Across the nation, federal immigration agents have detained people in factories, courtrooms, and Home Depots. In April, they targeted two Los Angeles elementary schools. A new state law, just signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, orders public educators to bar ICE agents from school property.
San Francisco’s school district has had these types of rules in place since 2017. School staff want to protect students, but the new law isn’t necessarily giving them peace of mind about doing it. In multiple interviews, SF educators told The Frisc that current policies lack specifics about what to do if a situation escalates. They also remain unsure how they’ll pay for training, resources, and — in the case of arrest — legal fees.
“We have not been given information about what to do if [ICE agents] push back,” said Claudia DeLarios Morán, principal at Buena Vista Horace Mann, a K-8 Spanish immersion school in the Mission District. The student body of BVHM, as it’s known, is 88 percent Latino. In the Bay Area, 83 percent of people arrested by ICE since 2023 were originally from Latin American nations.
AB 49, the California Safe Haven Schools Act, is one of several immigration related bills that Newsom just signed. Until now, state school districts had no requirement to write policies around immigration enforcement. AB 49 acts as a baseline.
In San Francisco, SFUSD principals already had instructions to send agents to the legal office at district headquarters. Now it’s a statewide mandate for schools to stop ICE from entering schools.
In LA in April, school staff were able to turn federal agents away. But ICE’s aggressive actions, now backed with the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing racial profiling, have some educators and parents concerned that saying “no” at the front door won’t always work. And if it doesn’t, what should school staff do?
New school orders
California already had some immigration-related laws in place for public schools, forbidding staff from collecting students’ citizenship or immigration status, and requiring school leadership to report ICE inquiries to local school boards.
AB 49 adds new layers. For one, school staff must turn ICE agents away from school property unless shown proper warrants. The bill also forbids staff from sharing student records with anyone not on the student’s emergency contact card. (A sister bill, SB 98, also enacted last weekend, says schools must notify families when ICE agents show up at the door.)
Under Trump, federal agents arrested nearly 6,000 people in California between January and June of this year, more than double the state’s rate of arrests in all of 2024, according to the New York Times.
California lawmakers added an urgency clause to the bills so they can take effect immediately. By December, the attorney general’s office will create examples schools can use as templates if they don’t already have policies. Schools have until March to put these policies in place.
SFUSD put its policy in place during the first Trump administration, and it mostly aligns with the new state requirements. Beyond those baselines, however, it also urges ICE agents (addressing them directly, in fact) not to go to school sites but to first “seek approval for access” from the district’s legal office or the superintendent. According to the policy, the legal office will then limit ICE’s access “to the fullest extent permissible under the law,” and explore options to legally challenge ICE’s demands.
If ICE presents valid warrants or court orders, the district’s legal offices must explore ways to challenge them, but the bill doesn’t explain what school staff should do if they face recourse for challenging agents. It’s unclear how much legal trouble school staff could face if they defy ICE.
ICE representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
There is at least some assurance in SFUSD’s policy that the district will defend them and compensate them for legal costs. But it’s unclear where the funding for legal battles will come from.
Funding was a concern for the California School Boards Association. Its legislative director Chris Reefe wrote in a Sept. 2 blog post that the association would support the bill if it were amended to dedicate funding for school staff training and resources. However, the amendments Reefe requested were not in the final bill. (It did say that a state commission could reimburse school districts after they incurred legal costs.)
Reefe and CSBA staff did not respond to requests for comment.
Disagreement over details
The widespread worry about school plans was evident two weekends ago. SFUSD’s Latinx Community Council (LCC), a parent advisory group formed last summer, hosted a family day Sept. 13 to discuss ICE issues. About 150 people came to the event — three times normal turnout, according to organizers.
Families received Know Your Rights information, free backpacks, and most of all, asked Superintendent Maria Su about protocols to keep kids safe. But it wasn’t enough, said Dheyanira Calahorrano, an LCC vice chair. “The district officials, they give you answers, but they don’t give you details. They don’t give you the plan,” said Calahorrano. “The district has failed to engage the Latino families in the system.”
SFUSD officials beg to differ. Spokesperson Laura Dudnick noted that Su sent a letter to families on Aug. 17 to reassure them about student safety. The letter also linked to the district’s “immigration and policy and resources” web page, which includes a FAQ about agents showing up at schools and events, rumors, parents’ own fears of being arrested, and more.
“SFUSD has established clear protocols for school staff in the event that immigration officials attempt to enter our schools,” Su’s letter says. “At the beginning of each school year, all staff are required to review and understand these protocols so they are prepared to respond appropriately.”
BVHM principal DeLarios Morán said that the district group dedicated to supporting immigrant families, known by its acronym RISE-SF, is doing its best but is understaffed.
People are afraid to leave their homes.
Claudia DeLarios Morán, principal at Buena Vista Horace Mann k-8
She called for more coordination between the district, community organizations and nonprofits, and City Hall. (Normally, city government has limited oversight of or coordination with SFUSD. Most of the district’s funding and oversight comes from the state education department.)
RISE-SF workers referred The Frisc’s questions back to Dudnick, who said via email that “SFUSD has been in regular coordination and communication with the City of San Francisco and the CDE on this topic [of resources and training]. We have shared resources from the City with our families and staff.” Dudnick referred The Frisc back to the district’s web site.
Legal fears and absenteeism
Every educator who spoke with The Frisc emphasized their commitment to protecting students from ICE. More training, dedicated staff to handle ICE, and legal funds would help them feel more prepared, according to Myra Quadros, principal at New Traditions Creative Arts Elementary and vice president of the principals’ union. “It feels hard, especially if [agents] come in aggressive.”
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center recommends training for school staff that might interact with ICE. It also recommends designating staff who can monitor entrances, review warrants or court orders, and document ICE activities. All of these cost money.
“I’ll tell you where [the money] is not coming from,” said Jacquie Zapata Chavez, education coordinator at the Latino Task Force. “The district.”
Even in an elementary school whose PTA has more wherewithal, the legal risks are a big worry. At a recent meeting for the school’s English-learner community, one PTA member said they’ve paid external organizations for training. “We can connect families with resources, but nobody here is a lawyer,” they said. (The Frisc was allowed to join the meeting only if the name of the school and participants were not published for fear of being targeted.)
In March, the teachers union (UESF) asked the district for a contract renegotiation to add immigration-related support that included mandated “sanctuary city” training; a website with ICE activity updates; and legal support and days off for members dealing with immigration or work authorization issues.
The district rejected the proposal. “Immigration is a broader societal and policy matter, rather than a direct employment condition like wages or benefits, which are the focus of the [collective bargaining agreement],” SFUSD’s Dudnick told The Frisc. (UESF continues to work with a nonprofit Faith in Action to accompany families to ICE appointments and court hearings.)
Lawmakers put AB 49 into effect immediately to address another pressing concern: absenteeism.
According to language in the bill, a rise in deportations boosts the probability of students dropping out if they’re from families with “likely unauthorized immigrants.” It also draws a direct correlation between an increase in deportations and chronic absenteeism.
Since the pandemic closures, kids have been slow to return to schools. In 2023-24, one in five SFUSD students missed at least 10 percent of the school year. Data for 2024-25 aren’t out yet, but educators fear that the ICE threat will drive even more kids away.
BVHM principal DeLarios Morán didn’t have specific numbers but said attendance at her school is down this year: “We have more kids that are just not coming to school, and I think that that’s because their parents don’t feel comfortable dropping them off. People are afraid to leave their homes.”