Granite School District — Campaign Strategy
This document is intended for organizers, advocacy partners, and strategic planners. It provides the research, policy design, political strategy, and implementation tools needed to run an effective campaign for protective school policies in Granite School District.
What we are asking for
Three core asks — what's missing and most urgent:
- Clear family communication about what the district will and will not do — proactive, multilingual, and consistent across all schools
- A community incident response plan — safe dismissal, guidance for detained parents, attendance flexibility
- Student education on rights and safe behavior — what to do if students encounter enforcement on the way to or from school
Already informally in place — needs to be standardized and formalized:
- Require a judicial warrant — signed by a judge, not an administrative ICE form, before officers enter or remove a student
- A written front office protocol — posted at every school: who to call, what to say, what to document
- Annual staff training — warrant types, escalation procedures, and ICE-specific scenarios
1. Executive Summary
- Granite School District is one of the largest and most demographically diverse school districts in Utah, serving more than 60,000 students across a wide area of central and western Salt Lake County — including West Valley City, Kearns, Taylorsville, Millcreek, Midvale, and Murray.
- Granite has baseline legal obligations and some evidence of internal practices related to student privacy and safety, but these are not currently reflected in a clear, standardized, publicly documented district-wide policy, and procedures may vary significantly across the district's more than 90 schools.
- The district already has equity and multilingual infrastructure — programs, staff, and institutional commitments that provide a foundation for this work — even though a specific enforcement response policy does not yet exist.
- Granite's board is elected and responsive to organized constituent pressure. The district's geographic and demographic complexity requires strong coalition building across many communities simultaneously.
- The core ask is narrow, procedural, and defensible on grounds of clarity and student safety. Its purpose is to increase family trust and reduce fear-driven absenteeism, keeping students in school. The six asks are:
- Proactive, multilingual family communication — at the start of each school year and during periods of heightened enforcement
- A community incident response plan — safe dismissal procedures, guidance for detained parents, attendance flexibility
- Student education on rights and safe behavior — what to do if students encounter enforcement on the way to or from school
- A judicial warrant requirement — signed by a judge, not an administrative ICE form, before officers enter or remove a student
- A written front office protocol — posted at every school: who to call, what to say, what to document
- Annual staff training — warrant types, escalation procedures, and ICE-specific scenarios
5. Policy Design
The goal of this policy is not to create new legal obligations, but to clarify and standardize how existing legal requirements are applied in immigration enforcement situations. Granite already operates under FERPA, Plyler v. Doe, and general law enforcement protocols. A clear written policy makes those existing protections explicit, consistent, and communicated to the staff and families who need to rely on them.
Recommended policy components
A strong policy should require immigration enforcement officers to present a judicial warrant — signed by a state or federal judge — before being permitted to:
- Enter any non-public area of a school building or campus
- Remove a student from school grounds
- Conduct any interview or search involving a student
The policy should explicitly state that administrative warrants (ICE Forms I-200, I-205) are not sufficient to compel entry or cooperation. This distinction should be written into the policy rather than left to staff judgment.
This requirement reflects existing legal standards — it makes them explicit and actionable for school staff who may not have legal training.
Model Districts
These practices are already in place in major school districts across the country — Granite already has the foundation to make this explicit and consistent.
- NYC Public Schools — does not allow ICE access without a judicial warrant signed by a judge; administrative ICE forms (I-200, I-205) are explicitly insufficient
- Staff are required to contact legal counsel before taking any action on an enforcement request
- Policy explicitly distinguishes judicial warrants from administrative documents in written district guidance
- Grounded in New York State direction to apply the same judicial warrant standard to immigration enforcement as to other law enforcement
Source: NYC Public Schools · New York State Education Department
Staff should have a written, step-by-step response protocol posted at every school. At minimum:
- Do not allow access beyond the front office without a judicial warrant
- Do not confirm or deny student enrollment or location
- Immediately contact the designated district administrator (title and phone number in writing)
- Do not attempt to physically obstruct officers
- Document the visit: officer names, agency, badge numbers, documents presented, and time
The protocol should be short enough to post near the front office and simple enough to follow under pressure. In a district as large as Granite, consistency across 90+ schools requires a single standard document — not school-by-school variation.
