Board Meeting Prep: Talking Points for Speakers
Pick one talking point. Support it with one statistic or story. End with the specific ask. This page gives you everything you need to do that confidently.
Quick start — the 2-minute version
If you only have time to read one section, read this. Everything else on this page supports and expands these points.
The problem
- Fear and anxiety about ICE activity in their communities is affecting students' ability to focus, feel safe, and show up — even when they are never directly targeted
- Granite lacks a clear operational protocol for what staff do when ICE is reported nearby
- Without a district plan, teachers, bus drivers, and front office staff all improvise — alone, under pressure, inconsistently
The ask
- A clear response plan for when ICE is reported near campus
- Know-Your-Rights training for staff, students, and families
- Proactive, multilingual communication with families before and during incidents
Why it's reasonable
- Builds on Granite's existing protections — fills the operational gap
- There is clear precedent — Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and Denver have already done this
- Follows the same model as existing safety plans for fires and lockdowns
This is about what happens when ICE is nearby — in parking lots, on arrival routes, and in neighborhoods students walk through every day. Schools already have plans for when students cannot safely go home. This is that plan.
What we want the board to understand — and do
Understand: fear is causing real, measurable harm to Granite students
When families fear that ICE may be near school, children stay home. A Stanford study found a 22 percent increase in absences during intensified enforcement,[1] with the largest effects on the youngest students. Clear communication from the district empowers parents to make informed decisions rather than fear-based ones — when families know what protections are in place, they can weigh real information instead of rumors.
Understand: Granite's teachers are improvising without guidance
Legal experts note that school officials are anxious about ICE encounters and "uncertain about what to do."[2] Without a district protocol, individual teachers are making their own plans — under pressure, with no support. That is not a fair position to put any educator in.
Do: adopt the three practical measures described below
A clear response plan for ICE activity near campus. Know-Your-Rights training for staff, students, and families. Proactive, multilingual communication with families. These are the three asks — all within the board's authority and all already in use at major districts across the country.
Granite's current policies
Granite already has the right values. The gap is operational detail — a school-level procedure for what staff do when ICE is reported nearby. View Granite's immigration policies FAQ →
Student access & records
- Granite does not collect immigration status — all children are entitled to a free public education regardless of status
- Student records are protected by FERPA and are not shared with immigration officials
Law enforcement & safety
- The Granite Police Department does not inquire about immigration status or cooperate with ICE except in safety emergencies
- If a parent is detained during school hours, the district's crisis and emergency response team will support affected students
Non-discrimination
- Granite prohibits discrimination and harassment based on nationality, race, and ethnicity
- Incidents can be reported to a principal, district administrator, or the Student Access & Opportunity Department
Family support
- The Student Access & Opportunity Department provides resources and language support for families with limited English or new arrivals
Current situation
Students and families are scared
ICE made between 3,040 and 4,164 arrests in Utah in 2025 — more than double the prior year.[9][10] Street arrests rose to over 100 in a single month,[11] occurring in neighborhoods, on routes, and in public spaces Granite students use every day.
Granite serves communities in West Valley City, Kearns, and Taylorsville with significant mixed-status populations. Nationally, 6.1 million U.S.-citizen children live with an undocumented family member.[4] When enforcement increases, many families face real pressure to keep children home.
That fear is measurable. A 2025 national survey of high school principals found that 63.8% said students from immigrant families had missed school due to enforcement-related fear, 70.4% reported heightened student anxiety, and 35.6% reported immigration-related bullying.[5]
Educators lack clear guidance
Granite's FAQ does not cover what happens when ICE is at the door. In January 2025, the federal government revoked the "sensitive locations" memorandum that previously discouraged ICE from entering schools. ICE may now enter public areas — parking lots, lobbies — but still needs a judicial warrant for private spaces like classrooms.[6] Granite's FAQ confirms GPD does not interact with immigration officials except in safety emergencies — but it does not tell a front office staff member what to do, what to ask for, or who to call when an ICE agent walks in.
