Utah is ready to spend millions on free meals for eligible students
When Republican Rep. Tyler Clancy, who is also a Provo police officer, drove a young girl to school moments after she witnessed her mother being saved from an overdose, she cried in the back of his car because she hadn't eaten breakfast that morning or dinner the night before. Clancy said he was able to solve the problem in that moment by taking her to McDonald's.
'How in the world are we expected to have this young lady learn about reading, writing, math, become a self-sufficient adult that's going to provide for herself and her future family, if we can't meet the basic needs?' Clancy asked the House Education Committee Tuesday.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
With HB100, Clancy wants to expand which students are eligible for Utah's free school meals program. Currently, households with incomes at or below 130% qualify for free meals under federal guidelines, and households with incomes between 130% and 185% pay a reduced meal fee. The proposed legislation would allow reduced-price Utah students in kindergarten through sixth grade to opt into a program that would give them free breakfast and lunch.
'I'm not asking you to cover meals for everyone,' he said. 'We're trying to be very precise and take a scalpel-like approach to hit those few students who really need the help, so they can move along that pathway to human dignity and that self-sufficiency.'
The new legislation could provide no-cost meals to around 40,000 children by using $2.8 million in state funding.
13 states with Republican governors opt out of summer food program for kids
'Every year schools are generating about $2.8 million of school meal debt, and so instead of paying off debt, we want to get to the heart of that issue … we want to hit those students who are really in need, and that's what this reduced price category is,' Clancy said.
HB100 would also require the Utah Department of Workforce Services to participate in the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children Program, a federal program that provides families with around $40 per month per eligible child to assist with food costs during the summer when kids are out of school. Participation in the S-EBT program could help 260,000 Utah students.
A public-private partnership between The Policy Project and Utah's philanthropic families would cover the $618,000 for S-EBT, and the state would not assume the cost until 2027.
Other aspects of the bill include prohibiting schools from stigmatizing students unable to pay for meals and encouraging schools to reduce food waste.
Opponents of the bill were concerned about adding a program to address hunger and government overreach.
'I know that there are a lot of programs in place. I've talked to different school districts and board members, and there are a lot of districts who have in place, already, programs that will cover the family portion if needed,' Rep. Tiara Auxier, R-Morgan, said. 'So I'm just trying to figure out why we need another program to address this.'
Rep. Nicholeen Peck, R-Tooele, asked how the bill aligns with the principles of limited government.
'I feel like there's other boxes we could be looking into, beside more government money,' Peck said before voting against the bill. 'So even though I care deeply, deeply about the children and I respect the sponsor deeply as well and his heart on this, I'm going to have to be a no.'
Brynn Murdock, executive director for Ogden School Foundation, said she gets to see the difference that education makes for students on a daily basis.
'We know that when students' needs are met and they are able to successfully learn in class, that has not only an impact on their life, but the impact of our state,' she said.
Rep. Carol Moss, D-Holladay, said this bill's funding is small compared to other programs, such as the school voucher program, which receives around $82.5 million.
'This is such a small part of government spending,' she said. 'When you look at the totality of what we spend on education, and the benefit is profound. No child should go to school hungry. I think that's the bottom line.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Fiscal cliff looms as public media braces for Trump cuts
Supporters of public media on Capitol Hill and beyond are scrambling to find solutions to address a fiscal cliff that public media is staring down this fall following cuts directed by President Trump and executed by his allies in Congress. Senators on both sides of the aisle say they were working to protect local stations after Congress cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the government-funded body that said it will shut down as a result. At the same time, public media leaders are looking for ways to blunt the blow for stations most at risk, but have warned that filling the gaps could be next to impossible. 'Nobody can replace $600 million a year,' Tim Isgitt, CEO of the Public Media Company, said Tuesday. 'CPB was the largest funder of local news and information in this country, and no, philanthropy can't make up that gap.' Isgitt's organization is the driving force behind a philanthropic effort, known as the Public Media Bridge Fund, which has raised more than $26 million for stations at risk of shuttering in wake of the CPB cuts. 'For these at-risk stations, CPB typically sends about $55 million a year, just to these 115 that we've identified,' Isgitt told The Hill. He said the goal is to raise about $100 million over two years to help cover that gap for these stations, while exploring ways for them to become 'more sustainable over time,' including finding other sources of revenue or reducing expenditures. In total, a group of philanthropic organizations including The Knight Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Schmidt Family Foundation, all longtime backers of public media, pledged to commit nearly $37 million this week to provide immediate relief to public media stations at risk of closure following federal funding cuts. 'Local public media stations are trusted community anchors that connect people to vital news, culture and civic life,' Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, president and CEO of Knight Foundation said in a statement. 'This is an urgent moment that calls for bold action.' Public broadcasting stations have also seen a boost in donations in response to the cuts, with reports showing tens of millions of dollars in increased support in recent months. But advocates for public media say much more is needed to fill a more than $500 million hole for the coming fiscal year. Some say the void left by the closure of local public media stations would pose a risk to public safety and quality of life, particularly in rural communities. 'Like many people, I learned to read and count because of public media. It's the lifeblood of so many localities,' said Pete Loge, who teaches communications and media at George Washington University. 