Model Districts
- NYC Public Schools — staff must request documentation from any officer before taking action; officers wait in the public area while legal counsel is contacted
- No student may be removed or interviewed without a judicial warrant
- Protocol is written, posted in front offices, and uniformly applied across all schools in the district
Source: NYC Public Schools
Annual training is recommended for all front office staff and school administrators, covering:
- The difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative ICE warrant
- What staff are and are not required to do
- The district's step-by-step response protocol
- Who to call and in what order
- How to document an enforcement visit
For a district of Granite's size, training should be integrated into existing professional development systems — not structured as a standalone event that will be attended inconsistently. Completion should be tracked.
Model Districts
- NYC Public Schools — requires staff to follow standardized, documented procedures when enforcement officers arrive; training covers how to identify a judicial warrant vs. an administrative form, when to escalate to legal counsel, and how to document visits
- Completion is tracked district-wide to verify consistent implementation
- New York State — guidance directs districts to train staff explicitly and define procedures in writing
Source: NYC Public Schools · New York State Education Department
- Teachers should know how to respond to student fear with clear, reassuring language that does not make promises the school cannot keep
- When a student expresses fear about a parent's safety, the path to a school counselor should be immediate and known to all staff
- Counselors and social workers should be activated proactively when nearby enforcement is reported — not only after attendance has already dropped
- Staff should never minimize or dismiss student fear, even informally
Include a 5-minute module in annual training on how to respond to student distress related to immigration enforcement — with specific language to use and specific referrals to make.
Model Districts
- NYC Public Schools + NYCLU — students receive Know Your Rights materials developed in partnership with the NYCLU, covering the right to remain silent and how to respond safely to enforcement encounters outside of school
- Age-appropriate instruction integrated into existing curriculum — not treated as a separate one-time event
- Materials available in multiple languages for distribution throughout school communities
Source: NYC Public Schools · NYCLU
A strong policy would include:
- Notify parents or guardians when immigration enforcement officers visit a school or contact a student
- Communicate the policy publicly in plain language and in the primary languages of Granite's families — including Spanish, Tongan, Samoan, Somali, Arabic, and others as appropriate
- Distribute family communication at the start of each school year, not just post it to the website
- Encourage families to update emergency contact information so the district can reach them quickly if needed
Granite already has multilingual communication infrastructure. The ask is to direct those resources toward a specific, clear communication about the district's enforcement response policy.
Proactive, repeated communication is one of the most effective levers for maintaining student attendance during enforcement activity. Communication should occur at three moments: at the start of each school year — not only when incidents occur; mid-year when federal enforcement posture changes; and proactively during community enforcement events, before families have to call in to ask. In high-impact communities, supplement district text and email with WhatsApp and community organization channels.
Model Districts
- NYC Public Schools — maintains a public-facing immigrant family guidance page clearly stating: schools do not share immigration status, ICE access is restricted, and families have rights regardless of status
- Offers multilingual resources and referrals to legal services
- Communication is updated proactively during periods of heightened enforcement — not only after incidents occur
Source: NYC Public Schools
- ICE activity near school triggers the district's internal communication protocol
- Multilingual family messaging within a defined timeframe
- Coordination with counselors and student support staff activated proactively
- Clear dismissal and student safety procedures for pickup disruptions
Model Districts
- Seattle Public Schools — activates district-wide communication when enforcement activity is reported near schools
- Uses shelter-in-place and modified dismissal procedures when nearby enforcement creates safety concerns
- Treats ICE activity near schools as a coordinated district safety incident — not a decision left to individual schools
- Provides written guidance to staff on handling student pickup disruptions and detained parents
Source: Seattle Public Schools
What to avoid
- Vague statements of values — "We value all students" is not a policy. It cannot be enforced and provides no guidance to staff under pressure.
- Overly broad "sanctuary" language — Broad non-cooperation pledges invite legal challenges and political backlash without providing clearer protection for students. Keep the ask procedural.
- Language that implies obstruction of lawful orders — The policy should make clear that officers with a valid judicial warrant will be cooperated with. This is legally and politically essential in Utah's political context.
- Policies that require board members to take an immigration stance — Frame as being about clarity, consistency, and student safety — not immigration policy.
