Hillsboro board reviews draft 'Safe and Welcoming Schools' resolution, plans vote after staff refines language and outreach plan

The Hillsboro School District Board of Directors discussed a draft “Safe and Welcoming Schools” resolution that restates existing Oregon practice around immigration enforcement and directs staff to prepare communications and training for families and frontline employees.

Beth (staff member) opened the discussion, saying the draft is intended “to take a very structured view starting at the federal government level and supreme court level down to things in place in our state and then the things that we do here at a local level in our own school district to ensure the safety and security of student information.” She urged the board to make clear that the district does not collect or share immigration status and that staff regularly train to handle related questions.

The draft prompted detailed questions and clarifications from board members about the phraseology concerning sanctuary policies and the interplay between state and federal law. Nancy (board member) said she was “really concerned about how we're what we're saying here, especially when it comes to federal law versus state law,” raising whether parts of the draft could be read as saying the district would refuse to comply with federal warrants. Other board members pressed staff to tighten language so the statement does not imply actions beyond the district’s legal obligations.

Staff and board members repeatedly said the intent of the document is informational and to reduce fear among families. Mark Lawson (board member) said the resolution would help residents understand “what the district is legally able to do and not do” and help prevent families from keeping children home due to uncertainty. Multiple board members and staff described concrete outreach steps tied to the resolution: updating the district’s Safe and Welcoming Schools web pages, producing short bilingual “know your rights” cards for families, maintaining an up-to-date resource list (vetted by Grants and family outreach staff), and leaning on family outreach liaisons, office managers and counselors as primary points of contact for worried families.

Franchesca and Audrey (staff members) described components of the communications plan already in place: brochures in multiple languages, a list of community legal and social service contacts, and training targeted first to staff who most frequently interface with families rather than a districtwide, immediate training for all teachers and classified staff. As one staff member summarized, the district’s approach is to “connect them to where they can find those resources and make those available.”

There was general agreement among board members that the draft should be presented as a resolution (which implies staff follow-up) rather than merely a proclamation, so that the board’s direction can be used to operationalize the communications and training work. Beth and Rose said the draft has been word‑smithed by board members and staff and that they intend to bring a finalized version for board action at the next regular meeting.

Board members emphasized the need to pair any formal board statement with a strategic communications rollout so families understand the district’s actual practices, not just a sentence on paper. As one board member put it, a resolution “indicates that the board believes and pulls the laws in these particular ways,” while staff must translate that into usable information for families.

The board had no formal vote on the draft at the work session; staff were directed to continue refining the language and prepare the communications and training materials that would accompany a resolution brought back for approval.

The discussion also referenced the district’s prior efforts after a large 2017 student sit‑in and noted that neighboring districts and local governments have adopted similar language and practices.