The landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe (1982) affirms that all children, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to a public K-12 education.
Every child in Idaho has the right to an education. Any attempt to collect and report students' immigration status risks violating this ruling, fostering fear, and discouraging school attendance. Idaho schools' policies should ensure that no child is deterred from receiving an education due to concerns about privacy or discrimination.
Policy Objectives:
Protect Student Rights and Privacy: No student should be required to disclose their immigration status, in compliance with federal law and ethical educational practices. A student’s individual status may differ from others in their household, which can lead to confusion and misuse of data. The data collected from students and families should be maintained confidentially, whereas this bill calls for publication on the state’s education website.
Prevent Discriminatory Data Collection: Students should not be singled out based on their real or perceived immigration status. Some school districts have seen sharp declines in attendance when similar policies have been attempted.
Protect School Funding: The school funding formula is based in part on school attendance, and if this kind of policy is implemented, attendance numbers will go down as families keep their students out of school for fear of intimidation or reprisals. Schools will lose funding.
Promote an Inclusive Educational Environment: All students should feel safe and welcome in public schools without fear of targeted data collection or reporting.
Support Transparent and Ethical Budgeting: The state should find other ways to collect data without violating student rights or discouraging enrollment.
We are opposed to targeted immigration data collection:
Schools should not collect or report individual immigration status to avoid discrimination, intimidation, or legal challenges.
This bill includes K-12 and higher education institutions in the data collection process and indicates that all data should be posted on the State Department of Education’s website. The State Superintendent of Education covers K – 12, while the State Board of Education covers higher education. This is in conflict.
Any attempt to require schools to ask about nationality or immigration status would create a climate of fear that undermines educational access and violates Plyler v. Doe.
Public tax dollars should not be used to implement policies that discourage school attendance, discriminate or create barriers to education.
Discriminatory data collection could lead to legal challenges and costly litigation, ultimately harming public education funding rather than improving it.
Conclusion:
Targeting students based on their immigration status is not only legally questionable but also ethically indefensible. Idaho must prioritize an inclusive, non-discriminatory educational environment while ensuring responsible fiscal planning through lawful and ethical data collection methods. We strongly oppose any efforts to collect and publish individual student immigration data.