'Trump is a really good big national theatre and spectacle … the irony is a move like this is made to seem like it's attacking liberals, but it's actually harming a lot of Republican constituents.' The CPB said earlier this month it would begin an 'orderly wind-down of its operations' after the GOP-led Congress approved about $1 billion in cuts to the corporation, or combined funding previously made available for the organization for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. It also said this week that it 'no longer can absorb costs and manage the Next Generation Warning System (NGWS) grant program' as a result of the cuts to its operating costs. CPB partnered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement the program. Congress currently has until Sept. 30 to pass legislation to keep the government funded into fiscal 2026, which begins Oct. 1, or risk its first government shutdown in years. Some on Capitol Hill are hopeful that lawmakers could still pull out a bipartisan fix to protect local stations, mainly in rural areas, that rely on funding from the federal government to operate. 'I think that the discussion around their decisions really was focused on national programming and concerns that people had about NPR and PBS, and I think that really what got missed in that whole discussion was the impact that this rescission was going to have on local stations,' Kate Riley, the president and chief executive officer for America's Public Television Stations (APTS), said. 'We've talked to a wide range of members, including many Republicans, who strongly support their local stations and recognize the essential role that their local stations provide in serving their community and their constituents, and are realizing now that this broad rescission has had some unintended consequences on their local stations,' Riley said. Funding for CPB was notably excluded in the annual funding bill for the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services that was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee last month. The CPB said it marked the first time in more than five decades the funding had been left out. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), the top Democrat on the subcommittee that crafts the annual funding bill, suggested funding for local stations could find bipartisan support in Congress, separate from the administration's efforts to dismantle CPB. 'A priority for most of the Republicans who have announced their support or their opposition to defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, is that they have many small rural stations' Baldwin told The Hill. 'Their capacity to do private fundraising is very limited if you serve a very, you know, rural population with a small population, but they need it for emergency alerts and educational programming and local news. And so, I think that's where we're going to be able to come together.' But for some stations, the time crunch is tighter. NPR said multiple stations began their fiscal 2026 budget in July. Isgitt also noted that November, when many public stations would typically receive funding from CPB, will also be a critical time for other outlets. 'I don't know what cash flow or assets look like for every one of these stations, but you can be assured that, in the months after November, several stations will begin to fail, and then more will fail, and more will fail after that,' he said. 'It's going to happen. This is a cash-strapped industry.' Republicans said they had worked out a deal with the administration aimed at helping shield tribal stations from the cuts by repurposing other funds for the effort. But Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, has raised questions about the funding and noted that many stations in her state, which has a significant indigenous population, could still fall through the cracks because they aren't considered tribally-owned or serving tribal land. 'I have to figure out a way to maintain not just the tribal stations, because half of those stations are not tribal,' Murkowski told The Hill. 'They're pretty dang important, and so, yeah, I got to find a way. I don't know what the path is, but I'm working on it.' Native Public Media CEO Loris Tiller said the organization conducted a recent poll of 19 tribal stations so far that all said anywhere from 40-100 percent of their annual budget came from CPB funds. 'We also asked them whether staff layoffs will be necessary, and you can see that the majority of them are affirmative in that response,' Taylor said, while also adding she still doesn't have many answers about the administration's side deal with Senate Republicans to protect tribal stations. 'We just haven't heard anything about that. I don't know if it's moving,' Taylor said. 'I don't know where the money's coming from. The details haven't been forthcoming.' Advocates have also raised concerns about public stations at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) they say are at risk in wake of the CPB cuts. About a dozen NPR members are affiliated with HBCUs. Cuts to public media have long been on the wishlist of President Trump and conservatives more generally. The president earlier this year sent a special request to Congress to secure the cuts without Democratic support. Upon passage of the legislation, Trump cheered the measure on social media for cutting 'atrocious NPR and Public Broadcasting.' Many Republicans in both chambers share the same view, often singling out NPR and PBS, which receive some funding from CPB, for what they allege is political bias. About one percent of NPR's current operating budget comes directly from the federal government, compared to 15 percent for PBS, multiple outlets report. In the previous fiscal year, NPR received upwards of $13 million from CPB, the corporation's grants and allocations data shows. More than $70 million went to PBS, based in Arlington. At a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier this year, the CEOs of NPR and PBS faced an intense grilling from angry lawmakers over their editorial decision making and funding models. Other lawmakers have argued public media has been outpaced by major changes to the media ecosystem and the emergence of alternative news platforms. 'Because of technology today, I don't think there's a role for public radio anymore,' Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said during a House Oversight and Government Reform hearing in March. In a statement after the Senate passed cuts to the CPB, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said the moves 'goes against the will of the American people, the vast majority of whom trust PBS and believe we provide excellent value to their communities.' 'These cuts will significantly impact all of our stations, but will be especially devastating to smaller stations and those serving large rural areas,' she said. 'Many of our stations which provide access to free unique local programming and emergency alerts will now be forced to make hard decisions in the weeks and months ahead.'
