Community members write in support of Hough, Smart for Springfield school board
I am, therefore, proud to support Gail Smart for Springfield school board.
Gail has dedicated herself to service, education, and uniting people to improve our community.
Her work with organizations, including the Springfield Public Schools Foundation and Every Child Promise, has demonstrated her deep commitment to ensuring that students are given every opportunity to succeed and that teachers have the resources they need.
Our schools must be safe places of learning, free from political division and distractions. Gail understands that parents should have a voice in their children's education; teachers should feel empowered to do their jobs; and all students should have the chance to reach their God-given potential.
Good stewardship and accountability matter, and Gail will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used directly to benefit students and classrooms. She will bring transparency, fairness, and steady leadership to the board — qualities that meet the needs of today.
On April 8, I encourage you to vote for Gail Smart for school board. Springfield needs leaders who will put students first. I am confident that Gail will do so. She will serve with wisdom, fairness, and a heart for this community.
Rev. Kenneth L. Chumbley
United Springfield's mission is to endorse our local Springfield Public Schools board candidates who will serve with skill and commitment to support our students, their families, and our educators with excellence and care. Our children really are our future, and they deserve the strongest support to achieve their highest potential.
As the largest and most complex school district in Missouri, we need a school board with a clear focus on our students, teachers, the administration and staff along with the needed resources and facilities that ensure a strong and healthy school system.
Sarah Hough and Gail Smart are two candidates with a passion for our students, families, educators, staff and all that is needed to have a thriving SPS. They have personal experience as SPS parents, PTA leaders, volunteers, advocates, and fundraisers. Equally important, Sarah and Gail have a demonstrated history of supporting the continued development of SPS. They have a clear focus on serving all students, families, and educators to nurture student success and a thriving community. In addition, they bring a wealth of professional, legal, and community experience with large, complex organizations. They each demonstrate a clear understanding of the critical role of a board member and the ability to collaborate and track progress. And an added benefit is their experience advocating for our schools at the state level.
United Springfield encourages eligible voters to join us in voting for Sarah Hough and Gail Smart for our SPS board.
United Springfield steering committee includes co-chairs Jim Anderson and Terri McQueary along with Alexis Childs, Orin Cummings, Steve Edwards, Emily Givens, Jay Guffey, Jeff Johnson, Mark Powell, David Ross, Debbie Shantz-Hart, Carol Taylor, and Claire Whitlock.
For years, I've had the privilege of being the voice of the Missouri State Bears, calling the plays and sharing the excitement of college athletics with our community. I've always believed in the power of teamwork, preparation, and leadership — qualities that make a winning team both on the field and in life.
That's why I'm supporting Gail Smart for Springfield School Board. While I've been the voice of the Bears, I know Gail will be the voice for our students, teachers, and parents.
Gail understands that education is about opportunity, preparation, and putting people in a position to succeed — just like in sports. She will work to ensure that our students have every resource they need to thrive, our teachers are supported, and our tax dollars are spent wisely. Gail is committed to keeping politics out of the classroom and focusing on the real issues: student success, school safety, and fiscal responsibility.
Springfield Public Schools need strong, thoughtful leadership, and I have no doubt that Gail Smart will be a tireless advocate for our kids and community. Just like a coach leads their team with purpose and vision, Gail will lead with integrity and a deep commitment to our schools.
I encourage you to join me in voting for Gail Smart for School Board on April 8 — because strong schools make for a stronger Springfield.
Art Hains, Springfield
As former Springfield school board members, we have seen firsthand the responsibilities and challenges that come with governing our district. Board decisions directly impact students, teachers, parents, and the entire community. That's why this election is so important — and why we strongly support Sarah Hough and Gail Smart for Springfield Public Schools.
We are steadfast in support of Hough and Smart and here is why:
We are confident these individuals have the best interest of students and teachers in our school district as their number one priority.
These two candidates believe every child deserves to feel safe in their school, and every parent deserves to have a voice in their child's education.
These two candidates are endorsed by SPS teachers and will listen to teachers' input, as teachers have expertise in managing a classroom so that it is a safe environment for learning.
We believe Hough and Smart understand the role of an SPS board member is to stay focused on governing the district and working collectively to improve student learning.
These two candidates did not seek the political endorsement of either political party, rather they chose to follow the state law which states school boards are to be nonpartisan.
We support Hough and Smart because they are each committed to ethical leadership and honest and respectful discourse with other board members, staff and citizens about the issues that come before the board.
As former SPS board members, we all believe a strong public education system is the backbone of a society — of OUR society in Springfield, Missouri. We are proud to have served on the SPS board with others who focused on supporting the district so students are safe, can learn and thrive. Please join us in voting for Sarah Hough and Gail Smart on Tuesday, April 8.