Nationally, fewer than 45 percent of principals had provided professional development for staff on this issue.[5] Without a district protocol, Granite's 90+ campuses face the same gap.
Three practical asks
Each of these is already in use at leading districts. None requires new legal authority — only operational commitment.
Every school should know exactly who is in charge if ICE appears nearby — and what they are supposed to do.
1. Clear plans for ICE activity near schools
- Define protocols for when ICE is observed near campus, including delayed-release procedures until the area is safe
- Require multiple emergency contacts and pre-authorized alternate pickups in case normal release is not safe[6]
- Coordinate community-led escort programs — walking buses, carpools, or bike buses — during arrival and dismissal
- Train bus drivers on what to do if ICE is present near a bus stop — including not stopping, contacting dispatch immediately, and returning students to school if necessary to ensure safety[13] — see Transportation & Bus Stops →
A plan only works if the district knows what is happening. Schools already rely on reporting systems to identify safety threats — the same approach can be used here.
- Establish a clear, centralized system for identifying and reporting ICE activity near schools
- Create a single, district-wide reporting channel for staff, families, and community members — app, hotline, or online form — to report ICE activity near schools in real time
- Allow anonymous reporting so families and students feel safe sharing information without fear of exposure or retaliation
- Route all reports to a designated district response team trained to verify information before action is taken
- Integrate reporting into existing school safety systems — such as SafeUT, anonymous tip lines, or emergency communication platforms — rather than building a separate system from scratch
- Require schools to log and escalate all reports through a centralized dashboard so the district has real-time situational awareness across campuses
- Use existing school safety models to verify and respond to reports
- Follow the same model used for external threats: "see something, say something" reporting combined with rapid administrative verification
- Use multiple sources to confirm activity before triggering alerts — staff reports, community partners, law enforcement communication, and others
- Designate clear thresholds for action (confirmed presence vs. unverified rumor)
- Ensure that once verified, information flows quickly to school leadership, transportation and bus drivers, front office staff, and families
Students, staff, and families should know their rights before they need them.
2. Comprehensive Know‑Your‑Rights training for staff, students, and families
- Train staff to distinguish administrative vs. judicial warrants and understand what information they can legally share[6]
- Work with community organizations to offer Know‑Your‑Rights workshops; display signage and red cards explaining that students have the right to remain silent and to refuse entry without a judicial warrant[6]
-
Core rights students should know:[6]
- You have the right to remain silent — you do not have to answer questions about your immigration status, where you were born, or how you entered the country
- You do not have to open a door or allow entry without a judicial warrant signed by a judge
- You have the right to speak to a lawyer before answering questions or signing anything
- If stopped, ask "Am I free to go?" — if yes, calmly walk away
- Do not physically resist, even if you believe your rights are being violated
- Train students to memorize an emergency phone number and to avoid signing documents or answering questions without a lawyer — so they can protect themselves if they encounter ICE off campus[6]
- Encourage parents and caregivers to teach children their rights and how to assert them
- Teachers who share Know-Your-Rights information with students are protected — providing factual legal information about constitutional rights falls within academic freedom; the district should explicitly affirm that educators will not face discipline for doing so
- Partner with legal aid groups and the Student Access & Opportunity Department for accessible, multilingual training and materials[12]
Families deserve accurate, timely information — in their language — before rumors fill the gap.
3. Clear, proactive communication with families
- Publish district policies in multiple languages; send real-time alerts via phone, text, email, or school apps when ICE activity is reported near campus[12]
- Establish protocols for notifying parents promptly; never share student information with ICE[6]
- Communicate proactively even when there is no threat — a family that knows their child's school is safe today will send their child to school today
- Encourage families to keep emergency contacts up to date and talk with children about who is authorized to pick them up and what to do if plans change
- Include guidance on how families can locate detained relatives and connect with legal assistance
Implementation and benefits
Low cost, existing model
Schools already have protocols for fires, lockdowns, and natural disasters. This extends that same planning model to a new threat — not a new system, just an additional procedure.
