Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Protections Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District issues guidance to principals after federal changes to protected‑areas policy
Summary
School staff reviewed legal limits and best practices for handling immigration‑enforcement officials on school grounds after the Department of Homeland Security rescinded its prior protected‑areas guidance. Principals were advised to verify credentials, photograph paperwork and contact central office before complying with non‑emergency requests.
Public Schools of Robeson County staff briefed principals and board members Feb. 21 on how school officials should respond if immigration enforcement officials appear on or near campus, citing recent federal directives that rescinded a prior protected‑areas policy.
Ashley White, presenting the district’s guidance for principals, summarized the federal change: the acting Department of Homeland Security secretary’s directive removed the prior list of “protected areas” and made clear enforcement agents may in some cases take action on or near campuses. White said the directive does not give immigration officers blanket authority to conduct raids and urged principals to verify identity, “examine warrants, ask for the paperwork” and “take a picture of it.” She said principals should then contact central office legal staff; “Call Bobby. Always call Bobby,” she instructed.
The district reviewed types of legal process school staff may encounter. The presentation distinguished judicial warrants — signed by a judge or magistrate, which may authorize entry or arrest on campus — from administrative warrants, signed by immigration officers, which the presenter said authorize detention but do not authorize entry to private property and “do not require school officials to do anything.” The presentation noted exigent‑circumstance exceptions (for example, imminent risk of harm or hot pursuit) that may justify immediate action by law enforcement without prior review.
White and district attorneys reviewed privacy and records law implications. They cited the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA; 20 U.S.C. 1232g), Plyler v. Doe (the U.S. Supreme Court case protecting access to public education regardless of immigration status), the McKinney‑Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Title IV and Title VI civil‑rights protections, and district policies (including 51‑20 and proposed regulation 51‑20‑R) relevant to interactions with law enforcement and to the release of student records. School staff were told that subpoenas or court orders must be sent to central office before release, and that in non‑emergency circumstances, central office should review requests before records are produced.
White emphasized enrollment protections: “students who are undocumented have the right to enroll in school and proof of citizenship is not required,” and staff should not ask for immigration status during enrollment. The district said it is preparing enrollment affidavits and related procedures for situations where parents are detained or deported, and that McKinney‑Vento obligations require schools to continue educational services for students experiencing homelessness.
Board members asked practical questions about scenarios principals might face — for example, officers arriving without a judicial warrant, officers displaying an administrative warrant, or agents waiting off campus for a student who walks home. The presenter and legal staff recommended principals follow board policy, verify credentials, photograph paperwork, call central office, and exercise judgment in exigent circumstances.
No new board policy was adopted at the meeting; presenters recommended adopting regulation 51‑20‑R (an operational regulation to accompany existing board policy 51‑20) to provide more detailed steps for staff when law enforcement arrives.
Provenance: The presentation and scenarios appear in the meeting transcript under the immigration guidance agenda item.
