Senate panel hears support and legal caveats for bill requiring school policies to shield students from immigration enforcement

The Vermont Senate Education Committee spent its Feb. 12 afternoon hearing on S.227, a proposal that would require school districts to adopt protocols to protect students and staff from federal immigration‑enforcement actions. Witnesses described local experience, research on attendance and achievement impacts, and legal constraints that could shape how the bill is written.

Wilmer Chavarria, superintendent of the Winooski School District, told the committee his board adopted district‑level protocols after community testimony and national attention. "Waiting for someone else to address the difficult challenge will only render education tacitly complicit," Chavarria said, and added that his district had received "death threats" and "thousands of ... voicemail[s] and emails" after adopting its policy. He urged the state to adopt standards so smaller districts would not stand alone.

Rebecca Callahan, a professor of education policy at the University of Vermont, summarized decades of research showing immigration‑enforcement activity often correlates with immediate and sustained declines in student attendance and performance. Citing studies she provided to the committee, Callahan said absenteeism spiked by as much as 11 percent after some raids and districts saw a sustained 2 percent drop in attendance in subsequent months; she also cited broader economic estimates tied to access to free public education for immigrant‑origin youth.

From the Vermont Attorney General's Office, Julio Thompson, assistant attorney general and co‑director of the Civil Rights Unit, told the committee that federal statutes limit certain state constraints on communications with immigration authorities. Thompson cited statutory provisions discussed in testimony and the Second Circuit's case law history as the reason the bill should avoid language that could be read as merely impeding federal enforcement. "Information regarding citizenship and immigration status is merely confined to who the individual is and what their status is," he said, and urged drafters to consider broader confidentiality provisions and review mechanisms similar to existing state law for law enforcement.

Representatives of the Agency of Education said the agency has issued guidance to districts for more than a year and generally supports S.227 as a way to provide uniform standards. Emily Simmons, the agency's general counsel, reviewed protections under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act and Vermont law, and urged clarity about "directory" versus broader student data systems, standby guardianship and the need for realistic adoption timelines; she called an August mandatory policy adoption date "aggressive."

Committee members pressed witnesses on practical issues: what counts as "nonpublic areas" of a school (for example, classrooms versus public athletic events or open houses), whether protections should include employees and contractors, how to define an "advocacy" partner for legal assistance, and whether the bill should reference the Office of Refugee Resettlement or require recurring training and review of district policies.

The committee took no vote and recessed for a 10‑minute break. Staff and witnesses said they would follow up with suggested drafting language and technical edits for legislative counsel.

The hearing record includes extensive testimony and data provided to the committee; committee members indicated they will continue to refine the bill's drafting to balance legal risk, operational feasibility for districts and the goal of protecting access to education.