Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member, Senate Education Committee)]: We're live.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: We're live. Okay. This is the Senate Education Committee on the afternoon of February 12. Today, or at least for now, we're picking up S-two 27, aggravating to creating immigration protocols in Vermont schools. In some ways, this is Well, let's leave it that. Well, I think it's worth sending. Well, I was gonna say that in some ways, this is a companion, we have talked about two zero eight and two zero nine, and in some ways this is really the third bill related to how the state is trying to position itself with regard to the integration issues. And so we kind of walked through the bill, taken a little bit of testimony, this is a big testimony today for S-two 27. The goal here really is to have the schools develop protocols, in the event that ice comes knocking on the schoolhouse. And so we, starting with Wilmer, Chabera, superintendent of the Lunisky School District. Yeah. Tell us about, you know, I know what you're gonna

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: do, so just tell you. I'm gonna read a statement. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Vermont Senate Committee on Education. I am Wilmer Chavarria, the superintendent of the Weekski School District, and I am joined by the school board president, Robert Pilar. We are here today to testify in support of S two twenty seven. When I am asked for my opinion on statewide approaches such as this, I warn people that legislation on schools must balance two important priorities. On the one hand, schools have no more capacity to take on yet another responsibility from the state and other institutions refusing to show leadership. On the other hand, schools and educators hold the most trust in Vermont communities, and that trust carries a heavy responsibility in the face of unprecedented fear in children and families. Waiting for someone else to address the difficult challenge will only render education tacitly complicit to inaction. Over a year ago, when Windham District debated the need for a board level list of requirements for schools to address immigration enforcement threats, two arguments were most commonly made against establishing district wide parameters that specifically confronted the question of what it means to protect migrant students. The first was that some of the requirements proposed were legally redundant. The second was that creating such policies would simply attract negative attention to the district. After a robust process of conversation over several months, the board realized that while some umbrella laws may exist that theoretically should protect children in school from breaches of privacy, physical violence, and psychological trauma. Those laws are so wide in scope that they do not sufficiently address the very specific set of circumstances that lead many families to distrust the school's readiness to truly keep immigrant students safe. A simple example of this is that most schools have not reviewed their FERPA procedures in years. Most administrators would not be able to tell you, for instance, what their district allows or doesn't allow as directory information based on their previously adopted procedures. Another simple example is that most office assistants would not know what to do or what to ask of a federal agent requesting entry into a building. In Miluzki's internal review, as a result of our Sanctuary Schools policy, we were able to identify several internal practices, processes, and official requirements that were problematic, specifically for immigrant families. While we did not need the board to impose these reviews for us to conduct them, the fact that they were previously dependent on an individual administrator's discretion meant that the safety and belonging of children in Vermont could potentially change based on who the administrator is or on district and school boundaries. The second argument against taking decisive and targeted action was unwanted attention. We took this argument seriously and decided that the final board should belong to the people who would be affected most by this situation. I met with several fellow immigrant families in my office, visited classrooms to consult with students, and heard from city residents about their perspectives, but the most powerful and clear message came from the large and diverse crowd of community members who packed the school library and provided hours of testimony on why this stance and concrete action was exactly what the community needed. The board decided exactly a year ago that rather than hypothesize what was best for the people, the people should be believed. Families guided us as we explored the question of what the school's role should be in the face of danger. Last February, I gave an interview to a national outlet in Texas soon after the passage of our policy. I was asked whether I was imagining a problem that didn't exist. As a brown immigrant who is often targeted given my public role, I am very much used to an experience that probably rings true to most other people of color in this country, constantly being told that we are trying to make trouble out of nothing and that we are exaggerating. I do not take this personally. I consider it instead an opportunity for leadership and listening. In answering the interviewer's question, I said that I truly hope I am indeed imagining a danger that doesn't exist, and that hopefully nothing we are preparing for ever comes to pass. I reminded the host that school safety is not about being ready for something only after it has happened, but rather about planning for worst case scenarios so that we are not caught unprepared. Our schools in Vermont are unprepared. Even with a large number of well meaning educators, without intentional protocols and widespread training, a single mistake by an untrained staff member can become a life changing tragedy for a child. Soon after being told that I was exaggerating, the federal government rescinded its own policy to not enter schools and other sensitive zones, began to threaten entities that provided protections for immigrants, and substantially increased its overreach in our communities, often ignoring the constitution and the law. What has happened since last spring has shown me that I was not imagining it. The board did the right thing to direct my administration to be prepared and to understand that federal laws may no longer be sufficient to protect us when interpreted and executed by bad actors who find pleasure and pride in cruelty and the terrorizing of our communities. The requirement to be ready empowered us to be creative, resourceful, and highly connected with our residents. Since then, a lot has happened in Winooski, so much that I will not attempt to tell it all today, but when a small school district is on national news multiple times and its actions earned direct condemnation from the White House, you know then that our task was taken very seriously, but our little system is exhausted and isolated. It has been a year of us drifting alone. We call on the state and all schools to join us in taking a stand and to remember that we have a duty to protect every child, not only those from the majority. Thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you. Chief, do we have a copy? Can we get a copy of your policy? Sure. We

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: could share it.

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: But we don't have it. It's on the website.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Oh, wait, it's on your web. Of course

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: it Thank

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: you. Any questions?

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member, Senate Education Committee)]: Well, I mean, you for your powerful words and the work you've been doing for the last year, I know it has, in many ways, been alone or isolated and not just felt that way, so I do apologize on behalf of the state. When you look at at the bill and your protocols, what other leadership, maybe not statutory language that could be added, but other leadership do you think the agency of education could take, should we have more families start to fear sending their kids to school or dropping their kids off at school?

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: I tend to be careful not to do the work for other people and not to give people the tools that they should themselves be seeking because I do, I'm sure you're all familiar with the tax imposed on leaders of color to have to give you all the answers, because it's shortcut to those things. But I would say that feel good statements are not helpful. All sorts of sporadic condemnations of actions by state leaders that are not provided at the same time with actual, concrete actions, those things are not helpful because they distract the people. They make us they believe that we are doing something when we are not. And right now, we're not doing much, but a lot of people are saying a lot of things. And because we are on the news often, and I personally am on the news sometimes, I get a lot of a lot of support verbally. And while it's well meaning, it's not very helpful. It has a role. Public perception and influence public perception is an important thing. So, statements can play a part. It's part of the work. But statements alone, we should not stop there. I believe that in terms of concrete actions, there haven't been very many, but statements tend to be the cheapest way to go about it so that we can check a box. I will say that in terms of concrete steps, this is a huge one. The bill that's being proposed right now mirrors some of the critical parts of the work that we've been doing in Winooski, and just the fact that this law might not change very much for a lot of schools that don't have as much a need in terms of immigration enforcement protocols. But the fact that now we will no longer be called the only ones and attract all this ugly attention to both sides, that alone is a way to protect the immigrant families of that specific place in Vermont. I can go on and on specific things, but like I said, I try to be careful not to do that too much, because otherwise that becomes a full time job.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk, Senate Education Committee)]: Yes. You said you had a lot of comments commending what you said. How much bad has come back towards you saying, you know, how dare you say this, or there is not you already said there's people have said there's not a problem, but has anybody been aggressive about Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Very much.

