A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administrations efforts to end DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program). Last year, California and other states filed a request to stop DACA from being rescinded. While that case has not yet been resolved, a San Francisco U.S. District Judge, William Alsup, has issued a ruling that halts the DACA program from ending while the legal challenge moves forward.

On September 5, 2017, when the Trump administration rescinded DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, it sent shock waves throughout the immigrant community and caused uproar among advocates for immigration reform. Rescinding DACA put pressure on Congress to address this immigration issue by creating a legislative solution to replace the now rescinded executive action that created the DACA program.

There is growing concern surrounding the impact that the Trump administration’s decision to rescind (cancel) DACA (the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program) will have on immigrants and their educational rights. In particular, the work that a school district does to collect information for school enrollment, or eligibility for Title III services, needs to be carefully conducted so as to not violate civil rights around the "chilling effect" (any practices that could intentionally or unintentionally dissuade immigrant families from enrolling their children as students). 

I recently wrote a blog about the U.S. Department of Education’s (USED) announcement that the offices at USED that handle special education issues had identified for rescission 72 special education regulations and guidance documents. I included information about the immediate outcry from special education advocates and political adversaries of Betsy DeVos, the U.S. Secretary of Education, and how that resulted in the list of documents that were rescinded being reposted to the USED website, this time with an explanation for why each document was selected for removal. Following on the heals of the rescission of the special education documents comes the announcement of the rescission of nearly 500 more documents from other USED offices, including the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE).

In July 2017 I wrote a blog about the U.S. Department of Education (USED) requesting comments on regulatory reform. The reason for the USED action is Trump’s executive order requiring each federal agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.

In July 2017 I wrote a blog about the U.S. Department of Education (USED) requesting comments on regulatory reform. The reason for the USED action is Trump’s executive order requiring each federal agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations and make recommendations regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification.

Parent participation is an essential component to academic growth and achievement. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 considers parent participation so pivotal that sixteen different types of meetings are defined throughout the law. In this blog and in our free ebook, "The Parent Participation Form for Parent Meetings: What You Need To Know", we discuss best practices for raising participation in parent meetings, and review the components of an effective meeting notification.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA is an Obama-era executive action that provides protections to undocumented immigrants that were brought into the U.S. when they were under age 16. The rationale behind DACA is that children cannot be held responsible for the actions of the adults that brought them into the U.S. and without some protections they could face dire circumstances.

When I was employed at a state department of education, I monitored school districts for compliance with ESEA requirements for both Title I and Title III. I also contracted with the U.S. Department of Education (USED) and helped USED monitor Title III in five states. One of the most common English Learner (EL) program monitoring issues I found was an improper use of Title I or Title III funds to pay for the salaries of teachers working in a district’s core “language instruction educational program” (LIEP), also know as an EL program.

There is a financial burden related to creating parent notice communications in-house, especially since there are several components to a successful, ESEA- compliant communications plan, including: