Teachers' union files complaint against NM school after questions about student's immigration status
Story continues below
Entertainment: First-of-its-kind indoor pickleball facility coming to northeast Albuquerque
Community: Albuquerque church leaning on faith after 2 members killed by their son
Environment: What should New Mexicans do if they come across a raccoon?
In an effort to prepare students for real-world jobs, Española Public Schools has used optional career-readiness programs that help connect students with potential future employers. One of those programs is a standardized test called the ACT WorkKeys Assessment. To take the test, students must provide personal information. 'Collecting demographic information on students is not out of the norm,' Parr-Sánchez said. 'Like, if they're male or female, how old they are, their ethnicity, that type of thing. That is normal demographic information.'
What's not common are questions related to students' citizenship status. But, according to a group of teachers with Española Public Schools, as part of the assessment, the district directed teachers at Española Valley High School to ask students for their country of origin, and their 'alien registration number'.
'We were contacted by educators and their leadership from Española that Española Valley High School was asking teachers to collect immigration data,' Parr-Sánchez explained.
According to Parr-Sánchez, a former teacher with 25 years of experience, and someone who's administered standardized tests, these types of questions raised concerns. As the current president of the NEA-NM, a local teachers' union, she's taken steps to figure out who sent the directive, and why, by filing a complaint with the state. The district has until June 2nd to formally respond.
'They were terrified to be asked to give private information about their students,' Parr-Sanchez said about the teachers who brought the incident to her attention.
The union argues the incident goes against a bargain reached by the district and teachers' union, arguing the directive is out of educators' agreed-upon 'work conditions.' They also believe it violates FERPA, a federal law that protects student privacy.
'Our mission is to educate every child that comes to our schools regardless of their race, ethnicity, country of origin,' Parr-Sánchez added.
Española Public Schools said they've started an investigation into the concerns and will take appropriate action if any violations are found. It's unclear who, or why the directive was sent out. The district sid they are unable to comment further, as the investigation takes place.
NEA-NM provided KRQE News 13 with a quote from the ACT testing group, that states 'ACT does not ask for, or collect information about examinees immigration status… this is not a requirement for taking our exams and is not information we collect or use in any way.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Launches Attack on Nancy Pelosi: 'Disgusting Degenerate'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has called former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a "disgusting degenerate" in a Truth Social post, accusing the longtime Democratic U.S. representative for California's husband of using insider information to profit from the stock market. The attack coincides with growing momentum for a congressional stock trading ban. Newsweek contacted Nancy Pelosi via telephone for comment on Sunday outside of usual working hours. Why It Matters The clash highlights the heightened scrutiny over elected officials and their families engaging in high-value stock trades. The proposed legislation, initially dubbed the PELOSI (Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments) Act before being rebranded the Halting Ownership and Non-Ethical Stock Transactions (HONEST) Act, is advancing with bipartisan support, but has drawn sharp criticism from Trump, who claims it targets him politically. Former House speaker and longtime Democratic Senator Nancy Pelosi, from California, speaks on Capitol Hill on May 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Former House speaker and longtime Democratic Senator Nancy Pelosi, from California, speaks on Capitol Hill on May 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo byfor FamiliesWhat To Know Supporters of the HONEST Act argue it is necessary to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest and restore public trust. Nancy Pelosi has previously said she strongly supports the bill and looks forward to voting for it, as reported by The Associated Press. "The American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest, not their personal portfolios," she said. In his all-caps Truth Social post, Trump claimed Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, "beat every hedge fund in 2024," attributing it to "INSIDE INFORMATION," and taunted Nancy Pelosi over her role in his impeachments. When Trump has previously accused Nancy Pelosi of insider trading, her office has consistently denied involvement, stating she does not personally own stocks and had no role in her husband's investment decisions. Nancy Pelosi has also dismissed Trump's accusations as "ridiculous" to CNN, and politically motivated, accusing him of projecting his own ethics problems onto others. As reported by Newsweek, a stock owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband surged in value by more than double in just one month, according to her financial disclosure documents. The disclosures showed Paul Pelosi's 2024 trades resulted in an estimated 54 percent portfolio return, more than doubling the S&P 500's 25 percent gain and outperforming major hedge funds. A significant share of the couple's wealth is said to stem from stock investments and well-timed trades, mostly made under Paul Pelosi's name. By 2024, Quiver Quantitative estimated their stock portfolio at $133.7 million, including stakes in major tech companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google, and