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: We we can test threats.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk, Senate Education Committee)]: Oh, really?

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: Yes. And we have a compendium of thousands of voicemails and emails and hate mail where the most violent racism and violence is spewed against our communities and our students, so much that our students were not sure if it was safe for a couple of weeks in December to come to school, and we had to work really hard to tell the families that it was a safe place. I worked with our law enforcement to make sure that that was the case. And how is the atmosphere at the school? Has it made division there

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk, Senate Education Committee)]: between students, or is it still a good atmosphere for all the kids?

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: It's been a unifying energy because even people who are not affected by these threats right now realize that it's very real for their classmates and it's very real for their neighbors. And when they feel like they at least can contribute to making their fears feel a little safer, that gives you a purpose and a sense of community and a sense of unity in Winooski. And so, it has not been divisive at all. The vision has gone from the outside. It has not gone from the inside. Inside, everybody, the majority of people are

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk, Senate Education Committee)]: extremely supportive of the way we've handled this. And I believe you can get that out as well. It's like, if they've always divisiveness there, that might be a problem, but you're saying, hey, it's a whole school system that's coming together and support what we're doing. And that means a lot. That means a lot. That there's no, everybody's coming together, there is a little division there.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Sure, go ahead. By the way, I forgot to have the orchard for some of

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: the records. Get him? Oh, yes. For the record, I'm Wilmer Chavarria. I'm the superintendent of

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: the Windham School District. Okay, thank I'm Robert Miller. I'm the chair of this report. So I just wanted to chime in on what we're saying about the district, and and I would say that's far broader community of support, doing a support for the. But point something to people, Wilmer referenced when we were bringing up this policy way back in February. People show up in the library, I can tell you as chair, I was a little concerned about what that was gonna be like, but instead, was person after person, community members of all kinds from surrounding communities showing support for the work that we're doing. We've had the same thing, you know, with more recent incidents referenced in in December. We've had we had to actually we we had a a a meeting canceled. We had to take the website down for the

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: time, and then when we came back, had to

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: get dozens of people come in the library, and I was like, oh god. What's this gonna be? But, again, it was person after person, so I mean, was work for the work at Walmart. And I don't wanna take any credit. I just wanna be there to to show you that there's broad and need to be support for How many students is covered? In our district? Yeah. It's around, what, eight thirteen?

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: Eight hundred. We are the smallest school district.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Three k through 12. Yeah. I just wanted

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: to, first, thank you for your testimony, and and I agree that that we're in some uncharted waters, which caught most of us completely unprepared. But I do want to reflect on the fact that just two or three hours ago, the senate we passed s two zero nine which is intended and still draft legislation has to go to the house and has to go through the governor, but to essentially umbrella protect schools and other facilities. I think it would be at least helpful in this conversation to reflect on the fact that there are efforts to recognize the challenges that you're up against and to support you. I don't want that, I don't want this opportunity to come and go without recognizing at least two zero nine and two zero eight, the two zero nine specifically, stress to try to assist you in your challenges.

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: Yeah, I can speak to that. I appreciate that, and I also want to remind senators that protection of students is more than the emergency. It's what happens right now in the classroom, what we say to the families, how our facilities are prepared for any incident, even the curriculum, what we're saying to the students, what we're teaching to the students. Do they believe that this is their school, that this is their career in New York, do they think they are just visitors that should be grateful for being allowed to exist? So, the protection of migrant students goes beyond that, and readiness for immigrant students is beyond the emergency. And I think this bill that you have in front of you actually touches on some of that, and it goes beyond just the protection of an emergency. So I would highly encourage you to give it serious stuff.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So I'd just simply like to add that I think the issue is even far bigger than schools, far bigger than immigrants. It's a there's a huge problem that we're we're we're publicized, and I'll leave it at that. So before we recognize we've got an enormous challenge, it's not we're not blind to I just wanted to hopefully maybe sow you a little bit that we're all in this. We're all watching this.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: As you just one quick question. As you read the bill, was there a moment you looked at something and said, They should have done this?

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: Who should have done this?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: He should have, the author. Is there something different? Is there something that you No, read

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: I recognized a couple of places that I was like, recognize why some maybe educators or specific stakeholders might believe either it doesn't go far enough or it's too burdensome on schools, little places here and there, and I'm sure these conversations will yield some of that, and that's how it's supposed to be. But as a whole, I am fully supportive of it. I think every section in here is critical and very necessary.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member, Senate Education Committee)]: Well, I know Doctor. Callaghan has been following what other states are doing and maybe some best practices we can add, but I don't want it to get lost that you said this this is expensive. Even if we're not providing funding for this, it it gets expensive to be targeted by the federal government. We certainly know that in CVSD as well. You know, I think the superintendent has said it could cost over $1,000,000 and and far more than that to have been targeted by the federal government and to have demands for student data being made. So as we talk about cost savings, it's very expensive also for us to be asking you to protect our kids in this way.

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: If you're the only one, yes. If everybody in the nation were doing this, all schools are operating the same way, then it would be hard to just pick one. But right now, we're really a clear target, not only for Vermont, but even New England. And very few states are considering fields such as this one, but I think it can be a powerful message. And it can have real concrete consequences in the

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: lives of people. So thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for working here. Actually are swatted to speak if you'd like to. Me? Yeah. You don't have to.

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: No. I didn't have my own testimony. I'm here as morals at work. Okay. That's just fine. Thank

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: you for coming. Perfectly talented.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Hi. Thank you for having me.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. Thank