Annie Busch, Kris Callen, Dr. Denise Fredrick, Gerry Lee, Dr. Alina Lehnert, Jill Patterson, Bruce Renner, Tim Rosenbury, Dr. Charles Taylor and Jean Twitty are former members of the Springfield Board of Education.
As a retired Springfield Public School teacher and principal, I lived the challenges facing Springfield Public Schools. Every day, teachers walk into classrooms dedicated to preparing students for the future, working to inspire, encourage, and equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed.
That's why I am proud to support Sarah Hough for Springfield school board.
It was not surprising Sarah was endorsed by our SPS teachers. Sarah understands the importance of supporting teachers, prioritizing student learning, and ensuring that classrooms remain focused on educating our students. She has spent years working alongside educators, parents, and community leaders to strengthen our community and ensure every student has the opportunity to succeed.
We need school board members who will listen to perspectives of teachers, students and parents, advocate for thoughtful policies that enhance learning, and ensure that resources are directed where they are needed most — in the classroom. Sarah is a collaborator and holds a solution-oriented mindset. She is committed to making sure that teachers have the tools, funding, and respect they deserve to do their jobs effectively and has the experience and leadership skills to ensure that tax dollars are used efficiently to benefit students, educators, and families.
As a retired educator, I care deeply about the future of Springfield Public Schools. That's why I'm encouraging you to vote for Sarah Hough on April 8.
Janell Bagwell, Marshfield
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Community members endorse Hough, Smart in SPS board election | Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Authoritarian threats to campus speech come from both abroad and at home
In 2015, a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School named Teng Biao scheduled a public event with another Chinese dissident that coincided with the visit by Harvard's president, Drew Gilpin Faust, to China. The law school's vice dean for international legal studies convinced Teng to cancel the panel to avoid 'embarrassing' the school and undermining its programs in China. In 2018, the debating union at Georgetown University's Qatar campus planned to discuss whether 'major religions should portray God as a woman.' Accused of 'insulting God,' the university canceled the event because it 'failed to follow the appropriate approval processes and created a risk to safety and security.' Administrators noted that the school encouraged 'civil dialogue that respects the laws of Qatar,' presumably including prohibitions of blasphemy. On March 25, masked federal agents surrounded and handcuffed Rumeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University and a Fulbright scholar from Turkey, on a street near her home outside Boston. They forced her into an unmarked car and shipped her to a detention center in Louisiana. Her apparent offense was co-authoring a pro-Palestinian opinion piece in a student newspaper. The federal judge who ordered her release declared that Öztürk's detention risked chilling 'the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.' These three incidents reflect a disturbing trend in which university administrators seek to accommodate authoritarian regimes eager to silence critics, and the Trump administration works to suppress campus protests and criticism of its policies. In her new book 'Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech,' Sara McLaughlin, a senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, paints a portrait of 'censors without borders' policing speech, while complicit universities, eager to profit from global partnerships and tuition-paying international students, turn a blind eye or, worse, self-censor to avoid alienating China and other authoritarian states. McLaughlin does a commendable job of calling attention to threats to freedom of expression across the globe, though, in our view, suppression of speech by foreign governments on U.S. campuses is not as pervasive a practice as she makes it appear. At least not yet. In 2023, students at George Washington University posted artwork mocking China's fitness to host the Olympics. When two Chinese student groups complained that the artwork 'insulted China,' the university president, Mark Wrighton, declared the postings unacceptable and agreed to investigate those responsible. After a public outcry, Wrighton apologized, terminated the investigation and declared his support for 'freedom of speech — even when it offends people.' McLaughlin finds it 'troubling that Wrighton's first instinct … was to promise censorship.' But she offers no evidence to support her assertion that the instinct to censor was 'shared by many university leaders.' Nor does she demonstrate that 'sensitivity exploitation' — using the desire to create a welcoming environment for all students to suppress criticism of a foreign government — is having a widespread impact on free speech. In a recent Gallup poll, 74 percent of college students said their institution was doing an excellent or good job of protecting unfettered expression, while only 5 percent believe it is doing a poor job. Of much greater concern is the ability of China and other authoritarian states to restrict the speech of their nationals abroad by threatening their families or, when they return home, their livelihoods or freedom. Universities 'want to reap the financial and reputational rewards' of bringing international students to their campuses, McLaughlin contends, but have failed to 'accept the [accompanying] responsibilities to free speech and academic freedom.' McLaughlin suggests as well that U.S. institutions that have relationships with authoritarian foreign partners often feel pressure to self-censor because 'that is how many university administrations operate: not as values-driven institutions, but as global corporations that must protect the bottom line.' Having 'reached the point where brand supersedes all else, and protecting image matters more than protecting values,' they continue operating campuses in countries 'conducting human rights violations their community members are not freely allowed to teach or discuss.' These broad-brush attacks are, alas, not accompanied by practical proposals for what universities can and should do. How might leaders of campuses in the U.S. 