Educational equity: immigration enforcement.

Connolly’s measure reframes how California public schools address immigration enforcement by requiring local educational agencies to post know-your-rights information and adopt Attorney General–developed policies, while restricting the collection of information about pupils’ citizenship or immigration status except as required by law. The proposal directs the governing body of each local educational agency to display the Immigration-Enforcement Actions guide in administrative offices and on school websites, in languages provided by the Attorney General, with updates aligned to AG revisions. It also requires dissemination to parents and guardians about the right to a free public education regardless of immigration status and to educate students about bullying based on immigration status or religious beliefs.

The bill presents two operative approaches to the Education Code change. Under Version A, school officials may not collect information about immigration status, must report to the governing board when enforcement requests access to school sites, and must provide and post the AG guide, with updates, while reinforcing privacy in disclosures to enforcement agencies. Version B tightens nondisclosure rules, adds a requirement that officers seeking entry to nonpublic areas present identification where feasible, and reiterates reporting and emergency-contact provisions; both versions preserve a framework for implementing AG model policies and for district adoption by specified dates, with ongoing alignment required through a future update timetable. In both tracks, the definitions cover immigration enforcement, local educational agencies, and schoolsites, and cross-references to federal and state requirements shape permissible interactions with authorities.

A companion‑bill sequencing provision conditions Version B’s more protective regime on the companion measure’s enactment and timing, creating a dynamic where the operative framework may shift based on legislative timing relative to the companion proposal. The fiscal provisions contemplate reimbursement if mandated costs are found by the Commission on State Mandates, consistent with California’s reimbursement framework, while noting there is no explicit general fund appropriation in the text. Implementation would involve translating and publishing materials, adopting and updating model policies, and potential monitoring and auditing by the department to assess compliance, with broader implications for district administration, staff training, and school climate through the added emphasis on rights information, privacy protections, and anti-bullying education.