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: you for having me and my apologies for not being there in person. I had to turn around on the highway. Was not going to make it there quite in time. My name is Rebecca Callahan. I am a professor of education policy at University of Vermont. My research area focuses on the intersection of language education and immigrant and immigration policy as it shapes the educational and economic and civic outcomes of children of what I refer to as immigrant origin youth, children of foreign born parents, whether or not the kids were born here in The US. So, and I'm commenting today on Senate two twenty seven, proposed Senate Bill two twenty seven. And I'm going to echo Superintendent Chavarria's notes that it was wonderful to see this come forward. I'm very excited to see this going. I understand there are tensions between how much this will cost and its implementation. I'm hopeful, however, that this is something we can do to protect our students, all of our students, and again echoing Superintendent Chavarria's points, there's language in here that I think we want to strengthen about securing access to free public education, the benefits economic and health and civic to that free public education, as well as the impacts of immigrant enforcement on our school system, on our students, all of our students in terms of absenteeism, achievement, and emotional and social health outcomes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member, Senate Education Committee)]: Can you hear me all right?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yes.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Okay, thank you. And please feel free to jump in if you have questions along the way. I sent some notes beforehand. I do have a PowerPoint slide, but it is not quite finished. So would that be easier for folks for the first half to follow? Or can I just speak at you?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: We can follow, you can just speak.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Okay, I'll do that then, thank you. I wanted to underscore that the with this bill I would even recommend including some language to ensure that all students in Vermont have access to a free public education. Currently the federal government secures that. That is currently the case however over the past four decades we know that about 3,000,000 adults have benefited from the access of a free public education for undocumented youth. And those benefits to those individual adults have serious economic impacts on our states and local entities. We found that total state and local income taxes paid by the beneficiaries of those laws exceeded the state and local costs of educating those students by over $633,000,000,000 with a B, $633,000,000,000. So that is benefits to our economic benefits to our states and our communities and prevented almost three quarters of a million children of these recipients from growing up in poverty. And individually it increased individual level income at about 171,000,000,000 in the last forty years, and more importantly it increased the GDP nationally by $2,710,000,000,000 over the course of these past forty years. So I've got the citations and the notes I sent to you and what it also showed us is that a large share of these undocumented immigrants who were able to access a free public education because of this protection we're able to one in five, about 20%, were continued in careers that required at least some college education. And there's a disproportionate focus on health care and education, two areas where there's a shortage. I don't know if you've tried to get a doctor's appointment here in Vermont, got a need for some people. But the income losses, if we were to, if we were not to have had this program and this policy in place over the last forty years, the estimates are that there would be $1,000,000,000,000 in income loss at the individual level and to the state. The health outcomes are consistent with what we would expect from the research, almost 30,000,000,000, 28,900,000,000.0 since 1982 is estimated to have been saved based on this access to free education. This is obesity, disability, infant mortality, and general health, influenza, and mental health outcomes. And at one point I wanted to just reiterate, because in the language of the bill, wanted to clarify that all of our schools do collect and are required by federal law to collect nativity in terms of place of birth, whether it's US or Puerto Rico or not US and Puerto Rico. None of these data, however, are reported to the federal government at the state or I'm sorry at the local district or student level. These data are all aggregated at the state level. So Vermont is required to report the number of students. It is not required to report citizenship status or country of origin. That said, we should also be careful to remember that it is forbidden by law to collect citizenship status. There's a part in here about the student data systems and access to those data systems. That's where I'm thinking about that making sure that isn't connected. Getting to the meat of this this is the stuff I love researching and presenting on the absenteeism. We're seeing we in prior research in the last decade or so on school districts following immigration enforcement activities. This started with raids that started in the early 2000s. Immigrant or researchers were able to follow the student absenteeism, attendance, achievement in the months, weeks, and years following the raids and they found that absenteeism spiked up to 11% in many districts following a raid and the long term over the next several months the districts sustained about a 2% loss in attendance which is which is a considerable economic impact as well. Some of these there was a 400% increase when we're just looking at immigrant origin youth in absenteeism as well as increases in exclusionary disciplinary actions, substance abuse disorder, self harm, sexual abuse in the full year following the race. But and beyond that that's attendance and that's at the school level this is not just children who might not have U. S. Citizenship, but we also see that there's decreases in average achievement both in terms of grades and test scores, drop in high school math test scores following and achievement following all all different types of immigration raids and immigration enforcement activities. Teachers reported student behaviors changed following the raids as and immigration enforcement activities, making school less of an inclusive learning place. You see that eighty percent of teachers reported increased behavioral challenges. Eighty percent also expressed students reporting fears about being at school, coming to school, whether or not they belonged in the school, and there was an increase in bullying incidents as well. A little bit counter to, but not surprising when we're thinking about thousands of schools being thousands of teachers, excuse me, being surveyed. So a little bit different than Superintendent Chavarria's statement, which is a nice statement about the connectivity of the Windham District. Gave you in the notes I sent, I suggested some places where we might strengthen the language in order to make sure that we retain local control and districts have autonomy. So recognizing that just some expanded language around non public areas of the school, recognizing buses and bus stops, consider giving what's happened what happened in Minnesota with the child care centers specifying early childhood education and higher ed. Probably most importantly was we use the term directory and remembering that all of our student data systems are pretty much housed by a third party vendor. So this is something you would want to expand to make sure that is specific. But that is pretty much my summary of the research out there. And any questions? Anything I can clarify?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Juan? Yeah. Now

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk, Senate Education Committee)]: this was on, this didn't define between documented and legal immigrants and undocumented, did it, in your study?

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: Is there

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: some research Yes. Immigrants. We're using school data for all the studies. There's school level or state level administrative data and schools do not collect legal status. So they're looking at all students.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: All right thank you.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Yeah and that there is a chilling effect and that the survey data the Ian Gandara sites that I put in here they really find that it's all students. The teachers report this being all students in the school, not just immigrant origin.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So just a recap here, make sure we understand your testimony. I think you're making a few suggestions to us. One is that we add language clarifying that at the state level, we reinforce that we educate all children regardless of citizenship status. That's number one. And then number two, you would suggest that we should make sure that or think about when we talk about federal immigration authority that we include local police who are working in cooperation with and then include school buses and school stops. I don't know what ECE centers are by the way.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: I'm sorry, early childhood education.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay, okay, okay. Just to find that. Yeah, okay. And then-

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: IHEs are institutes of higher ed.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Then, but then, okay. Then you're also saying we should include employees within the protections if they're in one of these settings.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Yes. Way it's read, ahead.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: That's it. No, you go.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Just that the way that sentence reads, it's school and school employees, and so they're lumped together and you might be better able to protect Vermont school employees or contractors, etc. Who work with schools. We have a lot of folks who come into schools who are SROs for example, the school resource officers are often employees of the police departments who are in schools. And I don't have the numbers on that for how common that is in Vermont, but it's fairly common in secondary schools nationally.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: The last one is to expand to include student data systems. I thought that was in here. So what's the difference?

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: The wording you have right now, which is great, is student directory. And directory can be seen as just the list of students. And student data systems are much more expansive. They have attendance data, enrollment data, every achievement tests the students have taken any assessment the school has conducted.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. Alright.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Yeah. The list goes on. Okay.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Any other questions? Nope. Thank you very much. That's it. The suggestions, the concrete suggestions are always helpful for us. Thank you.

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: Of course. Yeah. Thank you for having me here.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: You're very welcome. Thank you for coming. Yeah. We have Julio next. I'm here.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Julio, you are here. Yeah. We drop the shape if needed, so it would be helpful. Behind me here. Just be and that's fine.