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
New Englanders grade Trump harshly on education
Coppola was one of many respondents who cited fears about the future of education A long litany of complaints from the respondents included Trump's aggressive efforts to reshape American education, including dismantling the US Department of Education, penalizing school districts over diversity and transgender issues, seeking to bar international students from colleges, and freezing university research funds. Advertisement 'Make no mistake about it,' said Joann Flaminio, a 69-year-old Democrat from Providence. 'The dismantling of the Department of Education sends a stark and clear message that President Trump does not care about public school education.' Previous surveys in this ongoing series asked these voters about the economy, Advertisement The eight voters who supported former vice president Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race delivered harsh critiques of Trump's education policy, while two of three Trump supporters offered only qualified backing for his efforts to remake the US education system. Since Trump took office in January, the Education Department has been in his budgetary crosshairs. In March, the president announced plans to fire 1,300 of its 4,000 employees, and the US Supreme Court in mid-July agreed that he had the power to make such a massive cut. He also has targeted billions of dollars in research funding at top universities, including Harvard, Brown, and Columbia; assailed diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; and backed the use of immigration agents on public-school grounds. 'Local programs that have been funded federally are being impacted. And it's putting good programs run by good people in very precarious positions,' said Darryll White, 66, an unenrolled voter from Skowhegan, Maine, who cast his ballot for Trump last year. 'I'm fine and supportive of moving the leadership of education back to the states,' but not at the cost of sacrificing federal funding for quality programs, such as after-school help, said White, who directs a nonprofit community park. But for ardent Trump supporter Seth Sole-Robertson, a 45-year-old Republican from Medway, the president's assault on the federal education bureaucracy, diversity initiatives, and funding for research projects at major universities is not only warranted, but long overdue. 'I don't know why we have a Department of Education,' said Sole-Robertson, who owns a marine-repair business. 'I really don't know what it does. I think that should be something that the states regulate and handle.' Advertisement Most of the department's disbursements go to college students in the form of grants and loans. The agency also provides assistance for disabled students and is tasked with enforcing civil rights laws pertaining to racial minorities, women and girls, and LGBTQ+ students, among other groups. This means that local education already falls under the control of states and school districts, which determine what pupils read and what standards they are encouraged to meet. Moriah Wojciechowski, a 39-year-old Democrat from Quechee, Vt., called Trump's actions 'an effort to reduce higher education at a national level,' which will hurt young people who have aspirations for college but limited finances, and can use federal education loans. 'It is an attempt to stifle folks who do not have the ability to fund themselves, but have this level of ambition where they want to succeed and give more to their children and themselves,' said Wojciechowski, a licensed nursing assistant. 'Less-educated folks equals easy-to-boss-around.' Most respondents assailed Trump's executive order to withhold funding from K-12 schools that allow transgender athletes to join teams based on how they identify themselves. They also criticized the president's attacks on DEI, or diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, at both the K-12 and college levels. 'It's villainizing DEI, and it's creating this view of it that it's harmful and that equity is harmful,' said Justina Perry, 37, a Democrat from New Bedford who runs a physical-therapy clinic. Perry said she is worried that her husband, who recently completed a doctorate in anti-racist education, could have trouble finding a job because of the federal assault on DEI initiatives. The president also faced criticism for freezing billions of dollars for university research that is a major economic driver for New England, which also has some of the best public K-12 schools and colleges in the nation. Advertisement For Sidney Trantham, a 56-year-old Democrat from Boston, canceling research funding 'is an example of the weaponization of government that the Republican Party has decried for years.' 'I think that it is an attempt to establish a conservative ideological perspective that is not grounded in science or in fact,' said Trantham, a clinical psychologist who teaches at Boston College. Rosemary Shea, a 62-year-old unenrolled voter from Hampton, N.H., said Trump is trying to bend American education toward his political perspective. 'It goes against what schooling is all about,' Shea said. 'I mean you, you send your children to school not to parrot back what you believe, but you send them to school to learn about all options, all options of learning, all the ideas that are out there.' Most respondents said school districts should not cooperate with immigration officials in their efforts to locate students who are not legal US residents. 'Schools have a right to protect students. When students are on campus to learn, I mean, especially K through 12 ... the school's job is to protect those students,' Perry said. However, Brian Jankins, 56, an unenrolled voter from Sutton who voted for Trump in 2024, said schools and ICE should work together 'within certain boundaries.' 'Generally, I think there should be better cooperation at all levels between local, state, and federal officials,' said Jankins, who works in banking. 