Public commenters press board over DOE 'Dear Colleague' Title VI letter; special meeting called
Loading...
Summary
Two public speakers urged the Tolleson Union High School District Governing Board to reject or carefully consider a U.S. Department of Education 'Dear Colleague' letter that they say could limit targeted programs and lead to penalties; the board scheduled a special meeting to review the document the following evening.
Two members of the public used the district’s open-comment period to urge the Tolleson Union High School District Governing Board to resist or scrutinize a U.S. Department of Education "Dear Colleague" letter that they said could alter interpretation of Title VI protections and risk federal funding.
Diane Emera, who identified herself as a parent of a Tolleson Junior High student and longtime community member, criticized Superintendent Gaez for consulting with other districts and questioned whether Tolleson should be using district resources to assist other districts. "At a time like this, we should be doing everything to ensure the survival of our district and for the benefit of our children, not looking to bail out other districts," Emera said.
Hilary Mikkliff, who said she has a student at West Point High School, focused on the department’s letter and its potential effect on DEI programs and special-education services. Mikkliff urged the board to "stand firm and cause good trouble, and please refuse to comply with this policy that is ignorant at best and hateful and harmful to our students at worst." She also said students on IEPs and 504 plans rely on school-provided services and resources.
Superintendent Gaez told the board he had placed the letter in board packets and scheduled a special meeting the next evening for the board to discuss whether the district would sign an accompanying or responsive document. Gaez summarized the district’s read of the letter and the legal risk: according to his remarks, the letter restates the non-discrimination principle of Title VI but also contains language that could be read to prohibit programs targeted to specific populations. He said that, as written, the letter could expose districts with targeted programs—examples he cited included Johnson O’Malley and Title VII Indian Education, special education and English learner programs—to contract or funding risk if the language is applied broadly.
Gaez said there are two competing risks: signing a district response could be read as adoption of the letter’s language; not signing could put the district’s federal funding on hold. "...not signing the letter also opens us up to being put on hold and losing federal funds immediately," Gaez said, and described why the governing board was meeting the following evening to deliberate further.
Board President Lisa Sun and other board members acknowledged the concern and supported the special-session discussion. At least one board member described the language in the federal letter as "very, very dangerous" and requested a dedicated meeting so the public can hear debate and the board can make an informed decision.
The board packet included the full text of the DOE letter (referred to by speakers and staff as the "Dear Colleague" letter) and materials outlining potential compliance risks; the district invited board members and the public to the special meeting scheduled for 6 p.m. the following day.
