Schools are out in the Roaring Fork Valley, and this year, Aspen School District, Roaring Fork School District, and Garfield County School District No. 16 faced a number of challenges.
Some received false shooting threats, while the Roaring Fork School District saw protests and Garfield-16 faced a lawsuit from a student over free-speech issues.
Halle Zander covered education this year for Aspen Public Radio and she spoke with Eleanor Bennett about the events of the year.
Eleanor Bennett: So dispatch centers in the Roaring Fork Valley and across Colorado received phone calls in February and March with unsubstantiated shooting threats to school districts, but law enforcement agencies responded to the Aspen School District with more resources and personnel than downvalley.
Why was that?
Halle Zander: Well, in part, it was the time of day that the threat came in. Pitkin County Dispatch Center received the first false threat around 8:30 a.m. on Feb. 22, and it took another hour or so before a threat came into the Roaring Fork School District, who was aware at that point that there had been multiple false threats across the state.
But the heavy upvalley response also had to do with the nature of the call. The dispatcher, who answered the threatening phone call, described hearing gunshots in the background. Again, these were false threats.
So as a result, first responders from nearly every emergency agency in Pitkin County responded. That includes dozens of sheriff's deputies, Aspen, Snowmass and Basalt police officers, and paramedics with ambulances lined the parking lot preparing for the worst.
The entire campus was in lockdown while law enforcement cleared each school of the threat individually, and Pitkin County Undersheriff Alex Burchetta said at the time that it felt very real.
Bennett: So has anything changed about how they respond to these threats now?
Zander: Yeah, parents were pretty upset after the initial threats in February because they felt the communication from the school and the sheriff's office was poor.
Around 9 a.m. that day the school district told families via email that there was a threat and not to come to the school. It took another hour and 15 minutes or so before law enforcement sent an alert to the greater community that the threat had been cleared.
So that felt like an eternity for many families, and some parents weren't sure where the most up-to-date information was. But the district had an opportunity to prove themselves the very next week when another round of false threats came in across the state.
The schools went into a secure status this time, which means the outside doors are locked, but students can continue to go about their classes as usual inside, so it's a much smaller disturbance. The district sent updates every 30 minutes until the threat was cleared. They also started delivering some of these updates in Spanish, which a student had requested the previous week.
In the end, law enforcement can't prevent a tragedy like this from happening. But, in a way, these threats were like a blessing in disguise, giving the agencies a chance to work out the kinks in their responses.
Bennett: And the FBI was looking into the false threats. Are there any updates on that?
Zander: Not right now. I wasn't able to reach the FBI this week, but the investigation, we presume, is ongoing. We'll continue to monitor the situation.
But the Pitkin County Sheriff's Office didn't have any updates as of this week. Their latest updates were from about two months ago that the FBI had a suspect in another country and would need that country's cooperation to proceed.
Bennett: So moving down valley to the Roaring Fork School district this year, there was a debate over how to support the superintendent's housing needs, an optional health curriculum, and the board's gender expansive tool kit.
But the district attracted statewide attention after families complained when Border Patrol officers attended a career expo at Glenwood Springs High School. How did the district address those concerns about immigration officers on campus?
Zander: Well, the superintendent, Jesús Rodriguez, wrote an apology letter the next day taking responsibility for the oversight, and he said the mere presence of immigration enforcement can be traumatic for some students. A few days later, four out of the five school board members followed suit with their own apology letter. District staff had not seen the list of groups participating in the event ahead of time, and they've said that they will review the list in the future.
But Rodriguez also outlined a few ways that the district could rectify the mistake given that the presence of Customs and Border Patrol violated the district's safe haven policy.
Many in the community felt that the apologies were a good first step, but not enough and wanted to see some follow through.
So nearly 30 people, including Glenwood Springs High School students, showed up to the next school board meeting and made comments to that effect.
Alan Munoz from the Latino advocacy organization Voces Unidas has asked the school board to take action at multiple meetings since then. He says he's confident that it's an important issue for the board and hopes they'll draft some new policies next year to help Latino students feel more like they belong.
Bennett: Now the Garfield 16 School District covers schools in Parachute and Battlement Mesa. And it's home to Grand Valley High School, where a student sued the school district last month because they would not allow her to wear a custom stool with the Mexican and American flags on it during her graduation ceremony.
So what ended up happening in the end?
Zander: Well, the student, Naomi Peña Villasano, filed a complaint in federal court on May 24, just three days before graduation on Saturday, May 27, and her lawyers requested a restraining order that, if granted, would have forced the school district to allow Naomi to wear her custom stole.
But the judge presiding over the case denied that emergency motion the day before graduation. Naomi had been arguing that it was within her First Amendment rights to wear the stole, or sash as it's been frequently called, but the judge said that graduation was a school-sponsored event. Therefore, the stole was considered school-sponsored speech, and the district had the right to forbid it.
Regardless, she wore it anyway, and I think it's important to point out that she didn't defy the judge's ruling here. The ruling established that the school district could forbid her from wearing the stole during the ceremony, but when she wore it, it was mostly covered by a standard gold honors stole, and no one from the school district chose to exercise their right to stop her from crossing the stage and receiving her diploma.
Bennett: So the judge wouldn't grant her the restraining order. But what happened to her original complaint?
Zander: Well, the complaint was specific to Naomi's graduation ceremony, and since that has passed and the district did not stop her from participating, it's unclear what happens next.
Kenneth Parreno is an attorney for MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), the firm that was representing Naomi, and he said after the judge's ruling that “Naomi and MALDEF will continue to fight to protect the First Amendment rights of students to express and celebrate their Latino culture and heritage.” And when I asked Naomi at her graduation ceremony whether or not she would pursue further legal action, she said “no comment.”
So, it's kind of up in the air. House District 57 Rep. Elizabeth Velasco has made comments supporting Naomi and that she'll pursue legislation next year that supports all students wearing their cultural regalia during graduation, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Bennett: Well, thank you, Halle, for your important reporting.
Zander: Sure. Anytime. Thanks.