Reduces district liability
A documented protocol means consistent responses across all 90+ campuses. Without one, individual staff decisions made under pressure create legal and reputational risk for the district.
Improves academic outcomes
California districts that adopted safe-zone policies saw improved test scores and graduation rates, particularly for vulnerable and immigrant students.[8]
Supports teachers
Clear guidance means teachers are not left to improvise in high-pressure situations. Training helps educators understand their legal responsibilities and protects them from making mistakes under stress.[2]
Restores attendance and trust
Fear of enforcement — not enforcement itself — is what drives absences.[1] When families know the district has a plan and will communicate proactively, that fear is replaced by confidence, and children stay in school.
Talking points for speakers
Each point is designed for a 2-minute public comment. Pick one. Support it with one story or statistic. End with the ask.
Why this matters now
-
Many families most affected cannot safely speak for themselves — we are here because they cannot be.
Fear of being targeted prevents many directly affected families from attending public meetings or speaking on record. The board will not hear from them directly. Building relationships with community organizations such as Comunidades Unidas gives the board a channel to hear concerns that will never reach a public comment microphone — ensuring that the voices of the most affected families actually shape district policy.
-
ICE activity is already a major concern in the community — and rebuilding trust will take time.
Thousands of Utah residents have participated in protests and demonstrations directly referencing ICE — including large "No Kings" gatherings in Salt Lake City, a January 2026 protest specifically targeting ICE enforcement, and ongoing organizing around proposed detention facilities in the area.[14] Families are paying attention. Whether or not enforcement directly affects a given student, public concern is already high — and the school environment reflects it. Clear policies and proactive communication are essential not just for safety, but to rebuild the trust families need to send their children to school.
-
ICE activity is increasing in the neighborhoods Granite students live in.
ICE made between 3,040 and 4,164 arrests in Utah in 2025 — more than double the prior year.[9][10] Street arrests rose to over 100 in a single month,[11] in the same neighborhoods, routes, and public spaces Granite students use every day. The ask: acknowledge this reality and have a plan for it.
-
Granite serves more students from affected communities than any other single district in Utah.
More than 60,000 students. Significant Hispanic/Latino, Pacific Islander, and refugee populations in West Valley City, Kearns, Taylorsville, and Midvale. A policy here protects more children than any other single district action in the state.
-
This does not just affect undocumented students — it affects entire classrooms, including U.S. citizens.
Many students in immigrant families are U.S. citizens or have legal status, but live in mixed-status households. When enforcement increases, the fear is not limited to one child — it spreads through the entire family. Research shows that about 10 percent of adults in immigrant families have kept their children home from school due to immigration enforcement concerns,[3] and absences can increase significantly even when students are not directly targeted.[1]
The impact extends far beyond immigration status. U.S. citizen children, their classmates, and entire school communities experience increased anxiety, disrupted learning, and lower attendance. Policies that address fear and uncertainty protect all students — because the effects do not stop at documentation status.
-
Other communities have already experienced what happens without a plan.
In Columbia Heights, Minnesota, ICE swarmed near schools, parents were detained, and teachers acted as bodyguards and chauffeurs to get children safely to class.[7] Proactive planning is how Granite avoids the same outcome.
The gap in current policy
-
Granite has good values — but no operational protocol for when ICE is nearby.
The district does not collect immigration status, limits GPD cooperation with ICE, and protects records under FERPA. What is missing is a school-level procedure: who does a front office staff member call when an ICE agent walks in? What do they say? What happens at dismissal? These proposals fill that gap — they complete what Granite has already started.
-
This is not asking the board to stop ICE — it is asking them to prepare for it.