- One-size-fits-all community outreach — Granite's communities are diverse in language, culture, and exposure to enforcement. Communication and organizing must be tailored accordingly.
6. Political Strategy
Core messaging framing
The most effective framing in Granite centers on consistency, fairness, and clarity — not immigration politics. Granite's size makes the consistency argument especially powerful: a district with 90+ schools cannot responsibly leave responses to individual administrators.
- "Every school, same answer." — With 90+ schools, inconsistency is not just unfair — it is an operational failure. Every Granite family deserves the same clear answer.
- "Staff need to know what to do." — Front office staff in Granite are being put in impossible situations without a documented procedure. This is a management problem as much as a civil rights one.
- "Our district already invests in equity — this completes that work." — Granite's existing multilingual and equity programs represent a commitment this policy would fulfill.
- "This is about process, not politics." — Requiring a judge-signed warrant is a procedural standard, not an immigration policy position.
- "This policy does not change the law — it makes sure staff know how to follow it." — Granite already operates under FERPA and general warrant requirements. This policy makes those requirements clear, specific, and consistent across all 90+ schools.
Utah Compact framing
The Utah Compact — signed by law enforcement, business, faith, and civic leaders across party lines — calls for a measured, humane approach to immigration enforcement that keeps families together. Framing the Granite campaign in Compact terms allows advocacy to reach board members across the political spectrum.
Working with board members
Granite's board members are elected from single-member districts. The western board districts — representing West Valley City and Kearns — are the most natural allies given the demographics of those areas. Eastern board districts representing more affluent suburban communities may require a different approach focused on consistency and staff clarity rather than immigrant community impact.
Request one-on-one meetings before formal board appearances. Come to those meetings with a one-page summary and a draft policy — not just a request. Board members in large districts are often surprised when they realize there is no documented procedure; that surprise is an opportunity.
How to Talk to Your School Board →
Who Moves the Board
Granite board members are elected from single-member districts and respond to organized, sustained constituent pressure. Understanding who has influence over individual board members is the foundation of an effective political strategy.
- Educators (GEA) — Granite board members take educator concerns seriously. GEA has institutional relationships with the board and its endorsements matter in board elections.
- Parents (PTA) — Parent voices from within the district — especially from western Granite schools — carry significant weight. A board member whose PTA is asking for this policy is more likely to move.
- Faith leaders — Faith voices are disproportionately influential in Utah civic life, particularly with board members who may be skeptical of advocacy organizations. A pastor, bishop, or imam who supports this policy can reach a different audience than a nonprofit can.
- Coordinated community organizations — A coalition of recognized organizations submitting unified public comment is more powerful than many individual voices. The coordination signals that the community is organized and will remain engaged.
- Students and youth — Young people speaking to their own school experience carry moral weight that institutional voices do not. Well-prepared student speakers — brief, personal, and specific — are among the most effective at board meetings.
What works:
- One-on-one meetings before board appearances — board members respond better when they've already heard the ask privately
- Constituent voices from within a board member's own district — not just from affected communities district-wide
- Consistent, sustained presence across multiple meetings — not a one-time appearance
- A draft policy or one-pager ready to hand over — giving board members something concrete to take to staff or legal counsel
- Framing that does not require a board member to take an immigration stance — keep the ask procedural
What does NOT work:
- Making a single board appearance and expecting results — Granite's board responds to sustained pressure
- Messaging that positions this as an immigration debate — board members who feel politically exposed will avoid taking a position
- Turnout without coordination — a crowd that makes conflicting or expansive demands is less effective than a small, unified group with a single clear ask
- Targeting board members from lower-exposure communities with messaging designed for directly affected families — use the consistency and staff clarity argument instead
Speaker strategy for board meetings
- Coordinate speakers representing multiple communities and perspectives: a parent, a teacher, a faith leader, a refugee community representative, a community organization leader
- Keep each speaker to 2 minutes; brief speakers in advance so no two cover the same angle
- Submit written comments for speakers who cannot attend in person
- Attend multiple consecutive meetings — consistent presence signals sustained organization
- In a large district, showing geographic breadth across the district strengthens the case
7. Coalition Building
Coordinated efforts across organizations can significantly strengthen this work in Granite. The district's size and diversity make coalition building both more necessary and more complex than in smaller districts. A coalition that represents only one community — even a large affected community — will be less persuasive to a board that represents the full geographic and demographic range of the district. See the general coalition building guide for foundational tactics that apply here.