[Senator Terry Williams (Clerk, Senate Education Committee)]: And you gotta spin that.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yeah. Thank

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: you. I appreciate the courtesy. Perfect. You. Good afternoon. My name is Julio Thompson. I'm an Assistant Attorney General, co director of the Attorney General Civil Rights Unit. Part of the work that we do with the Civil Rights Unit is that we are involved in issues relating to or touching upon from owners that relates to federal law enforcement, whether it includes including but not limited to immigration. This bill has within it some components relating to communications with federal authorities about immigration status. I have, in my role, in various roles in the AG's office, been involved in those issues, those delicate issues of state and federal sovereignty and diplomacy, I think approximately 2013. In 2017, the legislature had passed or enacted two laws, not dealing with education, but that addressed the issue of communications with federal immigration authorities, and I was evolving the testimony and among many others about how to navigate federal law to make sure that the law that the legislature wanted to have stayed intact, and thankfully we haven't had any challenges to those laws. So I'm here today to talk a little bit about some of those federalism issues, but I want to start off by saying that our office supports the bill, provided that it contains, you know, it follows the appropriate standards for dealing with questions of federalism. I'll have some comments about, or ideas about how to do that, and some references for legislative council for the committee to look at. So what I would like to do is start with the issue about whether and to what extent a state or local government restrict communications with ICE or other federal immigration authorities. And you have to go a little bit back in history. In 1996, President Clinton signed two laws into effect. One was part of the so called Welfare Reform Act. The other one was the Immigration Reform Control Act, both of which contain limitations on when states or local governments can limit their employees or their agencies from voluntarily sharing information regarding citizenship or immigration status with immigration authorities. Those are sections, it's in Title VIII of The U. S. Code, it's sections thirteen seventy three and sixteen forty four. Section thirteen seventy three also places limitations on the extent to which, or it purports to limit when or how states and local governments can restrict maintenance of records related to immigration and citizenships. Before digging in a little bit more about that, just wanna make sure that we're working from a common vocabulary under the prevailing legal authority on the issue. Information regarding citizenship and immigration status is merely confined to who the individual is and what their status is. It doesn't include their age, place of employment, school they go to, physical characteristics, none of that information. It's solely about an individual's status if it's. And so, to the extent the state has to navigate its way around those restrictions on communications with immigration status, I want to point out that those federal laws don't restrict at all limitations on other information about individuals, such as where they live, place of national origin, age, and so forth, and so there's a far greater birth for the state to restrict that than with respect to those narrow category of communications about whether someone's known to be, say, on visa or a permanent resident or a US citizen. Vermont is in not quite a unique situation, but we are in a part of the country in the Second Circuit, Federal Circuit, which here with New York and Connecticut, where the US Court of Appeals has looked at the constitutionality of those, two federal laws and has found that, at least on their face, they're not unconstitutional, and they, in many instances, can apply on a case by case basis. In a case that was brought or decided in the late 1990s, was brought by the city Of New York, which had an ordinance that was basically don't ask or don't tell policy for all of its city employees, don't collect immigration information and don't tell immigration authorities. And that had been in place before these federal laws were enacted. I think it was nine or ten days after they went into effect, New York sued The United States to declare those, seeking an order that those federal statutes were unconstitutional, the idea being that the federal government can tell us how to run our HR department and what our employees can communicate to. And so that went to the courts and up to the Second Circuit and Court of Appeals, and the court noted that immigration authority is purely a federal province. States have no role in immigration cogrants. And they noted that the federal statute didn't require states to turn out such information. It just simply said, If you have people who want to voluntarily disclose that, you can't prohibit them from doing that. You can't punish them for firing them. And during the arguments, and the policies was only directed towards restricting communications with immigration authorities about immigration status. There was no restriction on anyone else in the world. So if you worked for the city of New York, in the water department, and someone asked you, hey, those people down there, are they documented or not? And if you knew, was nothing in the ordinance that prevented you from telling your neighbor or anyone else. You were only prohibited from telling the federal government. And the Court of Appeals had a problem with that, saying that the state doesn't really have as strong an interest in confidentiality if the intent here is merely to impede federal enforcement. And so during arguments in the case, the court said, Would you be willing to submit us a letter showing us how, you know, do you have other confidentiality policies that make immigration status confidential vis a vis other people besides what was then the predecessor to ICE? And the city of Newark did not take the court up on that invitation and said, We want the court to decide the ordinance on its face, and then the second circuit said, well, we're we're gonna give judgments to The US. These the statutes are not on their face, which means that there's no application. If something's unconstitutional on its face, it means that there can be no application of that law that would be in constitution. The court said we can't say that based on the record. So as a consequence of that, what New York did, I think it was in 2003, they enacted an ordinance that was a broader confidentiality ordinance that limited the city water worker from not only to sharing immigration information with ICE or its predecessor, but also with their neighbors, with the local police, with everyone. The idea being that there privacy interests that were broader than the threat or potential threat of immigration enforcement, such as hate crimes, such as hazing and bullying. As I look at this bill here, whether intentional or not, because I don't know if it's a origin story in terms of drafting, but it seems in large part to follow what we've long called in that Second Circuit case a safe harbor for states to regulate the privacy interests of some of its citizens, where it's not merely tied to, or doesn't present the appearance that it's merely a product of opposition to a federal program. And so there are provisions in the bill here, which I think meet some of the concerns of the Second Circuit, which is like, well, this is private, why is it only private for one government agency? There are tons of government agencies, and there are tons of state and local agencies. So that broader sweep of confidentiality, I think, is a strong point of the bill. I think there are points in here where we would invite the conversation about whether the restrictions on the communications would apply to entities other than infection authorities, where there may be similar interests, where there would be limitations on communications with state and federal law enforcement or other federal agencies, you know, such as the DEA or the FBI, because they're exempt from any restrictions in the bill as it stands here. And so, we're happy follow the legislation as it goes along and to hear the various proposals that's an adequate legislative council as they desire, and as the committee desires, to try to keep the bill where you're trying to, state has a clear interest in keeping its kids in its schools. There's no federal school, you know, school law is a province of the states and it's reserved states under the tenth Amendment. Federal regulation is often just tied to the receipt of federal funds. FERPA, the privacy law, is basically applicable only to folks who receive federal funds, but it's largely the tribe, province, and states, and so, you know, the founders basically say, states, you get to think, you have your own separate laboratory of how you want to set up your education system, and so that is a strong province of the state, and we think that the, you know, our first impression, we've only started looking at this because we were only contacted very recently by the committee, and committee support, but from our viewpoint, it's got strong bones, and the purposes seem to be broader than ICE enforcement, although obviously the impact fear is demonstrable than the other witnesses has testified. So, we do have, and I would draw the committee's attention, just with, I mentioned that in 2017, there were these two other laws that restricted communications with federal authorities to some extent. One was, I think it loosely was called the No Registry Bill. There had been in 2016 in the presidential race calls by one of the candidates to create a so called Muslim registry, and there was a lot of concerns in states.