NVIDIA,Indian newspaper The Economic Times reported. Notable transactions included a $2.4 million NVIDIA option trade that later skyrocketed in value and an AI cybersecurity call on Palo Alto Networks that yielded about $2.8 million in gains, as reported by the New York Post. The couple's net worth reportedly rose from around $370 million in 2023 to as much as $413 million in 2024. The "Pelosi Tracker," as reported by The Times, is an automated fund that mirrors Paul Pelosi's trades, which delivered about 54 percent returns last year and attracted over $400 million in investor assets, according to numbers in Bloomberg's end-of-year tally of hedge funds' returns, as per the Post. As reported by Newsweek in July, Trump tore into the GOP's Josh Hawley after the Missouri senator was the lone Republican to join Democrats in advancing legislation that would ban members of Congress from buying, selling, or owning individual stocks. Trump holds individual stocks, whereas Vice President JD Vance divested his individual stock holdings during his time in the Senate, as per Business Insider. In a lengthy Truth Social post in July, Trump called Hawley a "pawn" and a "second-tier senator," adding that the GOP lawmaker is "playing right into the dirty hands of the Democrats." What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, August 10: "Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very "interesting" husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average "minds" beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It's all INSIDE INFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this??? She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???" Nancy Pelosi spokesperson Ian Krager, previously toldNewsweek:"Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks and has no knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions." What Happens Next The legislation now heads to the full Senate for debate. If passed, it would ban individual stock trading by high-level officials and their spouses, possibly including forced divestitures. Trump's incendiary language against Nancy and Paul Pelosi is expected to keep this issue prominent in political discussions.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Another greyhound racing ban could see dishlickers done
A state leader's bid for political power could spell the death knell for greyhound racing across Australia as animal activists hail an end to the controversial sport in the Apple Isle. The tenuous Tasmanian administration of Premier Jeremy Rockliff has announced it will phase out greyhound racing by mid-2029 as it works to shore up support from independents to continue in minority government. The timing would coincide with the end of a government funding agreement and make the island state the second jurisdiction in Australia to stop the sport. The ACT banned greyhound racing in 2018. Mr Rockliff said the time had come to make a call on the future of greyhound racing in the state. "It's time to draw a line in the sand and ensure an orderly exit from greyhound racing in Tasmania," he said on Sunday. He acknowledged the news would be "extremely disappointing" for many in the greyhound industry, but said it had become increasingly clear the sport didn't align with community expectations. The decision comes after a "great" of Tasmanian greyhound racing, Raider's Guide, was euthanised in July after falling and breaking its neck at a Launceston track. The four-year-old dog had been named Greyhound of the Year in January after notching 17 wins in 2024. Coalition for the Protection of Greyhounds president Amy MacMahon said she was elated by the news, but she emphasised the need for a phased-out approach to ensure ethical rehoming of greyhounds and support for affected workers. "I think this sends a signal to other states and territories that the tide is turning against greyhound racing ... I hope it's just a matter of time," she told AAP. Other states were already questioning the future of greyhound racing, Ms MacMahon added, with South Australia putting the industry on notice after a damning report in 2023. NSW is also awaiting findings of the Drake inquiry, a long-running probe into the sport following the release of a report by the state industry body's former chief vet that highlighted widespread animal welfare issues. One of the state's best-known venues, Dapto Dogs, will cease operations in the coming year after nearly 90 years of hosting races due to its lease expiring. RSPCA Tasmania commended the Rockliff government's plan to phase out greyhound racing, labelling the sport a "relic of the past" and urging all MPs to support the ban. Mr Rockliff was reinstalled as premier on Wednesday after the governor granted his request to form a minority government. Neither his Liberals with 14 seats nor Labor with 10 have secured the required 18 to govern in their own right after a snap election produced another hung parliament. The Greens, which hold five seats, and independent Kristie Johnston have advocated for the banning of greyhound racing. Ms Johnston reiterated on Sunday she wouldn't do a deal with one of the major parties, but added the end of racing was a "demonstration of what power sharing looks like in parliament". Labor leader Dean Winter plans to move a no-confidence motion in the Rockliff government when the parliament returns for the first time on August 19. He described the greyhound racing announcement as a "political bid to cling onto power". Any decisions of that magnitude, like shutting down a greyhound industry that employed hundreds of people, should be taken carefully and follow due process, he said. Veteran economist Saul Eslake recently reviewed the state's finances and found greyhound racing in Tasmania was almost entirely dependent on government funding. The industry would receive $7.5 million in state funding in 2024/25 alone and it was spending more than twice the national average to keep the sport afloat, he said.