The board cannot control where ICE operates. It can control how schools respond, how families are notified, and whether students and staff know their rights. Those are the only asks here — and they are squarely within the board's authority.
The case for clear plans
-
Schools already have plans for when students cannot go home safely — this is that plan.
Fires, gas leaks, severe weather, lockdowns — any situation where normal dismissal is unsafe already triggers a protocol. The underlying principle is simple: whenever students cannot go home safely, the school needs a plan. That is true during a snowstorm, a gas leak, or ICE activity near dismissal routes. Planning for immigration enforcement is the same model applied to a new situation.
-
Without a district plan, Granite teachers are making their own — alone, under pressure.
In other districts without protocols, teachers have physically positioned themselves between agents and students.[7] That is not a reasonable position to put any educator in. Teachers are also fielding questions from frightened students every day — and without training or district guidance, they are cobbling together Know-Your-Rights information on their own, unsure what they are allowed to say and worried about getting it wrong. A clear district plan protects staff as much as it protects students.
-
There is clear precedent — major districts have already done this.
Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Denver, and San Francisco have adopted warrant policies, Know-Your-Rights programs, and family communication protocols. Granite would not be breaking new ground — there are models to follow and lessons already learned.
-
The most vulnerable moment for students is not inside the school — it is at the bus stop and on the way home.
Schools have clear rules for what happens inside buildings, but bus stops and routes are public spaces where Granite currently has no clear, communicated protocol. Even when enforcement is not specifically targeted at schools, it can still occur in the same neighborhoods and on the same routes students use every day — leaving transportation staff without guidance and families without answers.[13]
Some districts have already addressed this: bus drivers are instructed not to stop if ICE is present at a stop, to contact dispatch immediately, and to return students to school if necessary.[13] The ask is simple: extend Granite's safety planning to transportation. Bus drivers, schools, and families should all know what happens if ICE is reported near a bus stop — so no student is left unprotected during the most vulnerable part of their day. See the full national guide to transportation protocols →
The case for Know-Your-Rights training
-
Know-Your-Rights training protects students who encounter ICE outside school — not just inside.
Most ICE encounters involving students happen on the way to or from school, not inside the building. Students who know they can remain silent, that they do not have to sign anything, and that they should memorize a trusted contact number are better protected if they encounter an agent on a bus or sidewalk.[6]
-
Teachers who share Know-Your-Rights information are doing their jobs — the district should back them up.
Legal experts note that school officials are anxious and unsure how to respond.[2] A district policy explicitly affirming that educators will not be disciplined for sharing factual legal information removes that uncertainty — and protects both staff and students.
The case for clear communication
-
Misinformation fills whatever space the district leaves empty.
Families often do not know what the real risks are. Rumors keep children home even when there is no credible threat near schools. When the district proactively shares what it knows — including when there has been no activity near school property — it replaces fear with facts. Fear of enforcement, not enforcement itself, drives absences.[1] Accurate, timely communication is itself an intervention.
-
Communication should reach families who are too afraid to ask questions.
Many affected families will not call the district or attend a meeting. Proactive, multilingual outreach — through apps, text, and community partners — ensures accurate information reaches them before rumors do. That is the communication gap this proposal addresses.
-
Community escort programs give families a concrete safety option during heightened enforcement activity.
Walking buses, carpools, and bike buses work best when the district coordinates and communicates proactively. When families know a safe option exists, they use it — and students get to school.
The evidence it works
-
Safe-zone policies improve academic outcomes — especially for the most vulnerable students.
California districts that adopted safe-zone policies saw improved test scores and higher graduation rates, with the largest gains among immigrant and vulnerable students.[8] When families trust that schools have a plan, fear-driven absences reverse — and learning improves.
-
We are not asking for anything beyond the law.
Schools cannot deny admission based on immigration status, as affirmed by Plyler v. Doe.[2] These proposals call for following legal process, preparing for a real and documented situation, and keeping students safe — the same standard applied to every other safety threat.
