YUHSD defends enrollment policy
District disputes assertions by ACLU that practices are illegal
Yuma Union High School District’s legal counsel responded nearly a month ago to demands from the ACLU of Arizona to change aspects of their enrollment policy in a letter obtained by the Yuma Sun, denying that their practices were illegal.
In the letter, YUHSD’s counsel responded pointby-point to a letter sent by Kathleen Brody, the ACLU of Arizona’s legal director, to Superintendent Gina Thompson on April 18.
“The District (YUHSD) adamantly denies that it maintains or implements “unlawful policies” as alleged in your letter,” wrote YUHSD’s legal counsel, Benson Hufford of Hufford, Horstman, Mongini, Parnell and Tucker, in the letter sent April 26.
In the ACLU’s letter, Brody urged “the District to take immediate action to change” aspects of its enrollment policies, including the requirement of parents or legal guardians to provide state-issued identification upon enrollment and the requirement that students live with a parent or legal guardian to enroll.
At the time that the original letter was sent, Brody and the ACLU had only confirmed that these policies were in place at San Luis High School, though the district has said since that they are in place at all six of its schools.
In his response, Hufford took issue with what he said was an unfair characterization, saying that it was wrong for the “ACLU and others to suggest that somehow San Luis High School is an outlier and not following proper procedures.”
Hufford also rejected the ACLU of Arizona’s assertion that the “San Luis High School state issued I.D. policy chills and prevents school enrollment in the District,” arguing that declining enrollment is instead statewide, and a product of “restrictive state laws that discourage nondocumented persons from living, working and having their children educated in Arizona.”
Responding to the ACLU’s assertions that YUHSD’s enrollment policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment, Hufford wrote that YUHSD does not ask about the immigration status of prospective students’ parents.
“We adamantly deny on behalf of the district that its policies or practices are violations of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote.
Brody and the ACLU also alleged in mid-April that YUHSD was in violation of the McKinney-Vento Act, which in part attempts to eliminate barriers that prevent homeless children from attending school. Hufford responded to this by writing that YUHSD “is well aware of and complies fully with the requirements of the McKinney-Vento Act.”
“If you have knowledge of any instance where the District has failed to follow the requirements of McKinney-Vento, please notify our offices and we will follow up with the district,” he wrote.
The media attention garnered by the ACLU’s letter also seemed to have bothered those at YUHSD, with Hufford writing that the district was concerned that the “ACLU, and others who are acting in concert with the ACLU, deemed it appropriate to publicize your letter and unjustified demands in the media.”
It is not clear who exactly “others who are acting in concert with the ACLU” refers to. Hufford was not able to be reached for comment as of the publishing of this article.
YUHSD has also decided to refrain from commenting at this time.
While there was significant coverage in statewide outlets, the bulk of the stories on the issue were published five days after the ACLU’s letter was sent to Thompson, following a press release from Representative Raúl Grijalva’s office on April 23.
“ACLU’s actions have contributed to and exacerbated existing differences of opinion in Yuma which have then diverted the District from its fundamental mission of educating all children,” wrote Hufford on the publicity surrounding the ACLU’s letter.
In the week after Thompson received the ACLU’s letter, the Arizona Department of Education issued clarification regarding residency guidelines.
“While a district may restrict attendance to district residents based on available classroom space, inquiring into students’ citizenship or immigration status, or that of their parents or guardians would not be relevant to establishing residency within the district,” read the new guidelines in bold lettering.
Thompson has said before that the district will revisit its enrollment policies, and Hufford writes in his response to the ACLU that “to the extent that the District may have been following some practices that were more restrictive than necessary under (Arizona Department of Education) directives, the District will review its practices and make appropriate changes.”