What evidence links immigration enforcement operations to changes in student attendance and academic outcomes?
Executive summary
A growing body of empirical research and policy briefs links intensified immigration enforcement to measurable declines in school attendance and downstream academic outcomes, especially among Latinx and English-learner students; studies show increases in chronic absenteeism, drops in enrollment, and localized test-score declines after enforcement actions [1] [2] [3]. The evidence points to mechanisms of fear, displacement and school‑community disruption that reduce engagement and learning, and in some places can also erode district funding tied to attendance [4] [5].
1. What the data show: attendance falls, chronic absenteeism rises, enrollment drops
Multiple quasi-experimental and observational studies document that heightened enforcement correlates with more missed school days and fewer students in classrooms: research on 287(g) local ICE partnerships found decreased attendance and higher rates of chronic absenteeism among Hispanic students following program activation [3] [6], statewide ICE partnerships were linked to significant reductions in Hispanic public‑school enrollment (estimates of at least hundreds of thousands displaced) [2], and district‑level analyses in California and Texas tied raids to immediate spikes in absenteeism and students leaving districts [7] [1].
2. Academic achievement: localized declines on standardized tests
Where attendance and stability declined, academic performance followed: studies report average declines in math and reading scores after concentrated enforcement events, with Latinx English learners particularly affected — one brief cites a roughly 9% average decline in English Language Arts for Latinx ELLs in correlated contexts and other work documents drops in math achievement tied to student displacement [8] [2] [1]. School‑level analyses also note that attendance is a leading indicator of learning, making absenteeism a plausible proximate cause of later test‑score drops [9].
3. Mechanisms: fear, trauma, and reactive moves that undermine learning
Researchers identify multiple channels: fear of parental detention or raids leads families to keep children home, children experience anxiety and trauma that reduce classroom engagement, and families often move away from high‑enforcement areas—reactive moves that disrupt schooling midyear and magnify learning loss [5] [10] [2]. Surveys and educator reports corroborate this: teachers report elevated anxiety, observed drops in participation, and reduced extracurricular engagement among students impacted by enforcement [10] [11].
4. Equity and concentrated effects: who bears the burden
The harm is concentrated: Latinx students and English learners show the most consistent negative effects across studies, and districts with high shares of immigrant families experience sharper attendance and achievement impacts [1] [6]. Policy changes that increase enforcement visibility—such as rescinding protections for “sensitive locations” or expanding local‑federal partnerships—carry implicit agendas that differentially expose vulnerable school communities to these harms [12] [2].
5. Fiscal ripple effects: attendance‑based funding and school resources
Because many state funding formulas tie revenue to average daily attendance, sustained reductions in enrollment or increases in chronic absenteeism can translate into lower funding for districts most affected by enforcement, creating a feedback loop that can further harm educational services in impacted communities [4] [9]. Analysts warn that reduced participation not only harms individual students but can produce measurable community‑level funding losses [4] [9].
6. Limits, alternative explanations, and what remains unsettled
The literature uses varied methods—county arrest counts, program rollouts, raid case studies and educator surveys—so effect sizes and causal interpretation vary across contexts; some educators and districts report little or no impact, especially in rural areas with fewer immigrant families [11]. Reporting and briefs note that enforcement perceptions (fear of enforcement) can matter as much as documented arrests, complicating attribution, and several papers emphasize the need for more longitudinal, nationally representative causal research to quantify long‑term academic trajectories [9] [5].
7. Policy implications and practical responses
Scholars and advocacy groups recommend protecting “sensitive locations,” strengthening school‑based supports (counseling, attendance outreach), and insulating enrollment and attendance data from immigration checks to limit chilling effects; these responses seek to blunt the documented mechanisms—fear, trauma and displacement—through which enforcement erodes schooling [5] [10]. While evidence consistently points to harm in affected communities, the scale and persistence of these harms depends on policy choices about enforcement intensity, school protections, and local support systems [4] [13].