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: The federal government was going to

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: try to mine state data to create this database, which fortunately never materialized. In early twenty seventeen, Vermont introduced a bill, Senate Bill 79, which I think was one of the first bills signed, I think was unanimous in the Senate, that restricted and said states can't provide information if it's for this purposes, like some kind of national registry. But it also mentioned those two federal statutes that said there's nothing here that's intended to violate these two statutes, and if there is a state policy or practice that runs against these statutes' lawful operation, they're hereby abolished. The idea was just that we're gonna maximize what we think the playing field allows the state in to terms of restricting, they did not want the legislature to be mistaken to say, We're just going to defy those federal laws. A few months later, the same legislature amended the state law regarding the statewide fair and impartial policing policy, which is issued by the Criminal Justice Council, and a similar They added the same language that said, you know, for this Whatever statewide policy is enacted, it's not intended to wanna follow the lawful operation on those two federal laws, and a Criminal Justice Council's policy, you know, whatever they developed needs to make sure that you follow those guidelines. And so that was enacted into law at the end of the since 2017, the statewide monofare and impartial policing policy includes a discussion of what those federal laws prohibit and what they don't, and they give, hopefully, that the ambition, certainly, so hopefully, gives law enforcement a clear guidance about what they can keep them about, you know, tell their officers they can't communicate them what they can. States have much more freedom to limit what information they take in, because there is no federal law that restricts what information you seek, and there's no federal law that does or can require states to collect and report that information. That's very important. That's a that's a in in constitutional law, that's called commandeering. The federal government commandeers local states. It tells them how to carry out a federal program. They can They can't do that, and so anything that we see from the administration, by virtue of an executive order or any act of Congress that claims the contrary, would be something you'd likely challenge immediately, and I think if it weren't true commentary, you'd likely prevail in short order. So I'll just stop there because I've been talking a lot. Right. And make myself available for questions if you have anything.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Could we start off just by saying, if you have any specific language that you think would make sense to us, just send it to us. Okay. That would actually be very helpful to us if it would have something to make sure that this ends up being less subject to any challenge than I think. Yeah.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: And and our practice, and I'm new to this committee, that pretty much didn't get in many years ago, certainly to as many as it stands today. And so, our typical practice here is when we're first introduced to a bill, we kind of identify the broad parameters and see if it's pointed in the right direction, and I'm happy to say we think it is. And then as inevitably there are versions that generate, and we do talk to legislative council about it, and there were a couple of observations we could make now if you wanted, but I know you have other witnesses, so we can reserve that for a later time, or if there are later versions generating, we'll be happy to do that. I will, at least unless told otherwise by the attorney general, will be the one who will be interacting probably most with the committee on this bill, along with my colleague, Todd Daylosa, will be probably forced to begin.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: And and do you when you're all met, you just contact lunch counsel with his thoughts for you to be asked

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: to do that? We usually well We'll we'll ask you. It's sort of a fluid thing. Like and it works both ways. You know, yesterday, we received a request from two members of Legis Council's office to discuss with them a different lines, so we're meeting with them tomorrow. I think they're just in the early drafting stages. Sometimes, like, this this and this was an example of one that was that, you know, didn't run through our office, but it's clear, and least on its feet, the legions were aware of the lanes that the state couldn't operate in. So, we're happy to do it as we go along. We do follow we will be following, like, all of the versions. We check these daily, and so, you know, this is one that we'll be monitoring, make ourselves available as the committee desires. So No,

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: it's okay. Go ahead. Just out of curiosity, so just

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: to be clear, you represent the Vermont Attorney General's office.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah, and we represent the state of Vermont.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay, good, good. So, question, we were told a couple hours ago that the federal government cannot, we cannot, cannot invite in the federal government, attorney general's office to comment on and drop legislation and find out. Is that true?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: We can identify issues for the legislature, as I think I did, I talked about where the parameters that Legislature Consul should assist the committee in doing it.

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: I'm sorry, maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. Can Vermont legislative committees, committees of the legislature invite the federal attorney general to comment on on legislation.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I don't know of any limitations to that. I do know that in 2017 with respect to this registry bill, think the US Attorney's Office was invited, they declined the invitation. I think that's a uniform practice. There's a saying in the US Attorney's Office that the eagle doesn't fly, which means they don't speak outside their own offices about the rail cases. So that seems to be a highly unlikely

[Senator David Weeks (Vice Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: The reason why I asked is I sat here for the first sentence that I was thinking that you were from representing the federal government. Uh-huh. No. I'm not. So I was a little confused. Get it.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah. No. I I personally am assuming the federal government Thank you. For number of years,

[Dr. Rebecca Callahan (Professor of Education Policy, University of Vermont)]: so let me

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: stop and stop.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So I asked the question on the floor about school nine,

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: which is

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: similar and it pertains to what we're talking about now. If you had contacted anybody from the US Attorney's Office to come and get testimony, And they said the reply I got was told that they couldn't come talk.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I think it would be highly unlikely that the US Department of Justice would come testify.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: But point was did you ask?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: We know that they do not testify in state legislation. Our office deals with the US Attorney's Office and other contacts on a daily basis. We have pending cases like in a child sexual abuse material where we're dealing with the US Attorney's Office, FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, ATF, any, you know, all the federal alphabet agencies. We kind of know their standing policy, but they also answer, you know, all their emails and calls. If someone wants to make that effort, it should be.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So if there's a question of federal constitutionality about this bill, they, you know, we'd have to rely on your office.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I think if, you know, I can't speak for them. I can only tell you what they've told us in the past, is that they don't testify on any state legislation, and I think that's out of respect for the state of sovereign just as, you know, they tend to just focus on your own cases.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So you mentioned a couple of things that you might mention. Yeah. I think we actually have time. Okay. So we have you.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: All right. These are just things to think about. We're not in a position to just say you have pages or anything. Yeah. Change it, just ideas. Yep. Part of the bill, of course, I'll I'll start first because we find our name is in the bill, which is that provide guidance and materials. Last last June, we did it I think it we did issue last June, kind of a general guidance to the public about what happens if you've gone into ICE or you can witness what your rights, how to stay safe and likewise. But I think our office is comfortable with them, and we're comfortable with the space that Washington gives in the school context, the Agency of Education already has a guidance that we're aware of as well. One question that we had along that was if we were going to be involved in providing educational or guidance materials, why the Office of Refugee Resettlement was not mentioned. That would, for us, be one of the folks we would think would have, you know, a way, a better sense of who the audience is and other issues that we may not be aware of, because they are, on a day to day basis, aware of changes federal law, and there may be that this guidance that come out has to be a living document based on things that the federal government does, because, and that's kind of the footnote here, that when we talk about someone's immigration status, it's extremely, that law is very complicated, and someone's status today may not be someone's status tomorrow. So I know lots of people here. I know they're not US citizens, but if you ask me their immigration status, I'd have to say, I don't know. I can tell you what it was, what I thought it was a month ago, but I don't know what the status is today because they literally can't change based on an email they get from US customs

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: or immigration So you're suggesting that on page five, White's, the Triple General can consult with the ECC of Education and the Office of refugee and settlement.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah, I mean, I'd like to hear, you know, mean, if I had other folks' perspectives on that, but I think that's good thing to go ahead. That would be something that would

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yes, did you have a call? I'm sorry.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Another area, just a question, I don't know the answer yet, but I think it's a question to explore in terms of nonpublic areas, and a part of it may come from AOE or from other sources, the School Boards Association. When we're talking about non public areas of school sites, we ask the question about things that are related to schools, and maybe this is best addressed in the policies, but since you're taking it up, the question would be about what about access to things like athletic events, school board meetings, open house, school plays, and the like. I think those are predictable areas where you'll have large numbers of people, and I think in looking at policies, it may be helpful for the school districts. There are a lot of positive side benefits from creating these policies, which is to look at their own security in general. Like, I don't know that there's a uniformity in terms of how you how schoolyards are secured vis a vis the public or supervised. But those were some of the other areas would be like those large congregations. What's the views about that? And as a policy view, or do you think that's practicable? And then I think after we have some idea of what we need think about it its committee, then I think we can react and see, like, what do you think is strongest, is it the strongest legal position to defend? But that would be a conversation I think you would wanna have.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: My guess is, I'll do a little guessing about the foot here, my guess is that we would like to be included as much as possible And it recognized for us as the challenge in a football game where you can do the long hand. So that's what you're sort of alluding to was the challenge of defining areas. I think

