OPINION|
by Brittany Dyer, Springfield
“Why take the risk of it? Why risk it?” School Board Member Scott Crise's words rang loud in my head after the Sept. 26 SPS School Board Meeting. Why would SPS be willing to risk $7 million dollars in federal grants?
Sadly, the answer seems simple. For over a year now, LGBTQ advocates, allies and students have requested a statement of support for the LGBTQ community from the Springfield Public School’s Board of Education. This ask was not for a policy change but simply a statement of support for those students facing increased risk and harm. After 10 months of silence, a motion made on June 27 to take a stance failed for lack of a second, and, therefore, the board did not create such a statement. Instead, members said they fully support “all students” in the district. Their own action, or lack of action, at this week’s board meeting, indicates otherwise, as the board gambled with $7 million dollars in USDA funding for our Title I schools.
The USDA requires an update to their non-discrimination policy that includes gender identities and sexual orientation. A one-sentence adaptation to our current SPS policies would have followed federal guidelines and reduced the risk of losing USDA funding, but leaving it out puts us at risk of being audited and losing that funding.
USDA funding provides food, milk, and some staff wages for 24 schools in our district, around $7 million to $7.5 million total annually. This is a risk that our school district and community should not be exposed to. A risk that could be crippling to our annual budget.
Unfortunately, this vote is a perfect example of how targeted attacks against marginalized groups impact all of us. We are now seeing what was the isolated targeting of LGBTQ policies directly putting thousands of hungry students at risk, regardless of their gender identity and sexual orientation.
According to Ozarks Food Harvest, 21 percent of children in their service area face food insecurities, including Springfield. Last year, 57 percent of SPS students participated in the free/reduced-price lunch program, over 14,000 students total. To further the concern, it would put SPS’ Free Breakfast program at risk as well, which just rolled out this school year. Would these children say it’s worth it?
SPS’ policy indicates it is the superintendent’s responsibility to meet the requirements for all federally backed programs.
“The superintendent shall be responsible for coordinating and administering federally funded programs and projects. The superintendent will ensure that the various departments operating these programs and projects do so in accordance with the requirements of the federal award and keep accurate and separate records, as required by board policy and in accordance with administrative procedures.”
I respectfully call on Dr. Lathan to encourage the board to revisit this agenda item and revise our non-discrimination clause to include all required wording according to the USDA.
Furthermore, the inability to make the needed changes to our current policies goes against SPS district objectives 2.3 (fiscal responsibility) and 4.1 (providing a safe environment), outlined in the Strategic Plan for 2023-2028.
Our students cannot learn if they do not feel safe, and that starts with basic needs like a full stomach to focus and learn. Are we really willing to risk providing food for over 14,000 students in Springfield over three board member’s votes?
RELATED STORY
Rift over LGBTQ-inclusive language extends to school board policy for free, reduced-price meals
On a 3-3 vote, with one member absent, the Springfield Board of Education rejected policy revisions that added the parenthetical phrase “(including gender identity and sexual orientation)” after “sex” in a paragraph prohibiting discrimination.
