Sparking Equity

Beyond Fear: Leading Schools in an Era of Immigration Threats

Share episode

School districts around the nation are struggling to fend off threats from the Trump administration on multiple fronts.  In addition to trying to protect students whose families may face a threat of deportation, they also face a looming April 24 deadline to certify that they have eliminated all so-called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and numerous other programs Trump says violate a 2023 Supreme Court ruling banning affirmative action in college admissions. 

Los Angeles Unified and the Denver Public Schools are two districts that have already come under extraordinary pressures on these fronts. Listen to this powerful interview led by USC Rossier School of Education Dean Pedro Noguera with Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, who himself came to the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant, and Denver Public Schools Superintendent Alex Marrero.   They warn that should the Trump administration cut federal funds to their districts, it would have a devastating impact on their neediest and most at-risk students.  


Sign up here so we can keep you posted on future podcasts on some of the most exciting developments in education.

Brought to you by the Advancing Education Success Initiative -- Coby McDonald, Producer; Louis Freedberg, Executive Producer and Correspondent

Pedro Noguera:

Welcome to Sparking Education Equity, a podcast highlighting strategies to ensure all students succeed and have the opportunity to learn. I'm Pedro Noguera, Dean of the USC Rossier School of Education.

Louis Freedberg:

And I'm Louis Friedberg, Director of the Advancing Education Success Initiative and Executive Producer of this podcast.

Pedro Noguera:

Since our last episode, pressures from the Trump administration on school districts around the nation have continued to intensify, and no more so than on the immigration front. Each day, the Trump administration is accelerating its pledge to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. That will affect huge numbers of undocumented children, even if they are US citizens. Many of them will have family members and friends who are undocumented and who face the threat of deportation For school board members, superintendents and others trying to manage this difficult situation. We're very pleased to have two prominent school leaders joining us today. We are hoping that what they're doing in their school districts will be helpful to other schools that are facing similar threats to their students and families. First, I want to welcome Superintendent Alberto Carvalho of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest district in the nation and by far the one with the largest number of immigrant children. Welcome, superintendent Carvalho.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

Thank you. Great to be with you, Pedro and Louis, to engage in what probably is not only a timely but critically important conversation about these important topics.

Louis Freedberg:

And we're also pleased to have with us Dr Alex Marrero. He's superintendent of the Denver Public Schools, with a student body of about 90,000 students. His district was the first in the nation to file suit against the Trump administration's revocation of a previous policy effectively barring immigration authorities from entering so-called sensitive locations like school campuses. Welcome, Superintendent Marrero.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

Thank you, Louis and Pedro. Thank you for inviting me. Honored to be here to share our story, but also to inform everyone on what we're doing. And honored to be here alongside Alberto, someone who I've been trying to emulate for years now. One of the best, if not the very best.

Pedro Noguera:

So let us start with Superintendent Carvalho, because recently agents from Homeland Security showed up at a couple schools in LA. Can you tell us what happened and tell us about the district's response to that?

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

Certainly Pedro. So number one. I believe that this action is one without precedent, and not only here in our community but across the country. There were reports earlier on of federal entities showing up at a school in Chicago, but it turned out to be US Secret Service investigating alleged threats against the president. So three to four agents showed up at two different schools, attempted to enter the campuses, two elementary schools. The principals and staffs at both schools did what they were trained to do they asked for documentation and identification. Initially, the agents did provide identification, but as soon as the principals attempted to write down that information, they quickly pocketed their IDs and conveyed to the principals that were not allowed. They were asking for information about four students in a first elementary school and one student in a second school, ranging in grades from first all the way through sixth grade from first all the way through sixth grade. Because they did not disclose any documentation, because they did not produce a judicial warrant and because, in fact, they lied to the school staff, alleging that they were there under a parental authorized attempt of making contact with students, meaning the parents had previously authorized these individuals to have access to the kids. They were denied access to these kids and look, we are following the law.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

For those out there who may be listening to this, we'll say wait a second. How can you defy federal entities? You have every right to defy federal entities to the extent that those entities do not strictly follow the law. We are following three important legal principles, as you know, pedro.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

Number one equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States of America that guarantees a free public education be provided to every single child, independently of immigration status. Secondly, ferpa, which protects confidentiality and the privacy rights of students and parents. We are not allowed to provide or convey that information to anyone, regardless of their status, stature or agency they may represent, short of producing a judicial warrant signed by a judge. And then, thirdly I think this one is the most important one as I close is in loco parentis. So we have a fundamental professional and moral responsibility to act as the parents of the caretakers of these children in the absence of their guardians. And I think, whether we're talking about an undocumented child or anyone else's child, we have a fundamental responsibility to protect them, to isolate them from any interference, be it from government or anyone else. So staffs were well-trained and they followed the protocols that denied access to these kids by these federal agents.

