(MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA) — Minneapolis-area school districts extended and expanded temporary virtual learning options for immigrant students and families who feel too fearful to attend in-person classes amid heightened ICE enforcement activity near schools and in surrounding communities.
Minneapolis Public Schools recently extended a temporary online learning option for families who do not feel safe sending children to school, joining St. Paul and neighboring districts that adopted similar stopgap arrangements.
Parents’ concerns have centered on the risk of detention during school drop-offs, pick-ups, or commutes, following the Trump administration’s rescission early last year of a policy memo that had designated schools as protected areas from immigration enforcement.
Families and educators described day-to-day disruptions that show up in attendance patterns, including absences, late arrivals and reluctance to use buses, as fear spills into the routines that ordinarily get children into classrooms.
The caution has also reshaped how children connect to schoolwork. A computer sat open in Minneapolis on January 22, 2026, set up for students learning virtually because families did not want them attending in person.
Minneapolis is not alone in taking temporary steps, but the approaches differ across districts. Some systems offered virtual learning options while also trying to hold the line on attendance expectations, and others kept instruction fully in person.
Minnetonka Public Schools maintained in-person instruction even as districts nearby adopted virtual options, a contrast that played out against reports of immigration officers within a block of buildings.
David Law, superintendent of Minnetonka Public Schools and president of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said his district saw steady attendance and heard families asking schools to remain safe, in-person spaces for students.
Law also warned that moving classes online could have a “major academic impact” even over a short window of 1-2 weeks, reflecting concerns that disruptions can compound quickly for students who rely on daily structure and services.
District leaders and advocates described the virtual learning steps as temporary measures aimed at reducing immediate fear, not a shift in educational philosophy, particularly after the disruptions and uneven outcomes associated with remote schooling during the COVID-19 era.
Experts and advocates said the renewed use of virtual learning under fear-driven conditions amounts to a patch rather than a durable model, and some framed it explicitly as a “Band-Aid” response.
They pointed to equity challenges for English learners and students with disabilities, who can miss linguistic accommodations and individualized education programs when learning shifts away from classrooms.
Kimberly Valle, director of programs and partnerships at ImmSchools, a Texas-based nonprofit supporting undocumented students, said districts in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania faced similar spikes in absenteeism.
Valle urged districts to weigh risks that come with selective opt-ins to online options, including concerns about inadvertently identifying immigration status when only some families seek remote instruction under enforcement pressure.
Esmeralda Alday, senior director of programs and partnerships at ImmSchools, raised questions about how districts can guarantee services for English learners during “Band-Aid virtual learning.”
Thomas Dee, a Stanford Graduate School of Education professor, called the temporary steps a “thoughtful, responsive action” while pointing to the harms he associated with immigration enforcement, including lower attendance, achievement loss, anxiety disorders, and potential enrollment drops.
“thoughtful, responsive action”
Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, warned against long-term reliance on remote options for Latino students, saying it would create “clear inequity” compared with peers who remain in person.
Educators and researchers have linked remote learning during the COVID-19 era to lost instructional time and gaps in services, and they said those effects fell disproportionately on English learners—many from immigrant households—and students with disabilities.
Those experiences now shape the debate in Minneapolis and elsewhere: districts want to keep students connected to learning, but they also face concerns that remote instruction, even temporarily, can widen disparities.
State rules also shape what districts can do, and leaders said that legal limits often force narrowly tailored, short-term responses even when fear and attendance disruptions persist.
An Education Week survey found that 32 states responded to its inquiries on virtual instruction rules.
In that survey, 22 states allowed virtual instruction without prohibition, while eight permitted it with limits that can constrain district flexibility during short-term disruptions tied to safety concerns.
Connecticut and Massachusetts prohibited virtual instruction, the survey found, tightening the range of options for districts facing sudden attendance shocks.
Even where virtual instruction is permitted, state conditions can be restrictive. Kentucky capped virtual instruction at 10 days max, while New Jersey allowed it after 3+ consecutive closure days.
Maryland tied virtual instruction to a 14-day governor-declared emergency, another example of how districts can face rules that do not neatly match fears that rise and fall with enforcement activity.
In Minneapolis and St. Paul, the fear-related disruptions have pushed schools to consider what they can do immediately to sustain contact with students while also trying to preserve in-person instruction where possible.
Some districts and communities also turned to non-virtual measures intended to keep routines stable without forcing families to choose between school attendance and perceived safety.
Those steps included parent volunteer “safe passages” for walking or driving students, offering an extra layer of reassurance during commutes that families might otherwise avoid.
Communities also stationed trusted adults at bus stops after reports of ICE questioning students, an effort aimed at helping families feel less isolated during the daily school run.
Other schools tried staggered drop-off and pick-up times to reduce exposure near areas where families feared agents might appear, adjusting logistics rather than instruction.
Taken together, the measures reflected how districts attempted to respond operationally as anxiety reached into transportation, attendance, and daily participation.
The wider Twin Cities environment has kept pressure on schools to be flexible, especially in St. Paul, where teachers described enforcement fears as closely intertwined with routine school activities.
Teachers in St. Paul reported realities amid thousands of federal agents targeting schools, bus stops, and day care centers where immigrant parents gather.
Families’ fears have driven communities indoors, and educators said districts revived online learning as a necessity under President Trump’s enforcement.
The return of remote options has also become a signal of how quickly trust can erode when families believe everyday school routines could expose them to enforcement.
District leaders and advocates described a persistent tension: they want students present and engaged in classrooms, but they also face the immediate task of keeping children connected to school when families fear in-person attendance.
For Minneapolis Public Schools and neighboring districts, the temporary virtual learning steps and the parallel efforts—safe passages, staffed bus stops, and staggered schedules—have underscored the competing demands of safety fears and the risk of longer-term educational disruption.
Minneapolis Public Schools Expand Virtual Learning for Immigrant Students and Families
Minneapolis-area schools are offering remote learning as a safeguard for immigrant families fearing detention during school activities. This shift responds to heightened enforcement after schools lost their ‘protected area’ status. While providing immediate relief from fear, experts worry about the long-term academic impact on English learners and the potential for increased educational disparities compared to students who continue attending classes in person.