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: And it may be district by district because there are football games, there are also basketball games where you gotta go through

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: the door

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah. To the so, I just think that's a conversation to have. It may not be that one size fits all. I like the I mean, I think it serves your general purpose to allow districts to have flexibility. And really, think there are a couple of ideas legislatively that I think would be helpful in that regard.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: That would be helpful because I think if that is the goal, the issue is which ones can we implement? Or need luster. Be calling something a non public area, it's really public area, I guess, is that's a problem. So help thinking is helping us think about how to craft it in a way that would achieve as much as we're trying to achieve as possible.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah, think that's a conversation to be had with the lawyers, let you know, course, your first point of contact, both with us, but also the people on the ground, it turns out they have because their tomorrow a school can designate an area as private if

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: it wants by putting a lock on

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: the door and saying, you know, employees only or something. There's a lot of power, states have a lot of power to regulate what's on their property constitutionally, and so I think that's an area to explore. One thing that's not in the bill, or a couple things that are not in the bill, and maybe you don't want it in the bill, but I just want to point it out, and this relates to, there are provisions that are in Act 54, which is the 2017 law, dealing with fair and impartial policing policy. One of them was a provision that stated, you know, what the minimum requirements for fair and impartial policing policy was, but then stated that schools could have more restrictive policies provided they don't wanna follow those federal statutes. So that gave local police departments, because this is sheriffs, departments, I mean, the ability if they wanted to further restrict or handle their communications with the community or with federal authorities, they could, as long as they didn't cross that line in federal law. That's not stated here, and the bill had actually been amended. Maybe it was amended in 2019 to include that language, I think because Vermont has, like, seventy, eighty police departments. They wondered, no, can't we go further than the kind of minimum if as long as we don't violate the law? And the legislature at that time said, Sure. So you said that's already, so it's already there? For law enforcement, but not for schools. So there's language that's in that law that you may, that may find useful if that's, if you want to include a similar mechanism. Because it could be that one school district is fine with a policy they've seen where someone else, or someone else may say, well, we wanna handle, you know, we wanna handle, consistent with the statute, we also wanna have these additional resources at our school based on our community as part of our policy, and they'll probably be asking whether that's, whether they can do that. So I think that's something to think about in advance. A related issue, and I'm a novice to education in terms of how it administers day to day in the state, so maybe this doesn't apply at all. But the Act 54, dealing with those policies where you can follow one policy or you can tailor your own, there was a mechanism for designating or identifying who's gonna decide whether you're following the law, and then I think in 2021, the legislature enacted a different law where, you know, there was a consequence if you didn't, if you feel like you were willfully violating, the standard that was required, in that case, I think the sanction was you would lose access to the police academy and the certification. And so, you know, the question here is that we would just ask on the face of it, again, not being someone who's involved without schools otherwise harmonize their policies, it's like, well, is there anybody responsible for making sure the superintendent's policy actually complies? Does it go through a review process? If it falls short, if there are problematic issues, is there a remediation process? Act 54 has such a process. It's fairly informal. I'm involved in that personally on behalf of our office with a couple of communities where they wanna tweak their policies to make sure it meets at least the minimum standards. So that's the question here, is whether you would want something. Maybe you don't, but I just wanna alert you that existing law, at least in the field of law enforcement, does have that kind thing that's looking. It seems to be working well. Just a general question, another question we had, this was relating to the provisions on guardian detainment, where there was an obligation to partner with a legal advocacy institution. We weren't sure what counted as an advocacy institution. There are many nonprofits that provide family supports that don't really have, would style themselves as advocates. And so we weren't sure what that meant. We're anticipating that there might be a question, since it's a statutory application, that as a matter of practice, the school districts would raise. Maybe they don't have concerns about it, but it was something that we thought, you know, we're trying to identify potential questions that you get a year after passage and nip them in the bud right now.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yep. So something like the after school programs, if actually was testifying yesterday that they are involved. So to mix I in with the policy for after school programs.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah, I mean, I think you have Or this area where you're talking about an obligation of state or local employees, you don't have any federal constraints on that obligation. This is just a question of the You might get a question from a school district or AOE might want to say, Well, I'm not sure if these things qualify as an advocacy organization. What does that mean? So, just thought I'd raise it, and maybe there's an easy answer to it, but it was just something that caught our eye, because on its face, we don't know. I couldn't tell you who's in advocacy. I know some that obviously are, but it seems for us that there would be other ones that have been a lot more questions, so maybe one in broader, maybe you just leave it as it is. I did have a question about some of the information that's limited. There were limitations on, parts of the bill that were limitations on disclosure of immigration status pretty much to the world, and Then there

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: were other parts that were, it

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: was only limited with respect to ICE and, or to immigration, and I would question why that would be, or I would ask the question for that, like, there is, for example, a warrant requirement, I think, or, you know, if federal immigration, this is on page three, I think, at four absent a judicial warrant, no school shall reveal information about a school staff member in response to requests from a federal immigration authority. And so we ask our question, well, what if what do you do right now with respect to a state trooper, a a county sheriff, the FBI? The courts are very acute at looking at right now, at looking at state laws that single out immigration authorities. You may have heard or read last week, I know you have, senators, ashamed that California District Court struck down a California law because there was a distinction between state and federal. So subsection four, I think, raises that question, I think it's a question to ask yourself, because I don't know what happens if, let's say, someone in uniform shows up, says, I'm a police officer, and I'd like to come into the classroom. Sorry, Julio. This was on page four or page three? Page three, I think it's section f four. Immigration authorities on-site. Yeah. It was in- Something's different. Yeah. Something's different. Okay. I I have a word document. And mine's annotated, so may I I I get it. It. Okay.

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: So that's for me, the question is, like, there's a section of immigration authorities on-site,

[Wilmer Chavarria (Superintendent, Winooski School District)]: but I don't I couldn't

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: tell you what the what the expectation is now under state law if it was just law enforcement authorities on-site. Yep. Yep. And so I think that's a question, I think, if there were a legal challenge, that fact that it's confined to immigration would probably draw some attention, and I think that's something for the committee to consider about. And again, I don't have a sense of what the current practice is. There is and this final point, and maybe it's a very small point. But again, it's just a reference back to Act 54 and how the legislature did it with law enforcement. They're the requirement. There's a, like, I think a biannual training requirement, and also the criminal justice council every two years at a minimum has to relook has to look at the policy and evaluate whether it be in tweaking. And so I don't know if that's gonna be left to the school boards here, or if there's gonna be a statewide expectation that there'll be changes to it over time and circumstances, because there often unanticipated things, but is there gonna be an expectation that the policy's gonna be kept fresh or not, that's up to you, but that's just something that is an existing law elsewhere on a different profession that's not here in the Injugation Building.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: That was really helpful. Thank you. Okay. We'll I have you appreciate it. You said you're gonna following as we go, right?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yeah, we are. We'll be following this, Destiny. Okay.