Pedro Noguera:

Calls that denied access to these kids by these federal agents? Did the parents of those children know that their children had been targeted or been the focus of this attempted?

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

investigation, not prior to the incident. We were able to confirm after the incident that in fact, the representations made by these federal agents who, by the way, introduced themselves to the school staff as not being ICE, as being Homeland Security, but they did not convey to the staffs that they were there to conduct wellness checks at that time. That was made known via a press statement released by the Department of Homeland Security. We did speak with the guardians of these children and we are able to verify that in fact there was no prior contact made between these agents and the guardians, nor was there any authorization obviously provided to these agents. So it is categorically false that these individuals had sought and obtained authorization from the guardians to speak with these children while in school.

Louis Freedberg:

Can I just ask you, superintendent, what impact has this had? I imagine this must have spread fear throughout the district and those particular students. I don't know if you can respond to it. Are they still in school? I imagine they themselves would be extremely apprehensive to say the least Certainly so.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

Forgive me for not being able to release all details, following the protective demeanor that we are compelled to follow, but I can tell you this that schools like these two schools that saw these actions, but also schools that are located near areas where immigration action has been taken by ICE, saw a temporary dip in average daily attendance District-wide. We have not seen a significant impact to attendance as a result of these actions and I'll tell you why. In speaking with parents, parents are conveying to us high level of fear, high level of anxiety, but also a high level of trust in the position that the district is maintaining regarding their kids and their own families. They know because they participated in training, webinars, in Know your Rights seminars. They've been empowered with red cards that clearly delineate their rights. They've heard me, they've heard our board declare and affirm our values and our position regarding these topics. So they feel protected while in school and, by the way, not just in school, in the school bus, because the school bus is an extension of the school environment. So we have not seen a significant impact.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

But, speaking with parents, anecdotally, we are hearing from them that they are afraid. They are fearful of future actions, they're afraid for some of their family members. In some cases, we're talking about mixed families, where one parent may have status in the country but not the other. So the incredible fear they are facing in terms of possible family separation, separation from children, is something quite frankly unthinkable, lacking passion and, in my opinion, not reflecting the values that we believe in in this country. And I say this as a former undocumented immigrant to this country, and education saved me and made me, and that is why, while some may have a choice on what to do regarding this important topic, I don't. I have sort of a connection, a professional connection, but also a personal connection to this topic, and I would be the biggest hypocrite if I did not, today, fight for the rights of those who are currently facing circumstances, fears, anxiety that I remember experiencing over four decades ago.

Pedro Noguera:

Wow, thank you for that, superintendent Carvalho. Let's bring Superintendent Marrero into this. We understand that Denver has taken legal action now against the Trump administration because the administration has removed schools, as well as churches and courts, from the sensitive locations. Can you tell us about that suit and has there been any similar action to what's occurred in LA in Denver?

Supt. Alex Marrero:

Thank you for that question, Pedro. If I can, before I get into the lawsuit, I just want to get into what the thought process was, in anticipation of all the rumors that we heard. So first I'd like to say that fear should never be used as a tactic by a government, as we just heard from Alberto. It erodes trust, weakens the foundation of our society, Yet that's exactly what has been done by this administration, so we can't continue to function this way. We are the foundation of everything, no matter what it is. You're going to go into political science business, it starts in the schoolhouse.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

