Jordan School District — Campaign Strategy

Size and geography

Jordan School District covers the southwestern portion of Salt Lake County, including West Jordan, South Jordan, Riverton, Herriman, Bluffdale, and parts of Draper. It is the second-largest district in Utah by enrollment.

The area includes working-class neighborhoods in West Jordan where large immigrant communities — particularly from Mexico and Central America — have been established for decades, alongside newer, higher-income suburban growth in Riverton, Herriman, and Bluffdale.

Student population

Jordan serves approximately 55,000 students across 83 schools. The district's Hispanic/Latino student population has grown steadily over the past decade and now constitutes a significant share of enrollment, concentrated especially in the northern and western portions of the attendance area.

The district also serves multilingual learner (MLL) students across dozens of home languages, with Spanish as the most common language among families with limited English proficiency.

Newcomer and immigrant families

West Jordan and neighboring communities have been primary settlement destinations for immigrant families in Salt Lake County for decades, particularly those employed in construction, food processing, landscaping, and service industries — all sectors that have seen heightened ICE enforcement activity in Utah since 2025.

Research consistently shows that immigration enforcement activity near schools reduces attendance, increases chronic absenteeism, and depresses academic performance among affected students — including U.S.-citizen children whose parents or siblings face enforcement risk.

Why Jordan is a priority district

Jordan combines a large affected population, an elected board with reachable members, no existing policy to push against, and a geographic footprint where ICE activity is documented. A Jordan policy adoption would be among the most impactful outcomes in Utah — by population covered — of any single district action.

What 287(g) means in practice

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows DHS to deputize local law enforcement — county sheriffs, municipal police — to identify, process, and detain individuals suspected of civil immigration violations. Utah has multiple active 287(g) agreements, including in the Salt Lake Valley.

For Jordan District families, this means that enforcement risk is not limited to encounters with ICE agents. A traffic stop, a call to police, or a routine interaction with local law enforcement can directly trigger immigration detention in a 287(g)-enrolled jurisdiction.

This elevated enforcement environment is a direct driver of the attendance effects, chronic absence patterns, and family disengagement that Jordan schools are already experiencing.

Why this strengthens the case for a school policy

When enforcement is embedded in everyday community life through local partnerships, the school becomes one of the few institutions that can credibly offer a different standard. A board-adopted policy establishing the school building as a space with its own written rules — independent of 287(g) activity outside — gives families a meaningful and reliable assurance.

Framed this way, the ask to the Jordan school board is not about immigration policy. It is about whether families can trust that the school — specifically the school — operates by a clear, documented set of rules. That is a narrow, procedural ask that most board members can support without taking a position on broader enforcement questions.

Organizing implications

• Do not conflate issues: The school policy campaign is about what happens inside school buildings. Keep messaging focused on that. Referencing 287(g) is useful context for organizers but may be counterproductive in public board testimony where it can appear to be a broader immigration enforcement critique.
• Attendance data is your evidence: If Jordan schools are experiencing elevated absence among Hispanic/Latino students, that data connects enforcement activity to educational harm — which is the board's jurisdiction. Bring that data.
• Families already know this: Affected families don't need to be educated about enforcement risk — they live it. What they need is a clear answer about whether the school will protect them. Speak to that directly.
• Cross-community framing: The argument that schools should be consistent, documented, and reliable in how they respond to enforcement appeals to audiences beyond immigrant families. Administrators and staff benefit from clear procedures too.

Federal protections

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

The Supreme Court held that states — and by extension their subdivisions, including school districts — may not deny a free public education to children based on their immigration status. This creates an affirmative duty for districts to protect access to schooling and provides a constitutional basis for policies that insulate schools from enforcement disruption.

FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act)

Schools are already legally required to protect student records from disclosure to third parties, including law enforcement, without proper legal authority. A warrant requirement for student record access is consistent with — and in many cases required by — existing FERPA obligations.

DHS Sensitive Locations Policy

Department of Homeland Security guidance designates schools as sensitive locations where enforcement operations should generally not occur without prior approval from a supervisor. A district policy formalizes what federal guidance already acknowledges as appropriate practice.

What schools can and cannot do

Schools CAN:

• Require a judicial warrant (not an administrative ICE warrant) before allowing officers into non-public areas
• Decline to voluntarily answer questions from ICE officers about students or families
• Establish a protocol requiring front office staff to contact a designated administrator before taking any action
• Notify families when enforcement activity affects their child or the school
• Decline to allow officers to conduct interviews of students without parental consent and proper legal authority

Schools CANNOT:

• Refuse compliance with a valid judicial warrant or court order
• Obstruct a lawful arrest in progress outside the school
• Destroy or conceal records when served with a lawful subpoena

Messaging framing

The most durable framing for this campaign in Jordan is safety, clarity, and consistency — not immigration politics.

• "Every school, same answer." — Without a written policy, different schools respond differently. That is bad for families and bad for the district.
• "Staff need to know what to do." — Front office staff are put in an impossible position when there is no protocol. This is about supporting district employees as much as protecting students.
• "Clarity protects everyone." — A clear policy protects students, parents, staff, principals, and the district from legal exposure and from situations no one is prepared for.
• "This is about process, not politics." — Requiring a judge-signed warrant is a procedural standard. It is not an immigration policy position.

Working with the Utah Compact

The Utah Compact (2010) — a statement of principles signed by law enforcement, business leaders, faith communities, and civic leaders — explicitly calls for a measured, humane approach to immigration enforcement that keeps families together and recognizes the role of immigrants in Utah's economy and society.

Compact signatories include prominent LDS voices and Republican business leaders. Framing the Jordan campaign in Compact terms — "keeping families together," "consistent with Utah values" — allows advocacy to transcend party lines.

Coalition building

Effective coalitions for this campaign typically include:

• Parents — especially those whose children attend schools in West Jordan and other high-density immigrant communities within Jordan's boundaries
• Educators — teachers and principals who see the effects on attendance and student wellbeing directly
• Faith communities — LDS, Catholic, and evangelical congregations all have members with stakes in this issue
• Immigrant services organizations — legal services, community health, and resettlement organizations with existing trust in affected communities
• Business community voices — employers in the trades and services sectors in southwestern Salt Lake County who understand the workforce implications

Working with board members

Jordan's board members are elected from single-member districts. Identify which board members represent the geographic areas with the highest affected populations — these are your most natural allies or most persuadable targets.

Request one-on-one meetings before formal board appearances. Many board members are receptive to conversations they have not been asked to have publicly yet. Come to those meetings with a one-page summary and a draft policy — not just a request for action.

Speaker strategy for meetings

• Coordinate speakers so that multiple perspectives are represented: a parent, a teacher, a faith voice, a community organization representative
• Keep each speaker to 2 minutes. Do not exceed the allowed comment time.
• Avoid duplication — brief speakers in advance so each covers a different angle
• Submit written comments even for speakers who cannot attend in person
• Attend multiple consecutive meetings — consistent presence signals organization, not a one-time surge