience bullying or harassment to know they can submit complaints through their schools or to different agencies in California. “There are advocates out there willing to support them if their schools do not act in accordance with best practices or with the law,” Mendoza said.

    Free lunch, subsidized child care and special education

    In California, all students have a right to a free school lunch, since the 2022-23 school year. In addition, some students whose families are considered low-income qualify for subsidized child care, either all day for infants and preschoolers, or after school for school-age children. Students with disabilities have a right to special education to meet their needs, under federal law.

    Immigrant families are often afraid to apply for public services because they are worried this will count against them when applying for permanent residency. This is largely due to the “public charge” test, which immigration officers use to determine whether green-card applicants are likely to depend on public benefits. 

    Currently, immigration officers can only consider whether applicants have used cash assistance for income, like SSI or CalWORKs, or long-term institutionalized care paid for by public insurance, such as Medi-Cal. They do not consider school lunch, child care or food stamps. And officers are not allowed to look at whether applicants’ family members, like U.S. citizen children, use public benefits. During the first Trump administration, the president changed this policy to include family members and some other benefits. It is unclear whether he may attempt to change this again in the future. However, even under the changes during his first term, school lunch and child care were not included.

    In-state tuition and scholarships for college

    Under the California Dream Act, undocumented students qualify for in-state tuition and state financial aid at California colleges and universities if they attended high school for three or more years or attained credits at community college or adult school and graduated from high school or attained an associate degree or finished minimum transfer requirements at a California community college. The number of students applying for the California Dream Act has plummeted in recent years.





    Source link