So back in December, if I can, Pedro, we all heard the rumors that the sensitive location policy would be removed under the incoming, at that time, Trump administration, and it's important to note that a variation of that policy had been in place for over 30 years and that policy had different iterations, but it largely shielded places like schools, hospitals and churches from immigration enforcement taking place on our grounds. Department of Homeland Security issued a press release and announced the rescission of that policy, specifically that the sensitive areas was no longer something that was prohibited. Right, so? It was just guidance. So it left us, and me specifically, in a state of just wondering, right. So while it was announced that the policy had been removed, the details of the policy were not released. That's an important note in terms of what I'm going to claim as victory in terms of the steps that we've taken. So what has happened? We heard from LA and Denver more so, and across the nation. I would say this is something that we've heard even from our partners in the Council of Gracie Schools. It's impacted schools across the nation and here in Denver. It caused a dramatic drop in attendance. Schools across the nation and here in Denver. It caused a dramatic drop in attendance. As new to country, students and families feared that that simple act of sending your child to school would lead to deportation from the country for the family. I'm not exaggerating, I heard it from those. And no, we have not seen what LA has just experienced, although our team is prepared to welcome anyone who wants to attempt to gather some information or individuals. But we have had it happen in our community, which prompted us to really bring forward the suit. So we had to rapidly respond in many ways training staff, a lot of the exact same procedures that we heard Alberto share in terms of what LA has done. We tallied at that time over 50,000 collective hours of preparation, so to say that we haven't been impacted.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

Our focus, which is teaching and learning, shifted, whether we want to accept it or not it did from January until present day. So the situation became untenable, quite frankly. We were forced to take legal action to your question. So we asked a judge to grant an unprecedented temporary restraining order, so an immediate relief for that revocation. So, in essence, to put back the sensitive locations into the policy. So we asked for that immediately and, of course, as the underlying lawsuit. That would happen whether the temporary restraining order were to be granted or not, whether the temporary restraining order were to be granted or not. So recently the court did rule against our immediate relief. So the TRO, the temporary restraining order, was not upheld.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

I still see this as a victory for schools across the country. Let me explain. So, during the proceedings, the federal government was forced by the court to release the policy that we have never seen. And aside from releasing it because, remember, it was just guidance prior they also had to admit in federal court that it was not fundamentally different than the previous version. So this was a critical admission by the Department of Homeland Security, because they had to admit in court that they had not actually changed the policy in a meaningful way and that schools were still considered sensitive locations in spite of the guidance. So, in essence, they had to state in court that their bark was worse than their bite. Now that clearly has not stopped them from attempting to. So here's where I feel that we are and potentially what we have to make.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

A decision here in DPS is that this admission left me with a troubling question why make such a big show of revoking the sensitive location policy without releasing the language of the policy? The only answer that I have is the intent was simply to create fear, and if that's the case, it begs the question can we not agree on immigration policy without weaponizing fear against some of our most vulnerable students? So if it was simply to create fear, success administration you have succeeded. Attendance has dipped.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

There has been angst across the nation, but let's not pretend as if what you're trying to accomplish is going to be found in our classrooms. If what you're trying to accomplish is going to be found in our classrooms, hopefully it's just threats or worst case scenarios. It happens one time in any schoolhouse across the nation, and now that no longer is a case for a judge to say we can't rule in your favor because it hasn't happened. I hate to say it. It happens once and then it happens again. So I feel like we have them in a stalemate. We have to decide whether we just rescind the entire lawsuit or continue for the next four years plus.

Louis Freedberg:

Can I just jump in and ask Alberto at LAUSD? Your district is a so-called sanctuary district, right? We?

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

don't necessarily apply that term to self, but it's been applied to us. But we are definitely definitely a protective zone for children and their families. So, by definition, we are a sanctuary district located within a sanctuary city, the city of Los Angeles. Located within a sanctuary county, la County, in a state where the attorney general has affirmed repeatedly his support for our legal position. We follow state law and, shamefully, kids, teachers, school board superintendents are being put in this gray zone, sandwiched between federal demands that clash directly with our own policies and existing state law. But yes, we are, by definition, a sanctuary entity on the basis of the protective policies and values for our students, workforce and families.

Louis Freedberg:

And Alex Marrero. Years ago, denver Public Schools declared itself a safe and welcoming district. Do you think you can actually say that in the current climate Should be an easy question to respond to Lewis, but it's incredibly difficult and that's why I'm going to struggle.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

I would say DPS. We strive to provide a safe and welcoming environment for all students. Underscore all these words are not hollow, but rather carefully selected. Students cannot learn unless they feel safe and welcomed into their schools. We owe that to them. Same thing with our professionals. If someone is worried as a professional and we have the adult experience here they're not going to deliver on their promise. Teaching leads to great learning with absolute confidence.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

When I don't know what's coming down the pike, lewis, I really don't know. So what I can say is that, although that we had a little bit of a bump and we didn't prevail in the immediate, the underlining court case continues. I do feel like we have them again in a bit of a corner. But do I feel confident that I can assure that we have safe and welcoming environments? It's very difficult for me to say that. I want to say that, but I can't control what may be happening. The irony is we don't even know if the school is a safe haven anymore, right? So this is impacting communities in ways that we can't really explain unless you've seen it or, worse, experienced it. It's so hard for me to answer that question.