The Hill
18 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump takes on DC: What's next in the battle?
President Trump has moved to increase the number of federal law enforcement on the streets of Washington D.C. — a decision he casts as necessary to combat crime. It's a move widely seen as a rebuke to the District's leadership, including Mayor Muriel Bowser (D). A lot of specifics are as yet undecided, including the total number of additional federal law enforcement officers who will be deployed, and their exact locations. The White House cited security concerns as the reason not to divulge those details. However, White House officials say that an increased law enforcement presence will be seen on D.C.'s streets. This is expected to be present mainly late at night. The effort is being spearheaded by the U.S. Park Police but also involves numerous other agencies including the Capitol Police, the FBI, the Marshals Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that while Washington is 'an amazing city' it 'has been plagued by violent crime for far too long.' She also said that Trump was 'committed' to making D.C. 'safer for its residents, lawmakers and visitors from all around the world.' The idea of a crime crisis in Washington is belied by crime statistics from the city police, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Those statistics show violent crime so far this year down 26 percent from its 2024 levels. The crime levels in 2024 were, in turn, lower than in 2023. The key question now is, what's next? Does Trump extend the use of federal law enforcement? A White House official describes the current push as one that will 'be beginning as a 7-day effort with the option to extend as needed.' The framing invites a number of other questions —particularly, what difference are federal law enforcement personnel likely to make in a week? The situation in D.C., after all, is not one where there is a riotous situation to quell or widespread disorder stemming from any specific cause. The haziness around the objectives may make a further extension of the federal role more likely. Trump would, presumably, justify such a move on the basis that there was still more work to be done. But multiple reports from the hours after Trump's announcement, when there was supposed to be an increased federal law enforcement presence, did not reveal anything out of the ordinary. An Associated Press report, for example, noted that 'a two-hour tour of the D.C. streets, starting around 1 a.m. Friday, revealed no evidence of the sort of multi-agency flood of uniformed personnel described in Trump's announcement.' Could Trump take over the D.C. police? The short answer is, yes. The bigger question is whether he would want to do so. The District enjoys its current measure of autonomy because of the Home Rule Act of 1973. The legislation reserves some powers for Congress and for the president. Section 740 of the Act notes that if a President 'determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,' then the D.C. mayor must lend him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police Force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' There are some caveats to this power, however. In the first instance, a president cannot take over those powers for longer than 48 hours unless, during that period, he provides a written explanation of his reasons to Congress — or, more specifically, to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate and House committees that pertain to D.C. Trump, however, could likely satisfy this requirement, given the GOP majorities in both chambers. The more salient constraint, therefore, might be the fact that there is a 30-day limit on this power, even if congressional notification is provided. Politically speaking, there is also a question of whether Trump would want to make such a dramatic move. Washington is a very Democratic city — Vice President Harris got more than 90 percent of the vote last November — and reaction to Trump seizing the reins of the local police would surely be negative. How about the National Guard? Here, again, Trump has lots of remove to maneuver. The District of Columbia National Guard can be directed at the behest of the president, in contrast to full states where the power to deploy the Guard resides with the governor. The D.C. National Guard has been at pains to point out that it has not, as yet, been deployed. A spokesperson for the D.C. Guard told CNN on Friday that the force has not been activated and that any 'presence of National Guardsmen and vehicles seen this week and throughout the weekend are related to required training.' What could go wrong? Quite a lot. For a start, Trump could get into more of a pitched battle with Bowser. The mayor has pursued a much more conciliatory approach toward Trump during his second term than she did during his first. She has been supportive of a task force he set up in March and has refrained from comment on his latest moves. That's partly a testament to D.C.'s dependence upon the federal government in numerous ways. Congress in effect withheld $1.1 billion from the District's budget earlier this year. The federal workforce is of enormous economic importance to the overall D.C. area. But whether Bowser can remain quiet if Trump expands his control over D.C. is highly questionable. Washingtonians are already sensitive about their circumscribed rights. There are more macabre things that could go wrong too. Any especially egregious violent crime could make Trump more insistent on federal control. Conversely, any excessive force used against D.C. residents by federal personnel deployed by Trump could ignite new tensions. Can Trump repeal Home Rule itself? Realistically, no. Doing this would require repealing the legislation. The House might go along with that, but Trump would need 60 votes in the Senate. Even if every Republican voted in favor, he would still need the backing of seven Democrats — a highly unlikely scenario.