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So next we have Emily Simmons, General Counsel. And me. Oh, you're gonna come together? Yeah. Okay.

[Torren Ballard (Director of Policy and Communications, Vermont Agency of Education)]: And we also have one more colleague as well, working over our state. Our schools director maybe 20 as well.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: She's here.

[Torren Ballard (Director of Policy and Communications, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Okay, perfect.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: If you're muted Courtney, I

[Robert Millar (Chair, Winooski School Board)]: don't know

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: if you want to hear. Okay, now you're muted. I'll start, of course, by all of you, interest yourselves for the record. Sure.

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: I'll go first. I think I was listed first on the agenda. Emily Simmons, General Counsel, Agency of Education.

[Courtney O’Brien (Interim Director, Safe and Healthy Schools Division, Vermont Agency of Education)]: And I am Courtney O'Brien, Interim Director of the Safe and Healthy Schools Division for the Agency of Education.

[Torren Ballard (Director of Policy and Communications, Vermont Agency of Education)]: And I'm Torren Ballard, director of policy and communications at the Agency of Education.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: How you gonna do this? Do I all gonna kinda go at once or?

[Torren Ballard (Director of Policy and Communications, Vermont Agency of Education)]: No. I think I'll start for a brief statement, then I'll turn it over to our general counsel. Wanna quickly start by thanking you all for your attention to this issue. And when I say this issue, mean, upholding the constitutional right of every student in Vermont and access public education. Every child in The United States, regardless of that, a constitutional right to public education. And at the Agency of Education, we're focused on upholding that right and ensuring that all students in Vermont have equal access to educational opportunities regardless of actual or perceived immigration status. To that end, the agency has provided multiple iterations of immigration guidance over the past thirteen months to assist schools in meeting those obligations. There are children across The United States, but also in Vermont, who are scared to leave their homes and go to school right now. In this environment of fear and distrust that has been caused by actions by the federal government, the Agency of Education recognizes the importance of communicating directly to Vermonters. And this includes educating Vermonters about their constitutional rights, but it also includes letting Vermonters know that their state education agency stands with the communities across the state in ensuring that our schools are free from discrimination, that we give every child the opportunity to build their potential. The Agency of Education is committed to our belief that all Vermont students and all Vermont educators, regardless of race, ethnicity, or any other aspect of their background, belong in Vermont. I want to be very clear about that. The agency appreciates the Senate Education Committee's attention to this issue and we look forward to working together to make sure that every kid in Vermont can go to school without fever. And at that point, I'm gonna turn it over to Emily Simmons.

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Thank you so much. So in the cover memo that we provided to you, we pointed out that the agency of education has been providing guidance to the field over the last thirteen months from just prior to inauguration day for the current administration until recently with an update. So I thought that I would walk you through the substance of that guidance as it stands today because it really matches most of the elements in your bill that you're seeking to have school districts adopt policy around. And so the information I'm gonna give you gives you sort of the the state of the law now and what school districts understand and what the agency of education understands that they're already doing and knowing for the protection of all students. So first, just reiterating probably the most important point is the one Torren just made. Public schools in any state, including and particularly here in Vermont, cannot in any way deny access to students based on their immigration status. That's a supreme court precedent. But we also have that very clearly enshrined in Vermont law in 16 BSA section one that all students are guaranteed the right to a substantially equal public education. So that's just getting that foundation out right off the bat. Second, we also have students' rights to be free from harassment and discrimination. So Vermont state law gives schools a very important obligation to protect students from any instances of discrimination or harassment, which is different treatment based on protected class, includes national origin here in Vermont. So the this is done partially through the Vermont Public Accommodations Act. As you know, that has recently been amended, making it clear that places of public accommodation, so schools, may not discriminate on the basis of citizenship or immigration status. So, again, just making that totally crystal clear for everyone. We have federal civil rights law that also provides those protections. In all of our materials and in school materials, communities are reminded that students and their parents or guardians can file a complaint of harassment with the Vermont Human Rights Commission. We always link to their complaints page in all of our guidance if they believe they've been subjected to discrimination based on their real or perceived race, national origin, citizenship, or immigration status. We, of course, also have robust policies and procedures for the response to investigation of instances of bullying, harassment, and hazing in Vermont schools that I know the committee is familiar with. So moving on to kind of the next big bucket, and this is discussed at length in your bill, is privacy of student information, which actually in, you know, the the really worrying and scary context that we find ourselves in today has become one of the most important tenets of the law for our administrators and teachers to keep in right. Right? Schools have a lot of information about students and families, and it's important to be very specific and clear about what information they have to have, what information they don't have to have and would not be wise to collect, and then how they very clearly protect the privacy of all the information they have about our students and families. So right off the top, important to know that schools have no obligation to collect information related to a student's or the student's family, legal citizenship, or immigration classification. So no reason to collect any information about a student's legal right to be and remain in The United States. Don't definitely don't wanna change that. I think that that is something that schools have to their advantage these days, and it's something that we want parents and communities to be aware of. Second, you know, I'm gonna go to FERPA. So as a general information, students' personally identifiable information and their education records are protected by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. That's FERPA. What FERPA does is it prevents the school from disclosing any of that information in the student's rec education record to any third party absent very specific exceptions. One of those exceptions, of course, is parent consent, so we can mark that one off the list. Another exception that we need to pay close attention to is directory information. So directory information, the best example I always give is the school yearbook. So things like a student's name is very common, the student's photo, maybe the parent's name for the purpose of recognizing students for awards. The school district, the school board decides through policy and procedure what information about students will be put under the category of directory information. To do that, they must communicate that each school year to parents very clearly and give parents an individual right to opt out of their students' directory information in some or in whole from being included in what in that information that the school can disclose without parental consent. So this is like, I I'll go back to the yearbook. This is what allows you to publish a yearbook or to announce statistics of your student athletes. But very important that you can always find this information in a school's handbook. That's tip that's almost universally where school districts will publish. Here is the list of information we consider directory information. Here is how you as a parent can opt out of that at any time, and we will not release that information under any circumstances about your student. So the other exceptions to FERPA, we really caution school districts to take on a case by case basis and consult with legal counsel, but they have to do with the school district receiving a subpoena, typically from law enforcement, for student information. I won't be able to give you broad answers today about what about this, what about that, because they're very fact specific instances. And, also, in my practice, I have found this to be pretty uncommon that school districts have no choice but to release information under subpoena. Usually, working with partners like Child Protective Services or law enforcement, school districts find ways to accomplish the protection of students, you know, the the shared goal without violating student privacy. Then our guidance covers some considerations for preparing for emergencies. So this is a category that might fall outside of typical school practice and responsibility, but as information that we felt should really be at the forefront of administrators' minds as they're just supporting students and families and also using schools as a way to get information out to parent communities. So really great work by the general assembly last session. As of last May, Vermont has a new pathway called standby guardianship that is available to parents and caregivers for the care of students when parents have been picked up by ICE, detained for immigration proceedings. There's a really clear list that you put in statute of when a custodial parent can get a standby guardianship for someone, some other trusted individual to have the care of their child, but from the school perspective, very important to have the educational decision making authority for their child that we're not waiting on important things like special education evaluations because of, you know, the the parents' involvement being the victim of being arrested. So we've put a link to the information that's available through the Vermont judiciary about standby guardianship and hope that that is making its way out to parents through our school district partners. We also, for the past thirteen months, have been reminding schools that we should regularly be encouraging parents to look at who is listed as their child's emergency contact at school. It's really common practice to have a list of trusted individuals. You don't have to have any kind of legal status. Parents can designate who's permitted to pick their child up from school, and just making sure that that's up to date with folks that you trust who would be available should anything happen is a is a really important thing to do ahead of time. We have reminders in our guidance of things that administrators know well. The McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance Act provides additional support and rights to students who are homeless or unhoused, and we just linked again to that guidance so that folks can find it really easily. It can do things like there's sometimes some funding for transportation If a student finds themselves staying with relatives because of an emergency and those relatives need assistance getting the student to school, there can be funding to support that transportation need. And then finally, our guidance, again, gets into an important topic in your bill, which is immigration enforcement in schools. So I think it's already been covered in committee today that previous long standing guidance from the US Department of Homeland Security that would restrict federal immigration enforcement in and around schools was rescinded about a year ago. And so we wanted folks to first just be aware of that. Second, we remind school districts that there is no legal requirement that generally entitles a federal immigration authority to enter the physical grounds of a school building. They don't just automatically have that right. That's important for everybody to know. So as is detailed in your bill, schools can prevent injury by immigration authorities who do not have a judicial warrant. We again talk about non public areas of the school building, give some examples, and say that it is really important for superintendents to run a tight ship and make sure that we are, at each building level, aware of what we do if federal immigration authorities seek entry to the school, and also remind them that one of their first calls should be to their legal counsel. And then finally, we have I think someone else has already mentioned this as well. Under Vermont law, districts as well as school resource officers and law enforcement are generally prohibited from entering into agreements with the federal government regarding immigration enforcement. Only the governor has the authority to enter into such agreements. Link last little thing is we link to the guidance that my colleague Julio mentioned a moment ago, a resource from the Vermont Attorney General's Office, Your Rights When Encountering Immigration Officials in Vermont. So that's what we've put out into the field, hoping that folks can operate best when they have the most up to date and accurate information. And we're pleased to see that s two two seven kind of took the same line on on these important issues.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So just to make sure I understand where the agency is, so are you supportive of the bill? Did you have any suggestions for us or anything we should be thinking about?