Pedro Noguera:

Can I bring up a slightly different topic but related. I think both of you know that New York City was told by the administration that they had to eliminate DEI or lose $2 billion in funding, which would seriously hamper their efforts to educate almost a million children there. I'm wondering if you've received similar threats and how your districts are responding. Maybe, alberto, you could start.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

So, as you probably know, pedro, the state of California was notified, via the California Department of Education, of a need by the federal government to certify that no district had policies that elevated diversity, equity, inclusion, race-based program supports for historically disadvantaged communities, gender-specific issues as part of their policies. We are lucky that we work in a state where the attorney general and I did have a number of conversations with state entities, including one with AG Bonta recently, where our state's attorney general has assumed the responsibility, shouldered the responsibility, of responding to the federal government on behalf of all 1,000 plus school districts and colleges and universities, affirming state law, and the state law is clear in its protective demeanor regarding the issues that you just asked about. Are we concerned? Of course we are. As you probably know, 10% of our general operating budget comes from the federal government and I want to be very specific about to the point that my dear friend and brother, alex Marrero, just made.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

Who are we talking about here? So, should there be a reduction or elimination of programs? Who are we targeting? Who are the political pawns that are being used to advance this divisive and punitive policy from the federal government? We're talking about the poorest of the poor amongst us. 85% of our kids live below the poverty level. Many of them are recipients of support systems through the Title I program that we receive through the federal government.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

We're talking about students with disabilities, students with disabilities who receive support through IDEA. We're talking about the food and nutrition program that feeds breakfast and lunch and snack to our kids, many of whom depend on those meals as perhaps the only food they will eat throughout the day. We're talking about reductions or elimination or a compromising of Medicaid support systems that provide support to the medically needy amongst us. Are you kidding me? These are the political pawns we're using the sick, the poor, the disabled to force districts to their knees. What level of moral degradation are we attempting to achieve by doing so? So we are concerned about those actions, but we're also very, very pleased with the level of support we are getting from the state, and I can tell you we are not changing course. We're going to do what is right by these kids and we fervently believe we are on the right side of law on these matters.

Pedro Noguera:

Thank you and Alex. What about in Colorado? How's it going there?

Supt. Alex Marrero:

Very similar. We have an incredible support system from our governor, governor Polis, our federal senators, senator Hickenlooper, senator Bennett and, most recently, our commissioner, susana Cordova, who has taken a stand saying no, we shall not Right. So very similar in terms of what California has done and New York City specifically. We're sitting back and seeing what the other states of the union are going to do, but I think that gives us the ammunition to probably put our chest out. But with that, as proud as we may stand to your question, yes, I share the same fears that Arberto and LA Unified have.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

So, to the tune of $100 million, that may seem insignificant when you look at the grand scheme of things, but that's a lot of federal funds that serve our most vulnerable and arguably at-risk students. And on top of that, I feel strongly that we're being targeted by the administration. Right around this time, when we were pursuing the lawsuit, we, out of all the bathrooms that exist across all schools, there was one targeted by the federal administration and that was and one of our schools are high schools. So we hear rumors that we're on cue to receive a whole bunch of demands for more litigation, but what we've done is we've taken the approach and we're in our budget cycle, that $100 million is now allocated in case we need to fund IDEA, in case we need to put more money where it once existed. And the pain point there is. We're also negotiating with almost all of our unions, specifically our teachers, where we want to reward them with the best contract possible. But how can I give when I don't know what's going to be there?