'stand by' international students when their families at home are threatened? How can they protect scholars who lose access to research materials or are denied visas for criticizing authoritarian regimes? Should they insist that the host countries of campuses they operate abroad respect American academic norms in their entirety if the cost is sharply limiting opportunities for their faculty and students, including individuals from the countries in which they operate? Or should they warn students and faculty of the likely constraints on expression and do what they can to minimize them, recognizing that their campuses will not be able to operate as freely abroad as they would at home? McLaughlin acknowledges that the extent of self-censorship by students, teachers and administrators 'is difficult to measure.' And that universities should not 'simply cut off engagement with unfree countries.' Instead, campuses established in authoritarian countries should 'carefully and thoughtfully tailor engagement to limit opportunities for rights violations and interference,' advise students and faculty of the challenges they face, make clear they oppose 'transnational repression' and educate students about how to protect themselves. Good advice, as far as it goes, though that is how most universities already operate. Sadly, the greatest threats to free speech and academic freedom on American university campuses may now be home-grown. Shortly after taking office, President Trump promised to deport 'all the resident aliens' who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio boasted in March of revoking at least 300 visas of students and others whose activities 'are counter … to our foreign policy.' Last month, the State Department directed consular officials to screen the 'entire online presence' of foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. for 'any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.' Red states, eager to amplify Trump administration policies, have adopted a host of educational gag orders restricting discussion of race, gender, sexual orientation and other 'divisive concepts.' Ohio, for example, limits discussion of ' controversial beliefs or policies,' including 'climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.' And last month, a federal judge temporarily enjoined a Mississippi anti-DEI statute for 'possible widespread suppression of speech.' As McLaughlin recognizes, the 'fight against authoritarian influence' is 'a problem that cannot be 'solved,' only mitigated.' Given the Trump administration's approach to higher education, mitigation efforts should probably begin on American soil and with our own government.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Fox News
Charlamagne tha God names surprising 2028 presidential suggestion
Charlamagne tha God is known for making waves as a prominent talk show host — and is pushing for a fellow entertainer to run for president in 2028. The popular face of "The Breakfast Club" radio show suggested "The Daily Show" star Jon Stewart should run as the Democratic Party's candidate in the 2028 presidential election during an appearance on "My View with Lara Trump." "This is going to sound ridiculous, probably, coming from me," he told Fox News host Lara Trump. "I would love to see Jon Stewart run in 2028." Charlamagne emphasized Democrats' need for a "change agent" after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss to President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and that Stewart could help the party broaden its base. "If we're talking about a change agent coming from the outside that's really going to shake things up, and somebody that I feel like can speak to all people… he's a celebrity who actually knows what they're talking about," he said. "We've seen him get legislation and stuff passed before — like, we know where his heart is." "He'd be somebody I'd like to see really get in the race and disrupt things in 2028." Charlamagne suggested that "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" host Stephen Colbert should run alongside Stewart on this hypothetical ticket, explaining that he's "not going to have a job." CBS revealed on July 17 that the show would be ending in May 2026, calling the plan to terminate it "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night," per a public statement. Elsewhere in the wide-ranging interview, Charlamagne advised Democrats to look to their governors for other possible 2028 candidates, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. "They actually have a track record, right?" he said. "You can go look at their states to see what they're probably going to end up doing on a national level." The headline-making personality also did not rule out a Republican candidate earning his vote in the next presidential election. He cited former South Carolina Gov. and former U.S. Amb. to the United Nations Nikki Haley as someone who he would consider supporting. "Traditional conservatives are going to take the Republican Party back," he said in part. Charlamagne also reviewed Trump's first six months in office, predicted Harris' political future and discussed New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's policy proposals and whether he agrees with socialism. Watch Fox News host Lara Trump's full interview with Charlamagne tha God on "My View with Lara Trump" on Saturday, Aug. 2, at 9 p.m. ET.