'And there isn't. So I think there's so much room for improvement there." For White, the Maine park director, the parameters for interaction between ICE and public schools are clear-cut, and there should be cooperation. Advertisement 'It's the law,' White said. 'If you don't like the law, change the law.' ICE agents are permitted to enter public areas on school grounds, such as lobbies for enforcement activity, but they are not allowed into private areas, such as classrooms and offices. Respondents also overwhelmingly opposed Trump's efforts to restrict the admission of international students at American universities. In June, a federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked the administration's attempt to bar foreign students from Harvard. 'It just seems foolish, and universities shouldn't be attached to a particular country or patriotism or whatever sort of thing he's spinning on it,' said Ruth Bristol, a 24-year-old Democrat from Somerville. 'If you really wanted to do all that, then you would make college more accessible for American students rather than barring international students,' added Bristol, who works three jobs. Jankins, the Trump voter from Sutton, said foreign students benefit the country. 'If an international student goes through the proper channels and procedures, I don't have any issue with that. When I went to school my freshman year, I met somebody from India,' Jankins said. 'I never met somebody from India before, and he was a nice guy, and we had a friendship. So, you know, I'm for that.' Sole-Robertson, the Trump supporter from Medway, said he supported barring foreign students. 'We need to make sure that our students here, Americans, can get into these colleges before international students do,' Sole-Robertson said. 'I am totally for that.' Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at
USA Today
15 minutes ago
- USA Today
Millions for ballroom while healthcare, food aid, federal services are cut
Congress, by abdicating their duties for oversight and the power of the purse, has expanded the prerogatives of presidential authority to every facet of the federal government's operations. Two Aug. 7 headlines sum up this administration's priorities: 'MCW opens $150M cancer research center: But hiring limited by federal cuts to research' and 'Trump ($200M) ballroom a lasting legacy: President making big changes to White House.' The ballroom chandeliers and gold filigree could pay for medical research to help everyone — but our president enjoys dancing. Peggy Creer, Whitefish Bay Letters: ICE cruelty, rioter pardons, unjust tariffs and more in Trump's first six months GOP Congressional majority gives away 250-year-old Democracy In just seven months, the Republican majority in Congress gave away the Democracy that has served Americans for nearly 250 years. They willingly relinquished their constitutional powers as an equal branch of government so that President Donald Trump could run the country as he pleased. We were left with a president intent upon rounding up and deporting millions of immigrants, pardoning the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, prosecuting his persecutors, imposing tariffs on all imports and abandoning climate protections for fossil fuel profit for energy corporations. Gone is the America that feeds the hungry, houses the homeless, cares for the sick and disadvantaged, unburdens the debtor, loves the neighbor, welcomes the stranger, tolerates the different and exalts the lowly. Congress, by abdicating their duties for law making, oversight and the power of the purse has expanded the prerogatives of presidential authority to every facet of the federal government's operations. ICE has become a nationalized police force that operates with impunity, sweeping up and detaining people without probable cause nor due process. Healthcare is been stripped from 10 million people, food security cut for 40 million Americans. Tax breaks in the billions for the wealthy, but significant additional financial burdens for working-class Americans. Our nation has lost respect for the rule of law. We have lost civility and decency. Verbal abuse and bullying are normalized. Americans no longer have a voice in their government because Republicans in Congress have ceded that voice to Donald Trump. Jerry Hanson, Elkhorn Letters: Sen. Ron Johnson's suggestion to bypass primaries is great, except for his motive | Letters I demand answers on impact of federal workforce cuts I am writing to shed light on the disservices being committed against the public servants who tirelessly ensure the continued operation of our country. Under the Trump administration, the federal workforce has sustained numerous attacks, including the elimination of jobs, undermining of democratically directed government operations and removing merit-based civil service protections. The administration has advanced large-scale reductions-in-force that threaten to undermine the effectiveness of government operations, eliminate government functions without the approval of Congress or privatize government work to the detriment of the public and taxpayer. In a time where the American people depend on the services provided by the federal community, we cannot stand idly by. I demand greater transparency regarding the impact on government operations, adherence to the law and better treatment for our public servants, and for our country. Mary Karfonta, Muskego Letters: Slash and burn approach to federal agencies antithesis of smart management Tips for getting your letter to the editor published Here are some tips to get your views shared with your friends, family, neighbors and across our state: Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 330 E. Kilbourn Avenue, Suite 500, Milwaukee, WI, 53202. Fax: (414)-223-5444. E-mail: jsedit@ or submit using the form that can be found on the on the bottom of this page.