Louis Freedberg:

Can I just press you just a little bit on that issue, comparing public schools with what we are seeing on the higher education front? Harvard says they're not going to cave to the really outrageous demands made by the Trump administration. By contrast, colombia decided to negotiate, admittedly in response to far less ridiculous demands than the administration is making on Harvard and so far school districts haven't had to face that kind of dilemma. And so far school districts haven't had to face that kind of dilemma. Where do you come down on that? Negotiate or take a stand, because these are real dollars and real services that the federal government is supporting, as you've indicated.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

We should never be in a position of negotiating against the best interest of our kids, of our stakeholders, of our workforce. Certainly we should not be in a position of negotiating the values that we believe in and embrace and apply every single day. So negotiating those serves no great public interest. Secondly, we're in a very different position than Harvard or Columbia. We don't have the resources that those universities have. We do not have the funding supplemental funding that emanates through philanthropy and other entities that support those universities. We do not have those trusts that Harvard has valued in the multi-billion dollar level. That puts the university in a position of saying we will reject the funding for the purpose of maintaining our values.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

So we need to rely on the courts, we need to rely on state intervention for protection, for we do not have at that level a financial cushion Should there be a decrease or a cessation. Even a temporary cessation of funding would be disastrous because the vast majority of these funds employ people. They employ teachers, psychiatric social workers, counselors, paraprofessionals for students with disabilities. So even a temporary halt to these funds would be disastrous to our budget but, more importantly, disastrous to the point of compromising the level of education and services that kids by law deserve. I mean, kids with disabilities rely on an IEP. That individualized education plan is funded through IDEA. So are we going to be in a position where the federal government itself will force an abdication of a child with disabilities legal rights and entitlements to an educational environment? That is something that honestly, as an educator of many years, I never thought I would see or even question, but it certainly appears that it is a possibility.

Pedro Noguera:

Yeah, the irony that the Office of Civil Rights would now be used to take money away rather than to enforce the educational rights of these children is mind-boggling.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

If I can jump in there to the question that was posed to Alberto Bailuas, in terms of negotiating, I would echo what we just heard from Alberto. However, I would invite a conversation. The interesting piece is that you have Alberto Cavallo, alex Marrero, who were the only two K-12 representatives in the I guess now defunct US Department of Homeland Security Academic Council, consisted of well over 20 members, but two K-12 representatives myself and Alberto Cavallo and we did some good work. We will meet periodically and when the Trump administration came on board, I received the notice that I had to, I guess, reapply. Alberto, you told me that you didn't get that notice, but then I recently got one that it's done, but then I recently got one that it's done.

Supt. Alex Marrero:

Kristi Noem, who's the head? I would love to have the conversation because what a missed opportunity to engage college presidents, heads of national unions and K-12 superintendents. Again, what are we trying to accomplish? If it was, fear success, claim victory. But, pedro, you've been in more classrooms than anyone who I've ever met, so I'm going to ask this question of you. Have you ever seen, sitting crisscross, applesauce, on the colorful rug, a drug kingpin, a drug warlord? No way. So what are we trying to accomplish here, right? So let's stop the antics. Let's get back to the sanctity of the schoolhouse. Let us do what we've been trained to do. It's already incredibly difficult and, in certain cases, impossible. Now do we really want the educational system to implode? So I asked the federal government is that what you want? For it to implode under your watch?

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

was dealing with threats against our schools, foreign and domestic right. It was dealing with acts of racial discrimination, anti-semitism, you name it, and you had leaders from across the country collaborating with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that, from a policy perspective, from a practice perspective, in terms of funding, that the nation was doing what it could to protect its students. As Alex said, it appears that that function was eliminated and now, as you wisely declared, the same office that used to file grievances or complaints or accept complaints specific to a lack of services, a dilution or deviation of funding from its intended purpose, whether it's Title I or IDEA for kids with disabilities, is now the office that is almost forcing districts into a position of submission or risk losing the funding that actually protects their guaranteed educational experience and support they deserve on the basis of their circumstance, whether it's poverty, english language limitation or disability. It's counterintuitive and again, it reveals a lack of compassion. If nothing else and Alex said it If the intent is to create fear that leads to self-deportation by parents who face the unthinkable, unimaginable decision of family separation, if that is the intent that is being heard aggressively.

Supt. Alberto Carvalho :

But that intent and that strategy cannot be met with silence If it is met with silence. We need to always remember not my quote that silence always benefits the tyrant. Silence always benefits the tormentor, the aggressor, the abuser. Let that be a position embraced by somebody other than me or Alex. We cannot be silent on these matters, and this presents itself as a scary but golden opportunity to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time, and we should not squander that opportunity.

