Superintendents tell House panel S.227 should pair statewide guidance with local flexibility to protect students
Loading...
Summary
Superintendents and the Vermont Superintendents Association told the House Education Committee that S.227’s immigration-protocol requirements should be implemented through clear state guidance, training, and administrative procedures so districts can support students without exposing schools to unfunded mandates or privacy risks.
Chelsea Myers, executive director of the Vermont Superintendents Association, and two superintendents told the House Education Committee on April 8 that S.227, which would establish immigration-related protocols for Vermont schools, must be written to ensure children can access public education “safely and without fear.”
Myers said the association’s testimony draws on district experience and implementation lessons from policies such as behavioral threat assessment, arguing the bill should clearly distinguish what belongs in school board policy from what belongs in administrative procedures to avoid implementation delays. "So the language that's here actually is language that... is our recommendation on the way on the easiest way to secure access," she said.
Wilmer Chavarria, a superintendent, cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) as the legal baseline that public schools may not deny access to students based on immigration status and described how districts already work daily to make students feel "safe, welcomed, and able to fully participate in school." He said supports for students affected by immigration events often require individualized, sometimes costly, responses that can include school mental-health services and connections to outside advocacy organizations.
Amy Minor, superintendent of Colchester Schools and president of the VSA, described district preparations including trainings from the national AASA organization, district-level administrative procedures, and teacher scripts being prepared for classroom staff. She urged that much of this work be implemented through administrative procedures aligned with training, not by making operational details mandatory school-board policy.
Committee members pressed witnesses on where costs would fall. Witnesses identified three likely cost areas: (1) designating and training an employee to serve as an immigration resource for a district; (2) potential fees or costs if outside immigration-advocacy organizations charge for services; and (3) staff time and after-hours work (for example, home visits or extended staff hours) that districts now absorb informally. "There's always money involved," Chavarria said, adding that the costs are hard to quantify and often vary case by case.
Myers and the superintendents repeatedly asked for stronger state coordination, saying rural districts in particular may lack local resources. They recommended expanding the bill’s data provisions to limit collection to what state and federal law require and to include relevant state entities where student-related records are held. "The state should provide the necessary resources and coordination to ensure districts can properly carry out the law," Myers said.
The panel did not take any votes; presenters offered to help the committee reorder bill language to make the sequencing of definitions, state resources, required policy, and administrative procedures clearer and more implementable.
The House Education Committee paused its meeting after the testimony and moved to the next agenda item.
