Read by the Superintendent at the April 12th meeting of the Siuslaw School Board:
There is not an agenda item for consideration of ‘sanctuary’ status on the agenda for the upcoming board meeting. This concept was brought up at a previous meeting as an item from a patron during the public comment section at the March meeting.
The District has policy on how staff are to engage with law enforcement on campus. Policy KN and Policy KN-AR outline the majority of the District approach to interaction with law enforcement, while the rest is guided by the Federal Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA).
In addition to policies regarding interaction with law enforcement and the rights to privacy of student records, the staff at all schools enforce policies:
JFC – Student Conduct – Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying or Teen Dating
JFCF – Harassment/Intimidation/Bullying/Cyberbullying/Teen Dating Violence
GBNA – Hazing/Harassment/Intimidation/Bullying/Menacing
Considering the recent publicity in Oregon with how schools are engaging with law enforcement agencies, the following guidelines, in keeping with policy and law, are once again shared with patrons, staff, and the Board:
#1 – We are education, not law enforcement. We deal with crimes related to the safety and well-being of children, and pass those along to law enforcement. We are not to do the job of law enforcement, we leave that to the professionals. Other crimes not involving the welfare of children have never been addressed by law enforcement on our campus before by any agency.
#2 – Subpoenas for records information are covered by FERPA. We have 45 days to respond, we have a duty to inform parents of such a subpoena and all subpoenas will be directed towards legal counsel.
#3 – Warrants require direct action, no matter the status of any resolution or policy. If addressed by an official with a warrant, school staff are to comply and contact the district office to engage our legal counsel.
Title 8, United States Code 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) specifically prohibits an individual from harboring an illegal alien from detection when the status is known. We are a school and neither staffed nor equipped to shield individuals from law enforcement, regardless of the legality of such an action.
Federal law regarding public school enrollment was set by the Supreme Court in 1982 with the Plyler v. Doe case. All students regardless of their immigration status, or that of their parents, are allowed to receive a public education in the United States. The Oregon constitution is even more protective. Texas (1975 in the case that lead to the Plyler ruling), California (Proposition 18 in 1994), and Alabama (House Bill 56 in 2011) have tried to either ban undocumented students or have schools report suspected undocumented persons to law enforcement. All of these efforts have failed all legal challenges. Schools are not law enforcement agencies and cannot perform actions that ‘chill’ or dissuade students from attending school.
Our city police, county sheriff’s department, and state police have never asked us as educators to perform any action that would bring alleged criminals onto campus for arrest and create a potential hazard for students and staff. I hope that any other agency would also have the same ethical standards and safeguards in mind when operating around public schools.
At this time, there have been no documented immigration enforcement efforts on any public school K-12 campus in Oregon. Since 2011, the Department of Homeland Security has considered schools to be a ‘sensitive location’ and their own internal policy prohibits arrests, interviews and searches regarding immigration status of individuals at schools.
The District can maintain a safe and welcoming educational environment for all students within the current bounds of policy and law.