Notes for presenters
Do not make it political
Avoid language that signals partisan affiliation or positions the ask as opposition to any policy or administration. Child safety is a non-partisan issue — every family wants their child to get home safely. Board members who might resist a political argument will have a much harder time voting against student safety.
Your primary goal: convince the board there is a problem — and that these solutions will fix it
The board needs to believe two things: that students in Granite are genuinely affected, and that clear policies will make a real difference. Stories about children being scared on the way to or from school are especially powerful — they are concrete, relatable, and squarely within what the district can address. Lead with the problem, then connect it directly to the ask.
Do not assume the board knows what is happening
Board members may not be aware of how students, teachers, and families are experiencing this — the fear before school, the questions teachers are fielding in classrooms, the families keeping kids home without explanation. This is your opportunity to put that reality on the public record. Be specific. A board member who has not heard from affected families directly needs to hear it from you. Describe what is actually happening in the community, not just what you want the policy to say.
Use personal stories to illustrate statistics
Personal stories and anecdotes are powerful and welcome. Make sure they are real and presented as they actually happened. Lead with a specific story, then support it with research.
Focus on what the district can actually change
The board cannot stop ICE from operating in the area — and asking them to do so puts them on the defensive. Keep the ask within their authority: notifying parents when enforcement is reported near schools, having alternate dismissal plans, training staff, ensuring families know their rights.
Keep the ask modest and specific
Clear procedures, Know-Your-Rights training, and transparent communication. These align with existing legal requirements and best practices already working at major districts.
Do not sensationalize
One of the core asks is that families receive timely, accurate information — sensationalizing undermines that goal directly. Personal stories are powerful and welcome, but make sure they are real and presented as they actually happened. Overstating risks erodes the trust we are trying to build.
Sources
- [1] Student absences increased under threat of deportation efforts, Stanford study finds — Stanford Graduate School of Education. Includes pre‑K and K‑5 grade-level absence data. ed.stanford.edu
- [2] What Schools Should Know About ICE Enforcement Actions — CT School Law. Covers staff anxiety, student records and legal process, and Plyler v. Doe school admission rights. ctschoollaw.com
- [3] Vanished classmates: the effects of local immigration enforcement on student enrollment — Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. siepr.stanford.edu
- [4] U.S. Citizen Children Impacted by Immigration Enforcement — American Immigration Council. americanimmigrationcouncil.org
- [5] Bullying, missed school among effects of immigration enforcement on high schools, UCLA research shows. newsroom.ucla.edu
- [6] Protecting Children in Schools Against Immigration Enforcement — Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Covers warrant types, what ICE can and cannot access, and physical security guidance. ilrc.org
- [7] ICE's Assault on a Minnesota School District — The New Yorker. Covers teachers acting as bodyguards and chauffeurs and physically positioning themselves between agents and students. newyorker.com
- [8] Assessing the Role of Safe-Zone Policies in Promoting Academic Achievement: Evidence from California — The CGO. thecgo.org
- [9] What we know about how ICE arrests have increased in Utah — Utah News Dispatch. utahnewsdispatch.com
- [10] Utah ICE arrests more than double in 2025 compared to previous year — KUTV. kutv.com
- [11] ICE street arrests surge in Utah and across West as border patrol takes on bigger role — Deseret News. deseret.com
- [12] Protecting Our Students: A Playbook for School Leaders — Fugees Family. Covers Know-Your-Rights training, community partnerships, rapid family communication systems, and age-appropriate messaging. literacyactionnetwork.org
- [13] Reports of ICE enforcement near school bus stops and district transportation protocols: fox2detroit.com, stnonline.com, nsd.org, Eugene School District 4J guidance
- [14] Local reporting on community concern and protests related to ICE in Utah: KUER (March 28, 2026), Salt Lake Tribune (March 2026), Daily Utah Chronicle (Jan 2026)