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
Why Democrats keep losing: Too many Baptists, not enough bootleggers
Democrats need alliances between Baptists and bootleggers. So do Republicans, but right now, they have plenty of those alliances, which is a key reason, and maybe the key reason, that they are riding so high. Let me explain. In the twentieth century, the U.S. had fierce debates about laws restricting commercial activity on Sundays — above all banning the sale and purchase of alcohol. Many Americans favored those laws on moral grounds. They thought that ceasing secular work on Sunday was a way of honoring God. They believed that people should be in church on that day. Some Americans also thought that drinking alcohol was a sin, and that it led to a host of other sins (including domestic violence). Invoking public morality, Baptists were prominent supporters of Sunday closing laws. Then there were the bootleggers — sellers of alcohol who stood to make massive profits if Sunday alcohol sales were made unlawful, effectively giving them a monopoly on such sales. The alliance between the Baptists and the bootleggers helped lead to Sunday closing laws all over the country. In 1983, the economist Bruce Yandle argued that Baptist-bootlegger-style alliances are often crucial to regulatory action. Yandle urged that some people are motivated by a moral concern, while others seek to promote their economic self-interest. Often they need each other. When Baptists (understood as the moralists) and bootleggers (understood as the economic interests in the background) form an alliance, they can move the regulatory state in their preferred directions. But we can go much further than Yandle did. Baptist-bootlegger alliances extend far beyond regulation. They move modern political life. Remember the controversy over the destruction of the ozone layer? You don't hear a whole lot about it today. The reason is the Montreal Protocol, which largely solved the problem. It was signed with the enthusiastic leadership of President Ronald Reagan, not ordinarily known as a fierce environmentalist. The existence of the Montreal Protocol owes a lot to the Baptists, in the form of environmental groups warning that CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, threatened to deplete the ozone layer and thus to endanger public health. But the Montreal Protocol would not have been possible without the enthusiasm of the bootleggers as well, in the form of DuPont and other companies that pioneered CFC-free alternatives. They saw terrific profit opportunities if these chemicals were phased out. When I was administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President Barack Obama, I saw plenty of Baptist-bootlegger alliances. Environmentalists were the Baptists, seeking aggressive air pollution regulations on moral grounds. Natural gas companies were the bootleggers, supportive of many of those same regulations to give them a competitive advantage against coal companies. We should even think of these as alliances between green, meaning environmentalists, and green, meaning the color of money. Here's another example: Some environmentalists have favored mandatory labels on food containing genetically modified organisms. They were joined by organic food companies, whose products do not contain such organisms, and which hoped that such labels would give them an economic advantage. After a series of frustrating failures, this particular Baptist-bootlegger alliance ultimately succeeded in 2016 when Congress enacted a labeling requirement. The simplest coalitions between Baptists and bootleggers arise when some people have intense moral concerns and others are motivated by pure self-interest. But there are more complicated variations. Some people want to stop or allow abortion, affirmative action, or immigration on moral grounds. Other people do not much care about the moral issues; they just want to be elected. They seize on abortion, affirmative action, or immigration out of political self-interest. They might see a terrific opportunity, because they want to get two things: campaign donations and votes. They are political entrepreneurs, sounding like Baptists but not necessarily giving a fig. Some of the biggest successes of contemporary Republicans are a product of close alliances between Baptists and bootleggers. Emphasizing the moral value of liberty, many Americans are keenly skeptical of high tax rates. These Baptists are joined by bootleggers who share that value, but who are mostly focused on economic considerations. Or consider efforts to promote deregulation and downsize the 'deep state.' The Baptists point to widespread moral values associated with freedom, federalism, and entrepreneurship. For their part, the bootleggers know that if they can scale back regulation, they have a lot to gain. In recent years, Democrats have been heavy on Baptists, but light on bootleggers. On cultural issues — consider transgender issues, affirmative action, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs — they have invoked moral commitments that divide Americans. Baptist Democrats are effectively countered by Baptist Republicans. And with respect to the cultural issues favored by the left, it is not so easy to find a ton of support from the nation's bootleggers. With Baptists and bootleggers in mind, we can see why Democrats did better in the past. President Lyndon Johnson's attack on racial discrimination was strongly if quietly supported by many businesses, even in the South, which knew that if they were opened to people of color, they would be serving more customers and so make more money. President Bill Clinton was the modern master of the Baptist-bootlegger alliance. As just one example, consider his support for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has strong moral justifications (it helps the working poor) and is also appreciated by many businesses (because the government helps pay for their workers). As I saw up close, President Obama knew all about Baptists and bootleggers. He worked hard to ensure that his fuel economy standards would be supported by the nation's automobile companies. He worked even harder to get support for the Affordable Care Act not only from people who supported it on moral grounds but also from major insurers (which liked the law's expansion in coverage, alongside its subsidies for low-income people) and from pharmaceutical companies (which knew that expanded coverage would increase the demand for prescription drugs). Right now, contemporary Democrats are in the midst of identifying their policy priorities for coming years. They have a host of Baptists. They should be focusing intensely on this question: Who are their bootleggers? Cass R. Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School and author of ' On Liberalism: In Defense of Freedom,' forthcoming in September.
