After two policy changes over inserting language dealing with gender identity and sexual orientation were tabled indefinitely, the Springfield Board of Education on Oct. 24 appeared poised to let linger a question of whether it is in compliance with USDA guidelines to receive money for free and reduced-price lunches.
The two policy changes were tabled by the board with 4-3 votes after a contentious debate between board members. Members in favor of the policy changes argued that the district risks losing about $7 million in funding from the USDA, while members opposed to them argued the district was at greater risk of getting sued by the state of Missouri, which in 2022 joined a lawsuit against the USDA.
The two policies deal with matching USDA civil rights regulations required for participation in the free and reduced-price lunch program. They affect hiring and employment of workers, and do not affect curriculum or other classroom programs for students.
Both featured revisions that added the parenthetical phrase “(including gender identity and sexual orientation)” after “sex” in a paragraph prohibiting discrimination. They would alter board policies AC and EF in its manual.
Brought back from last month’s meeting
The policy changes last month failed with 3-3 votes, with board members Kelly Byrne, Steve Makoski and Maryam Mohammadkhani voting against them and members Scott Crise, Shurita Thomas-Tate and Judy Brunner in support. Board President Danielle Kincaid was absent for the Sept. 26 meeting.
Crise, who last month supported the policy changes, this time joined Byrne, Makoski and Mohammadkhani to vote in favor of tabling the discussion, while Kincaid opposed the tabling motion.
The Missouri School Boards Association recommended making the change in order to remain in compliance with recent changes to the USDA’s guidelines. Those changes reflect language required to be displayed on posters and other materials shared with community members or posted for school district employees.
Kincaid said the policies were brought back for another vote so that every board member can get a chance to vote on a difficult issue. Kincaid noted that at the Sept. 12 meeting where board members got their first look at the changes, none of the members had any issues.
“I was surprised because no board members had brought up this particular concern prior to me going on an extended absence,” Kincaid said. “Had I known that, we may have delayed the vote so that all board members could have a discussion.”
Long discussion results in tabling
Board members discussed the issue for almost 45 minutes, and paused for a 10-minute recess, so that they could read a letter from Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. The open letter, also posted to his account on the X social network, urged the board not to make the policy change — he and 21 other Republican state attorneys general tried to block the Biden administration last year from rolling out the policy.
Before the recess, Makoski said he thought the White House was making the issue a political one.
“The president of the United States is playing politics and political ideology with vulnerable kids lunches,” Makoski said. “The USDA has placed this language within its regulations illegally.”
Mohammadkhani took exception to the decision over possibly losing federal funding being labeled as “gambling.”
“What we are gambling, and what is in jeopardy, is the quality of education that students receive in our district and that their parents expect,” Mohammadkhani said. “Because this board is choosing to focus on this conversation rather than on policies that directly impact our classrooms.”
Thomas-Tate said the opposition to the policy change was rooted in national political talking points, not local policy. Republicans and conservative activist groups have targeted gender identity and sexual orientation issues in legislation and as campaign issues.
“We are focusing on this policy because it has been made a political issue rather than a policy issue that deals with feeding our students,” Thomas-Tate said. “This is not something that’s going into the classroom. This is something that is about us being in compliance in order to get funding to feed our students.”
Brunner said that she was likely the only board member to be part of a federal audit other than one done by the IRS, arguing that this is simply a compliance issue.
“I would hope we never put ourselves in that type of position. It takes a lot of time, energy and manpower, and that comes down to money,” Brunner said. “I believe we have a fiduciary responsibility to comply with regulations regardless of any specific political party that may be in power at the time.”
Crise, who switched and supported tabling the discussion, said he understood the threat of both sides, from possibly losing federal funding to possibly getting sued by the Missouri attorney general — even if the risks of either of those was low.
“It is wrong to politicize this, but unfortunately it is, and that’s sad,” Crise said. “But we cannot ignore the risk of losing funding. You have to remember that we are here to be advocates for children, all children. Our children are too important. Even if it is a low risk (of losing federal funding).”
Kincaid, in discussing her vote to support the policy changes, said that the issue was not about its long-running disagreement over sexual orientation and gender identity, but a governmental compliance issue.
“If you don’t agree with the protection of sexual orientation and gender identity, right or wrong, your remedy is not to vote down the policy being required by the federal government,” Kincaid said. “Your remedy is to contact your legislators and to run for office (as a lawmaker).”
Byrne, who also took issue with the opposition being labeled as “gambling,” made the motion to table the discussion instead of approve or deny it. He also criticized Kincaid for saying in interviews prior to the meeting that board members in opposition to the policy change were using students as political pawns.
“According to (Bailey’s) letter, I don’t see a reason for us to rush and pass a change to a policy that was already in place,” Byrne said. “I think the proper action would be to do no action until the state and federal government figure this out. It’s not our job to decide between the two.”