Essential coalition partners
- Refugee resettlement and support organizations — Organizations serving Granite's Somali, East African, and Southeast Asian refugee communities have deep family trust and are essential for reaching families who are not connected to mainstream school communications. These organizations can also bring multilingual voices to board meetings.
- Hispanic/Latino community organizations — Organizations serving the established and newer immigrant communities in West Valley City, Kearns, and Taylorsville are the backbone of the most affected population in Granite's boundaries.
- Pacific Islander community leaders — Granite serves one of Utah's largest Tongan and Samoan communities. Engagement must go through community and faith leaders within these communities — not through generic outreach. Pacific Islander communities have strong internal networks that respond best to trusted messengers.
- Parent organizations — PTAs and parent groups from schools in affected communities, particularly in western Granite, are credible voices that board members are particularly attentive to. Guide: Talking to Your PTA →
- Educators and school staff — Teachers, counselors, and family liaisons who work directly in Granite schools and see the effects of enforcement fear on student attendance and wellbeing. Front office staff who want clearer procedures are natural internal allies.
- Faith communities — LDS, Catholic, evangelical, Muslim, and Pacific Islander faith communities all have members with a stake in this issue. Faith voices carry particular weight in Utah political culture and can reach constituencies that advocacy organizations alone cannot.
- Community-based nonprofits — Organizations providing community health, social services, workforce development, and other services in Granite communities are trusted intermediaries for both outreach and mobilization.
- Legal services organizations — Immigration legal services providers working in Salt Lake County can provide technical expertise, credibility, and a direct connection to affected families.
Key Power Centers in Granite
Granite Education Association — the educators' union representing teachers and support staff throughout the district.
Why they matter: GEA represents the educators who work directly with students in every Granite school. Educator voices carry weight with board members who understand that staff need clear procedures. A position from GEA signals that this is a workplace issue — not just an advocacy campaign.
How to engage: Connect through GEA's leadership. Frame the policy as protecting staff from impossible situations — front office staff should not be making legal judgment calls without written guidance. Ask GEA to submit written comment at board meetings and to survey members about their need for clearer procedures.
The University of Utah's MEChA chapter and Dream Center provide student organizing infrastructure and a pipeline of trained, credible student voices for civic spaces.
Why they matter: Student voices — particularly from those directly affected — carry different moral weight than organizational voices. University students connected to these communities can speak to school board impact from personal experience and bring organizing skills to the campaign.
How to engage: Coordinate speaking slots for students who can testify to the impact of enforcement fear on their K–12 experience. Use these networks to mobilize student presence at board meetings.
Civic mobilization networks — including Indivisible Utah, the 50501 Movement, and the Utah Overpass Coalition — can generate public visibility and board meeting attendance beyond the directly affected communities.
Why they matter: These networks expand the coalition beyond immigrant communities, demonstrating that support comes from across the district and across political backgrounds. Visible public engagement outside board meetings reinforces that this issue has broad community support.
How to engage: Coordinate with these networks for board meeting presence, public comment sign-ons, and public-facing events. Use them for outreach to broader Salt Lake County constituencies that may not otherwise be reached by immigrant community organizing.
Mormon Women for Ethical Government and interfaith coalitions provide credibility across Utah's political spectrum — particularly with board members and communities that may be skeptical of more progressive advocacy organizations.
Why they matter: In Utah's political culture, faith voices carry particular weight. MWEG's alignment with the Utah Compact's values — rule of law, family unity, human dignity — provides a principled framework that is legible across partisan lines. A faith voice at the board table changes the political calculus for board members who see this as a politically risky vote.
How to engage: Request that faith leaders speak at board meetings or submit written support. Use the Utah Compact as shared framing — it was signed by faith and civic leaders across party lines.