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Sure. So, yes, we're generally supportive of the bill. I think you hear from us a lot. We we think that this is good to have uniform standards. We think this is consistent with the best judgment that school officials are already using. And so by supporting the bill, don't mean to say that they need to be told to do these things. Right? Like, we we trust that our schools are doing everything they can to protect all of our kids every day. I think that having this policy requirement adds some uniformity and some predictability, which is always a good thing. I did have just a couple of notes partially from listening to the conversation, partially through my just read through of the bill. I think you know this. An August adoption date for a policy is aggressive. It's not I'm not in a position to say whether school districts can or can't do it. I'm sure you'll hear from other organizations that can give you more insight, but just in my practice, we usually have closer to a year for everybody to meet an adoption date for a mandatory policy. But, of course, no one's gonna come in and tell you that this isn't urgent and that we need to be twiddling our thumbs by any means. This is important work that we need to do as fast as we possibly can. I would just tell you that absent the policy, reiterating the point I just made, I do think that everyone is working with the same information because of this guidance and guidance from other organizations. And so I'm not and I don't feel that there is a huge lack of practice while we're getting the policy officially on the books. Another note that I had, Julio spoke to this, The it's not mandatory language. There's sort of as as best you can language. Let me find the I think it's on page two or three about partnering with a organization.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: It's a week.

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Yeah. I wondered if if the intent was that the school district partner with a legal advocacy organization. The combinations of those words just raised some questions for me. Wonder if we mean work with, connect families with community organizations that have resources for families. I wondered if we wanted to parse that language a little more closely. There are all kinds of advocacy organizations out there, and I'm sure in the most extreme case, we could find one that we wouldn't want a superintendent to totally partner with and just pushing the hypothetical to the most extreme. And it does you know, anytime that we give a superintendent that kind of discretion, we burden them with another decision to make. And so if we could be more clear about what kind of connection, of course, we want our schools to be connecting families to resources that can help them in and out of school.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: So just to let's just play that out a little bit. I think the intent here on line five is actually what it says, don't know why that we've, I get the word legal is something that you'll think about, but advocacy institution or organization that will provide assistance to a student in the event that a guardian of the student has been detained so that we know what they're trying to what's trying to what we're trying to get at here. So your point is?

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: Maybe maybe I'll be more specific. What about instead of the word partner? What about liaise with a legal advocacy institution? Because I think the most important intent in my opinion is to have that already established and to not be scrambling when an emergency occurs, who can we call, who knows about these issues and can provide assistance.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: And the term legal in front of it narrows a lot because there's a lot of advocacy organizations that could help. But legal, that means, I think, attorneys on staff and that would be an awfully narrow, I I don't know how they'd find them find that organization. I'm trying

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: to find also in in some areas of this state, think there's probably a lack of presence of those organizations. I I don't know. It's not my field of work. I think you'll probably hear from superintendents about this.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. Good. Good. Okay. That's thank you for filling that out.

[Emily Simmons (General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Education)]: And then I think you already took this note with Julio. I think including a mention of the Office of Refugee Resettlement when we come to resources would be good. And then that's my last note.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Okay. Well, we have we have a question.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I was just gonna recommend instead of making it a advocacy institution, just looking immigration advocacy institution. That position is not some arbitrary organization that could.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: And we thank you. We will no doubt be talking to you again. And Courtney, you're muted.

[Courtney O’Brien (Interim Director, Safe and Healthy Schools Division, Vermont Agency of Education)]: I am, thank you, Senator. I don't have anything to add. This is a space that we defer wholly to our legal team for expertise. It's worth noting that certainly there are impacts on the safe and healthy climate of students when this is happening both in local and national context. And so we are very aware of it. We hear from our colleagues in the field as well around strategies for improving climate. But this particular topic is definitely one for our legal team.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: Yeah, we heard, we really heard that from Doctor. Gal. So, okay. Well, thank you everybody. It's unbelievable. We are ending exactly at the ten of which is our time for a ten minute break. So go off for ten minutes and have to be back

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General, Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit, Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: to

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Chair, Senate Education Committee)]: pick up for the

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member, Senate Education Committee)]: next