What type of instruction were schools required to provide during closures under this bill?
Short answer
Assembly Bill 1348 would have required California schools to provide live or synchronous instruction during closures caused by immigration enforcement activities. This mandate applied specifically to the period between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026. If a school could not offer live interaction, it was required to document the extenuating circumstances and outline alternative support measures for students [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851].
What the bill or law says
The text of AB 1348 specified that for any closure related to immigration enforcement, schools must include a plan for independent study. This plan was required to offer live interaction or synchronous instruction. Synchronous instruction generally means teaching that happens in real time, allowing students and teachers to interact simultaneously, rather than students working alone on pre-recorded materials or assignments.
The bill aimed to amend Sections 46392 and 46393 of the Education Code. It defined the triggering event as "immigration enforcement activity," which included efforts to investigate or enforce federal civil immigration laws and certain criminal immigration laws regarding presence, entry, or employment in the United States [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851]. The instructional requirements were tied to the funding protections, ensuring that financial stability did not come at the cost of educational continuity.
How it works in practice
Under the proposed rules, a school district experiencing a material decrease in attendance due to immigration enforcement would need to activate its emergency instructional plan. Teachers would likely use digital platforms to conduct live classes, mirroring the remote learning models seen during other recent emergencies. This approach allows for immediate feedback and helps maintain student engagement during disruptive events.
If a school faced technical issues or other barriers that prevented live instruction, the bill provided a narrow exception. The school would have to formally describe these extenuating circumstances. Additionally, it would need to detail the alternative support measures it intended to provide to ensure students continued to receive educational assistance. These documentation requirements were part of the affidavit submitted to the Superintendent of Public Instruction to secure funding credits [https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851].
What the source does not answer
The official bill text does not specify which digital platforms or software schools must use for synchronous instruction. It also does not define what qualifies as an "extenuating circumstance" that would excuse a school from providing live interaction. Furthermore, because the Governor vetoed the bill in October 2025 and the Legislature did not override the veto, these instructional mandates never became law [https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1348]. Consequently, there are no records of how schools would have practically implemented these specific requirements or how the State Superintendent would have evaluated the adequacy of alternative support measures.