(SARASOTA, FLORIDA) — The Sarasota County School Board approved a contentious resolution pledging “full cooperation and collaboration” with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a move critics said could create a “culture of fear” for immigrant families.
Board members passed the measure on a 3-2 vote late January 20, 2026, after a seven-hour meeting dominated by public comment and loud opposition.
Hundreds of parents and residents cycled through the microphone, warning the resolution could chill school attendance and parent participation even if daily campus operations do not change.
School board resolutions generally set expectations and political direction for an agency and its workforce. They do not change federal immigration law or rewrite federal rules governing enforcement by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Board statements and district position
Bridget Ziegler, the board chair who proposed the measure, framed it as a public-safety statement tied to criminal activity and compliance with law enforcement.
Superintendent Terry Connor told the board the district already follows privacy and disclosure laws and does not maintain student immigration-status information as part of routine records.
Tom Edwards, one of two dissenting votes, argued the resolution injects partisan politics into schools and risks undermining a safe, high-achieving environment for students.
The adopted text affirms “full cooperation and collaboration” with law enforcement agencies, specifically naming ICE, and directs district personnel not to impose “unauthorized barriers” or take actions that could impede lawful enforcement activity.
It also declares that “School facilities shall not serve as safe harbors or sanctuaries for any individuals engaged in criminal activity, including violations of federal immigration laws.”
Discipline language in the resolution warns that any employee, contractor, or volunteer who “impedes, obstructs, or interferes” with lawful ICE actions could face consequences up to termination and possible criminal referral.
Connor emphasized that privacy rules still apply, and that practice on student data remains unchanged in ordinary school operations.
Key positions and quotes
| Actor | Role | Core Position / Quote | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bridget Ziegler | Board Chair | “Our School District cannot provide safe harbor to criminals, including those who violate our immigration laws. This resolution strengthens that foundation, putting education and protection first and ends the lies that are polarizing and actually can create the dangerous environments that we are sadly seeing in states like Minnesota, California and Illinois.” | January 20, 2026 |
| Terry Connor | Superintendent | “We are committed to fostering an atmosphere of trust, respect, and inclusivity. Following current standard operating procedures, we will. continue to adhere to privacy laws. We do not keep information related to students’ immigration status.” | January 20, 2026 |
| Tom Edwards | Board Member | “I wasn’t elected to support a political ideology. I was elected to support the safe, high-achieving, academic environment of all students.” | January 20, 2026 |
Federal context and messaging
Federal messaging around immigration enforcement added pressure to the local debate, with DHS highlighting arrest totals and urging cooperation from local institutions.
On January 20, 2026, the DHS Press Office said it was publicizing examples of “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens” arrested by ICE since January 20, 2025, under President Donald J. Trump and Secretary Kristi Noem.
DHS also promoted “Operation Metro Surge,” saying ICE reached 3,000 arrests during a surge targeting what it called dangerous criminal offenders, while describing local cooperation as central to removals.
Such announcements can shape public perceptions of what local bodies are “signing up for,” even when a school district’s legal authority remains bounded by existing state and federal law. For families, the rhetoric alone can change how safe school feels.
⚠️ Note that the resolution does not create routine immigration-status collection and that FERPA privacy protections remain in force.
FERPA and practical effects
Even with the resolution’s strong language, school districts typically remain limited in what they can disclose from student education records under FERPA, the federal student privacy statute.
Day-to-day practice often hinges on process: who asks for information, what legal paperwork is presented, and what categories of records are requested. Those details can matter more than broad political statements.
Core policy commitments in the Sarasota County resolution focus on cooperation and internal discipline, rather than creating new student-screening rules.
The text says board members and district employees must uphold the rule of law “without imposing unauthorized barriers” or engaging in actions that impede law enforcement.
Its “no sanctuary” clause rejects school facilities serving as “safe harbors” for people “engaged in criminal activity,” including federal immigration-law violations. In many communities, “sanctuary” debates center on whether local agencies voluntarily limit cooperation beyond what law requires.
The resolution’s enforcement mechanism is mostly managerial. It warns that personnel who “impede, obstruct, or interfere” with lawful ICE actions may face discipline, including termination, and could be referred for criminal review.
In practice, school discipline systems usually include due-process steps under district policy and, for employees, contract or civil-service protections. The resolution itself does not replace those procedures.
FERPA remains a key guardrail for student records. Schools generally may not disclose education records without consent, unless a FERPA exception applies, which can include certain lawfully issued subpoenas or court orders.
⚠️ Note that the resolution does not create routine immigration-status collection and that FERPA privacy protections remain in force.
Connor’s statement that the district does not keep immigration-status information signals that the resolution does not set up routine collection of such data. That distinction matters because cooperation language can be read broadly by worried families.
Local politics and triggers
Local political conflict helped drive the vote, with supporters and opponents citing different flashpoints in the weeks leading up to January 20, 2026.
Edwards’ participation in an anti-ICE rally on January 10, 2026, became the immediate trigger for the resolution push. Edwards also criticized the January 8, 2026, fatal shooting of Renee Good, a mother of three, by a federal agent in Minneapolis.
Sarasota County GOP leaders separately asked Gov. Ron DeSantis to remove Edwards from office, accusing him of encouraging violations of federal law, deepening the dispute inside the district.
Symbolic resolutions can still have operational effects, even when they add no new legal authority. Staff may interpret the language as a directive to err on the side of cooperation, and families may interpret it as a warning.
Ziegler’s comments linked the resolution to broader national disputes, citing Minnesota, California, and Illinois as examples where she said misinformation and polarization create danger.
Opponents argued the district was turning schools into a frontline for immigration politics. Supporters argued the district was affirming rule-of-law cooperation and discouraging criminal behavior on campuses.
Community speakers opposing the measure repeatedly described fear among immigrant families and warned that parents might avoid school events, limit contact with staff, or keep children home.
Operational considerations for families
School districts control attendance policies, campus access procedures, and how they communicate with families about rights and privacy. DHS controls federal enforcement priorities, and ICE controls its operational decisions.
“Location sensitivity” debates often arise in school settings because federal agencies have, at various times, limited enforcement actions near schools. Policies and guidance can change, and families should avoid assuming any location is categorically protected.
✅ Parents and guardians should engage through established school channels (principal, district office) if they have privacy or safety concerns.
For many families, practical questions may include what the district considers an education record, how the district handles law-enforcement requests, and who is authorized to respond. In some cases, families may wish to consult a qualified attorney or accredited representative for individual guidance.
Verification and sources
Verification for readers starts with original documents, not social media clips or reposted graphics.
Board materials are typically published through Sarasota County Schools’ board notices, agenda packets, and meeting minutes, which can show the final resolution text and any amendments.
Federal readers can check DHS announcements in the DHS Newsroom and compare language, dates, and attributed speakers to confirm authenticity.
ICE public statements are commonly posted through ICE newsroom releases, where dates, cities, and case descriptions can be cross-checked against broader DHS messaging.
For the federal student privacy framework, the statutory text and notes for FERPA can be found via Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute at [law.cornell.edu](https://law.cornell.edu). Readers comparing claims should match what was said publicly to the actual resolution language adopted January 20, 2026.
Scope and disclaimer
This article discusses immigration enforcement and potential impacts on students and families. Readers should note that federal immigration law is separate from local school policies, and this article does not provide legal advice.
