|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Livermore Joint Unified School District Board of Education unanimously approved a policy at a regular meeting last week to protect students and their families from Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.
Under the policy passed Feb. 4, district staff cannot aid immigration enforcement at district schools, except when required by state and federal law. They are also barred from soliciting information about the citizenship or immigration status of students and families, with the same legal exception.
Additionally, teachers, site administrators and other school staff will be trained on proper responses to immigration-related situations, including how to manage a request from an immigration officer to visit a school or student.
“A lot of this is just a formality of what we’re already doing in our schools,” Superintendent Torie Gibson said. New is the process for responding to ICE agents appearing on campus.
By approving the policy, LVJUSD joins Pleasanton Unified School District in pledging its support of immigrant students and their families.
“I’m really glad that we’re saying out loud, ‘We are behind you. You are part of this community. We’ll be here to keep you safe,’” trustee Christiaan VandenHeuvel said of the district’s action.
In 2018, the district policy was created but it never went before the board, Gibson explained at the meeting.
Now teachers are hearing student concerns about immigration enforcement on a daily basis, Gibson reported to the board. Students can seek psychological aid at their school’s wellness center, she suggested. For the campuses without wellness centers, staff will make consistent check-ins at those sites.
As for the board’s part, it has agreed, “No student shall be denied equal rights and opportunities nor be subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying in the district’s programs and activities on the basis of his/her immigration status,” according to the policy.
Trustee Steven Drouin added, “I think it’s important to understand the constitutional foundation of children’s right to a free and public education.”
Behind the rule is a 1982 supreme court decision on Plyler v. Doe, in which “all children— regardless of their citizenship — were entitled to free public education under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment,” according to the Latinx Resource Guide on the Library of Congress website.
Informing families of their children’s right to a free public education regardless of immigration status or religious beliefs as well as their rights related to immigration enforcement are responsibilities of the superintendent or a designee, as stated in the district’s policy.
Repeatedly sharing the resources available to families is really important, Gibson added. “We are here to support students and keep them safe.”
The Livermore Police Department has agreed to support the school district, according to Gibson.
In response to VandenHeuvel’s question regarding outreach to non-English speaking families and those with minimal internet access, Gibson said school sites serving high populations of those families have been conducting ongoing outreach.
Joanne Morrison, Livermore Advocates for Public Education representative, extended the organization’s support for the policy as the sole public commenter regarding the district’s response to immigration enforcement.
“Authoritarians always try to destroy public education. Why? Because an educated populace will always fight for justice and resist dictatorships,” Morrison said. ”That’s why we must all fight and defend our kids’ right to a free public education.”
During the meeting, Gibson also shared the third round of proposed budget reductions for 2025-26 school year, which reached the district’s goal of cutting about $6 million to meet the district’s 3% reserves requirement.
Among the proposed actions are cuts to about 30 full-time equivalents, funding shifts and stipend reductions.
Previously, the board discussed potential cuts at first and second iterations of reduction proposals at special meetings, Dec. 19 and Jan. 16.
New to the proposed cuts are 1.0 FTE aquatics coordinator, 0.8 FTE office specialist within student services, 1.0 FTE transportation specialist within the special education department, 1.0 FTE certificated librarian within IB and 0.5 FTE IB coordinator.
Additional savings were proposed through funding shifts for select stipends and a reduction in the number of school site stipends.
The substitute pay rate on Fridays is proposed to drop to $215, in accordance with the daily rate for other weekdays.
Non-staffing reductions include the elimination of DocuSign in exchange for free services from Google, the elimination of a research database within IB for free databases and the reduction of site allocations. Fund shifting was also proposed for some supplies and staff within ELOP as well as custodial costs within adult education.
Pullbacks in round three suggestions include cutting 4.5 FTE general education teachers at Del Valle Continuation High School and Vineyard Alternative School instead of 5.0 FTE as well as funding shifts to maintain 1.0 FTE elementary teacher on special assignment instead of 1.0 FTE reduction — 2.0 FTE and other elementary TOSA remain on the reductions list.
To trustee Craig Bueno’s question regarding how many people would get laid off as a result of the reductions, Gibson said that figure is still uncertain.
Attrition and retirements have not yet been taken into account, Gibson explained. The first focus has been on personnel reductions because layoff notices must be sent by March 15. Afterwards, the district cannot send out any additional notices, but those already distributed may be rescinded.
“Our people matter,” Gibson said. “We want to keep as many of our people as we can.”
In response to the board’s budget discussion, Jan. 16 — where clerical jobs within the special education department were considered interchangeable — data specialist for the special education department Wendy Urteaga offered an opposing perspective to the board.
The four staff have distinct roles, Urteaga said. Department staff worry they wouldn’t be able to take on the workload of a laid off staff member.
She added, if the tasks are not completed or the team falls behind, they risk violating IEPs, facing California Department of Education complaints, falling out of compliance or dealing with potential litigation. Changes to their job descriptions would also require labor negotiations.
The next discussion of the proposed reductions is scheduled for a special meeting on Thursday (Feb. 13). The presentation is set to include the projected number of layoffs as well as a more detailed table to show the proposed reductions, per request by trustees Drouin and Bueno.
Also on the topic of budgeting, staff presented the uncertain impacts of Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2025-26 state budget given the delayed tax filing date for those affected by the California wildfires. Due to the incomplete picture of state revenue in 2025, the governor’s final budget may be adjusted from the proposed version.
“We will likely have a better picture after his May revise,” district spokesperson Michelle Dawson said.
