Chicago Public Schools’ Controversial Policy on Absences for Immigrant Students
Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has implemented a policy that allows undocumented immigrant students to receive excused absences if they or their family members fear immigration enforcement activities in their area. According to documents obtained by education watchdog organization Defending Education, this policy—officially titled “Attendance Coding for Safety Concerns Related to Federal Representative Activity”—was reaffirmed by the Chicago school board in February. Under these guidelines, if a parent informs the school that their child is absent due to fear of immigration enforcement (referred to in the policy as “federal representative-related procedures”), schools can mark the absence as excused under the category of “concern for student health and safety.” Perhaps most notably, the policy explicitly states that there is no time limit on how long these safety concerns can be used as justification for absences, potentially allowing for extended periods away from school.
The implementation details of this policy reveal its broad scope and limited documentation requirements. Parents need only communicate that their child’s health or safety might be in jeopardy—no specific details about the nature of the immigration enforcement concerns are required. If parents themselves are affected by immigration enforcement activities, they can designate another guardian to inform the school about the need for an excused absence. Additionally, the policy expands excused absences to include attendance at “Civic Events,” defined as events sponsored by non-profit organizations or government entities that are open to the public, including artistic performances or educational gatherings that support a sponsoring non-profit’s mission. These provisions create a system where immigration status becomes a recognized factor in attendance policies, effectively carving out special accommodations for undocumented families.
Critics of the policy, including Kendall Tietz from Defending Education, argue that CPS is using attendance policy as a “sanctuary immigration tool” that potentially encourages truancy while obstructing cooperation with federal authorities. “Chicago Public Schools is effectively telling families that fear of federal law enforcement is a standing excuse to keep children out of class with no time limit and no paper trail,” Tietz stated. The controversy is heightened by the fact that CPS received more than $1.5 billion in federal taxpayer funds for the 2024 fiscal year, creating what some see as a contradiction between accepting federal funding while implementing policies that may undermine federal immigration enforcement. This tension reflects the broader national debate about sanctuary policies and the role of public institutions in immigration enforcement matters.
The policy comes at a challenging time for CPS, which is already facing scrutiny over its financial management and academic performance. The school system’s Office of Inspector General recently uncovered $14.5 million in “excessive” travel expenses during the 2023 and 2024 fiscal years. Meanwhile, academic achievement metrics paint a concerning picture: only 30.5% of students in grades 3-8 were proficient in reading, and a mere 18.3% were proficient in math as of spring 2024. These statistics raise questions about whether the district’s focus and resources are appropriately directed toward improving educational outcomes for all students, regardless of immigration status. Critics suggest that policies like the attendance accommodation might divert attention from core educational missions at a time when academic improvement should be the priority.
The implementation of this policy occurs against the backdrop of America’s increasingly polarized immigration debate. Sanctuary policies have become flashpoints in discussions about immigration enforcement, with advocates arguing they protect vulnerable communities and critics contending they undermine the rule of law. Chicago, as a self-declared sanctuary city, has established various protections for undocumented immigrants, and this CPS policy aligns with the city’s broader approach. The school system appears to be positioning itself as a safe space for immigrant families, acknowledging the real fear that many undocumented parents and children experience regarding potential deportation. However, this stance inevitably draws criticism from those who believe public institutions should not create mechanisms that potentially shield individuals from federal immigration authorities.
The debate around this policy reflects fundamental questions about the purpose and responsibilities of public education in America. Schools have traditionally served as equalizers and integrators in American society, providing opportunities for children regardless of background. Proponents of the CPS policy might argue it fulfills this mission by ensuring undocumented children aren’t forced to choose between education and safety. They might point out that children should not be punished academically for immigration circumstances beyond their control. Conversely, critics contend that education systems should focus exclusively on academics and remain neutral on politically divisive issues like immigration enforcement. This tension between educational access and adherence to federal law exemplifies the difficult position of public schools caught between their educational mission and broader societal debates about immigration and enforcement. As of the report, CPS representatives had not responded to requests for comment on the policy, leaving many questions about its implementation and impact unanswered.