- Internal influence — educators, staff, and PTA voices that speak from inside the district
- External pressure — community organizations and advocacy groups that demonstrate constituency breadth
- Public visibility — students, public demonstrations, and faith voices that make the issue visible beyond the board room
Coordination across organizations
Granite's complexity creates a real risk of parallel, uncoordinated efforts. Invest in coordination infrastructure: a shared message, a shared ask, a shared timeline, and clarity about who leads each piece. A coalition that shows up to a board meeting with conflicting messages or demands is less effective than a smaller, unified group.
8. Implementation Toolkit
The following tools are designed to be practical and reusable. Adapt language to Granite School District's specific context.
The following is a condensed version for use in early conversations with board members and administrators. See the full Model Policy page for complete language and implementation notes.
"Granite School District shall require any immigration enforcement officer seeking access to a non-public area of any district school, or seeking to interview or remove any student, to present a judicial warrant signed by a state or federal judge. Administrative warrants issued by ICE (Forms I-200, I-205) are not judicial warrants and do not compel the district's cooperation. Staff shall immediately contact the designated district administrator upon any such request and shall document all enforcement visits. The district shall notify affected families promptly and shall provide this policy and related training to all front office staff and administrators annually."
- Officer arrives at the front office. Greet professionally. Do not allow access past the front desk.
- Ask for identification and the purpose of the visit. Record name, agency, and badge number.
- Ask whether they have a judicial warrant. If yes, ask to see it. If no, state that the district's policy requires a judicial warrant before access can be granted.
- Do not answer questions about specific students. State that you are not authorized to share student information and must refer them to the district office.
- Call the designated district administrator immediately. Do not make decisions on your own.
- Document everything — time, names, agency, documents presented, what was said and done.
- Do not physically obstruct officers. Comply with a valid judicial warrant. Call the administrator before doing so if time permits.
Post a laminated copy at the front office of every school. Review annually with all front office staff.
- Overview of district policy — what it requires and why (10 min)
- Types of warrants — judicial vs. administrative; why the difference matters (10 min)
- Step-by-step protocol — walk through each step; distribute and post the front office card (10 min)
- What staff are not required to do — answering questions about students, granting access without a warrant, deciding alone (5 min)
- Documentation — what to record and where (5 min)
- Role-play scenario — practice the encounter (10–15 min)
- Q&A
Integrate into existing district professional development. Track completion across all 90+ schools to verify consistent implementation. See the full staff training guide for a complete framework, model tiers, and implementation examples.
Suggested questions for a family-facing FAQ. Translate into Spanish, Tongan, Samoan, Somali, Arabic, and other languages as appropriate for each school's community. See the Family Communications guide for full messaging principles and sample notification language.
- Does my child have the right to attend school regardless of immigration status?
- Can immigration officers come to my child's school?
- What will school staff do if an officer arrives?
- Will the school notify me if an officer visits or contacts my child?
- What is the difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative document?
- What should I do if I am worried about my family's safety on the way to or from school?
- Who at the district can I contact with questions or concerns?
Distribute through schools, community organizations, resettlement agencies, and faith communities — not just the district website. Make available at the front office of every school at the start of each school year. See the Utah Resources & Partners page for community organizations that can help with distribution and outreach.
How the District Can Measure Success
A strong policy ask includes a way to verify whether it is working. Granite's district-level data infrastructure makes attendance tracking feasible at the school level. Advocates should encourage the district to commit to ongoing monitoring as part of policy implementation.
What to track
- Weekly attendance rates at the school level — especially in high-impact schools in West Valley City, Kearns, and Taylorsville
- Sudden single-day or multi-day dips in attendance, disaggregated by school
- Chronic absenteeism rates (10%+ of school days missed) among English learner students — a key proxy for enforcement-related fear
- Year-over-year trends before and after policy adoption
- Compare attendance data to known enforcement events in surrounding communities
- Track whether attendance recovers more quickly in schools where communication was proactive
- Note whether absence spikes are district-wide or localized to specific communities
How to use the data
- Use attendance data to evaluate whether the policy and communication plan are reaching families effectively
- Identify schools where implementation may be inconsistent and target follow-up training
- Report annually to the board on attendance trends in affected communities
- Request attendance data from the district for schools in high-impact communities — this data is generally available under public records law
- Use attendance trends to document need before the policy is adopted and measure impact after
- Share data with board members to demonstrate measurable educational harm connected to enforcement climate