Mercer Island board advances draft policy limiting immigration enforcement in schools; staff to revise language on data collection

Mercer Island School District directors discussed a draft board policy intended to bar immigration-enforcement activities in district schools and to limit the district's collection and disclosure of students' immigration-related information, with trustees asking staff to return revised language before the next meeting.

The policy as drafted would elevate the language to a board policy (rather than an administrative rule) and pair it with procedures describing operational details, Director Martinez said during the discussion. Board members debated whether the policy should name specific visa categories or instead be broadly inclusive.

The policy matters because it would formalize how district schools handle requests for immigration-related information and how staff respond to legal processes. “Limiting to just naming those three will leave so many people behind,” Director Martinez said, urging either an appendix or a link to official federal definitions rather than naming visas in the policy text.

Board members raised three main issues during debate: whether to include named visa categories, how to avoid creating a policy that will be difficult to maintain, and the district’s statutory obligations to collect some data for state reporting. Several directors and speakers urged broad, inclusive language rather than enumerating specific visas. One board member recommended removing visa definitions from the policy and placing a living list in an attachment or an external government link that can be updated over time.

A sticking point was a line in the draft resolution that directed the district to “cease any future collection” of students’ place of birth. The district’s student records coordinator, Jevon Ekoszewski, and staff have consulted the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), which currently requires collection of place-of-birth information for Title III reporting. Staff told the board place-of-birth information is reported in the aggregate for Title III funding and that the district does not have an immediate workaround to stop collecting that field without further state-level action.

Board members asked staff to soften the resolution language so it is consistent with state requirements. Proposed edits discussed included: changing the direction to “cease future collection to the extent permitted by law,” or to continue collection until OSPI provides a legal path to discontinue it; and adding an attachment or external link listing statuses (visas, refugees, asylees, permanent residents) that the policy aims to protect. Director Glowitz and others supported a broadly phrased policy that avoids creating maintenance burdens for future boards.

Directives and next steps from the meeting: staff will return with amended resolution language that clarifies the district’s obligation to continue collecting place-of-birth data where required by state law and that either links to or attaches an updatable list of protected immigration statuses. The revised item is expected to be placed on the consent agenda at the next meeting for board action.

The board also discussed legal risk and advocacy strategy. One director noted that adopting a policy that reflects district values could prompt difficult funding trade-offs if a future court or state action changed funding eligibility; the director said that personnel and bargaining implications would be addressed if such a scenario arose. Several speakers recommended the district consult external legal counsel or an immigration lawyer to confirm language and compliance before final adoption.

What remains unresolved is the precise final language on data collection and whether the district will maintain an attached list of statuses (as an easily updated resource) or simply link to federal/state definitions. Staff committed to return with redlined language and a recommended placement on the consent agenda.