Pedro Noguera:

Thank you both Alberto Carvalho, superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District, alex Marrero from Denver Public Schools. Thank you both for speaking so candidly with us about these very important issues facing public education today. I'm sure there are many listeners out there who are encouraged by your words and appreciate your insights.

Louis Freedberg:

Before we sign off, I'd love to get your thoughts, Pedro, on what the two superintendents had to say. I have to say it was one of the most moving conversations that we've had on this podcast.

Pedro Noguera:

Yeah, I was struck by the candor, their willingness to speak very openly about their role in protecting the rights of children. The contrast with higher education is striking. I've been listening to many presidents of universities around the country, even of, you know, some of the most prestigious and wealthiest universities, and they've been very timid in the way they've approached the administration. Despite the threats, these K-12 leaders didn't show any of that fear and that was both surprising and, I think, encouraging.

Louis Freedberg:

Yes, and it was good to be reminded that Superintendent Carvalho was himself an undocumented immigrant. He is an educator to the core and making huge contributions to the United States and to so many kids, not just in California but in Miami, where he was a superintendent for many years. And then I was also fascinated to learn that both of them were on this task force at the Department of Homeland Security, made up of educators from around the nation. That's what should be happening right now bringing in the educators talking about how we are going to deal with this situation that the Trump administration is obsessed with regarding undocumented immigrants. How do we deal with that situation in a way that doesn't crush people's lives and especially children's lives?

Pedro Noguera:

It's pretty striking that, instead of working with these district leaders, the administration is treating them as enemies and as willing to take away billions and dollars of funds that these children deserve and need to get their education as a threat if they don't comply with their mandates. I hope this is a sign that other districts and states around the country will stand up, because I think the only way to change the policy is to challenge it the way these leaders have.

Louis Freedberg:

But I have to ask you, pedro. Some people say the federal government only supplies about 10% of a school's budget on average, far less than what many universities are receiving from the federal government. But what I was struck by is that the superintendent said they just can't manage without those federal dollars. Obviously, no public school district has an endowment of any kind that they could dip into. Many are just hanging on financially right now. Many are in fact cutting back because of declining enrollments and so on. So this presents a potentially huge challenge to school districts because the Trump administration seems intent on really weaponizing those federal dollars.

Pedro Noguera:

No, that's clear, and it would, in fact, destabilize education for the children in these districts. So, even though it's just 90 percent, it still represents, in the case of LA, over a billion dollars and close to that amount in Denver. So we're not talking about small amounts of money and, as both superintendents said, these are funds that are directly tied to meeting the needs of children in poverty, children with learning disabilities and the health needs of children. So to lose these funds would be, I think, a very significant blow to the children, to the communities and to the districts themselves.

Louis Freedberg:

And that means for these superintendents, school board members and so on, it's not going to be like we're just going to do what you want to do in terms of what the administration is trying to foist on them. There's going to have to be some negotiation. There's going to have to be some engagement, because, as both Superintendent Carvalho and Superintendent Marrero said, they rely on these resources to draw on. They can't just say no, we're not going to cooperate.

Pedro Noguera:

Yeah, it does. I actually had a conversation with the Chancellor of New York City. They've taken the position that they will not comply with the DEI mandate from the Trump administration to get rid of DEI Now, fortunately they have the backing of the state. But to hear these superintendents, as we just did, speak so openly about their role in defending the interests of their children's schools, I think was very encouraging and exemplary.

Louis Freedberg:

Yes, absolutely, and I just have to say they're setting an example for the students and setting an example for the next generation. We're at a moment in this country that we've never been before, and how adults and how institutions respond are sending profound lessons to our children.

Pedro Noguera:

And on that note we have to wrap up this episode of Sparking Equity. Thanks to our producer, colby McDonald, and to Eric Olson for his help. Thanks also to our sponsors, the Hewlett Foundation and School Services of California, and to the USC staff for their support.

Louis Freedberg:

Please let us know about strategies that you think are making a difference in helping school communities respond to these unprecedented threats to public schools throughout the nation. You can write to us at sparkingequity at gmailcom. That's sparkingequity at gmailcom.

Pedro Noguera:

Please be sure to subscribe to Sparking Education Equity, wherever you listen to your podcast. I'm Pedro Nogueira and I'm Louis Friedberg.

Louis Freedberg:

Thanks for listening.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Lande Ajose

Host
Head Shot

Pedro Noguera

Host
Head Shot

Louis Freedberg

Producer