House Education hears S.227 to bar information-sharing, require warrants before admitting law enforcement into non-public school areas

The House Education Committee on April 7 heard an introduction to S.227, a bill that would create statewide immigration-protocol policies for Vermont schools and restrict school practices around law-enforcement access and student-data sharing.

Senator Tanya, the bill’s lead sponsor, told the committee she brought the measure after reports of students skipping school out of fear and local districts adopting protective policies. “I felt like we are not in typical times,” she said, arguing that administrative warrants—"typically used for inspections"—are being used to detain people and that the state should provide uniform protections so students can safely attend school.

Legislative counsel Rick Seagel walked the panel through the bill’s text. Under the draft, a superintendent (or a designated staff member) would be the sole authority to admit a law-enforcement officer who appears on an immigration-related matter into any non-public area of a school. Seagel summarized the bar on admission: a school should not allow entry into non-public areas unless the officer produces official identification and a judicial warrant specifically naming the individual subject to arrest or search. The bill also says schools must not collect or maintain information that records a student’s or family member’s immigration or citizenship status, and schools must avoid voluntarily sharing such data with third parties unless compelled by state or federal law.

The Agency of Education (AOE) witnesses said the bill’s aims align closely with existing AOE guidance. Torren Ballard, AOE director of policy and communications, said the agency supports the intent to uphold “every child’s constitutional right to public education.” Emily Simmons, AOE general counsel, highlighted agency guidance issued in January 2025 and updated in January 2026 and told the committee: “Public schools are prohibited from denying access to students based on immigration status.” She urged districts to review what they designate as directory information under FERPA and recommended flexibility in proof-of-residency practices so families without standard documents can enroll children.

AOE officials also flagged practical and procedural items the bill would require: development by AOE (in consultation with the Attorney General’s office and school associations) of a model immigration-protocol policy by Jan. 1, 2027; an Attorney General–AOE immigration resource guide to be completed by Aug. 1, 2026 and distributed to superintendents by Aug. 31, 2026; and an effective date for the act of July 1, 2026. The guide would include information on standby guardianships (an emergency guardianship mechanism if a guardian is detained) and lists of advocacy organizations that can assist students and families.

Committee members pressed staff on how the bill interacts with federal law. Seagel and AOE witnesses noted two federal statutes cited in the hearing—8 U.S.C. §1373 and §1644—and said federal law can compel disclosure when it applies. AOE staff emphasized that judicial warrants (Fourth Amendment warrants signed by a judge) can compel schools to produce named records, but such warrants are rare, and schools should seek legal advice on case-specific requests.

Several lawmakers asked for concrete examples of “non-public” spaces; counsel said the bill intentionally defers to districts’ existing access-control policies so each school can identify non-public areas (for example, a principal’s office or any space a school’s access rules place behind controlled entry). Committee members also queried whether designating large swaths of a school beyond the controlled entry as non-public could effectively deny entry to many visitors; counsel said the provision’s focus is law-enforcement admissions on immigration-related matters and that flexibility exists to refine the language.

Courtney O’Brien, AOE director of Safe and Healthy Schools, advised districts to use their emergency operations plans and clarified that behavioral-threat-assessment protocols—meant to address targeted threats of violence—are not the appropriate tool for immigration-enforcement incidents. AOE staff also reiterated McKinney‑Vento protections for unhoused students’ right to enroll and suggested districts maintain up-to-date emergency contacts to aid families if a guardian is detained.

The sponsor and staff asked the committee to consider drafting fixes suggested by Legislative Counsel; lawmakers were told the bill passed the Senate unanimously. The committee recessed after the presentation and planned brief comments from the Vermont School Boards Association next on the agenda.

What’s next: the bill directs AOE and the Attorney General’s office to prepare a model policy and resource guide on the stated timetable. The committee did not take a vote during this hearing; further committee work on technical edits, stakeholder feedback and potential amendments is expected before any final action.