Phoenix Union board authorizes Title VI assurance under protest to preserve federal funding

The Phoenix Union High School District Governing Board voted to authorize the superintendent to sign the assurance of compliance required by the U.S. Department of Education under Title VI and related to SFFA v. Harvard, after an executive session and discussion about vague language in the certification.

Ms. Andrade, an executive team member presenting federal program information to the board, told members the district typically signs the annual assurance so it can receive federal funds. "This total is, almost $46,000,000," she said, and noted that roughly "60% of these dollars are dedicated to staffing positions," including administrators, certified staff and ESPs who deliver services such as classroom instruction, summer programs and nutrition that provides free lunch and breakfast.

The board moved to authorize the superintendent to sign the document but included reservations. Clerk Oliver made the motion, which was seconded by Representative Marquez; the motion instructed the superintendent to sign the Title VI assurance while noting some terms in the certification (for example, references to "illegal DEI") were undefined and therefore could not be affirmatively attested to. The motion further authorized signing "subject to any court or other legal binding orders that may affect the requirement and further with the reservation to contest any conditions to funding that do not align with the values of Phoenix Union High School District." The motion passed.

Board members spoke at length explaining their votes. Board member Meyer said the choice was coerced by a federal threat to withhold funds and that losing federal dollars would directly harm students and staff: "The threat of withholding ... stopping federal funds is a direct attack on students and family who rely on free and reduced lunch." Meyer said the district "will continue to be in compliance" with Title VI and related requirements and moved to approve the signature.

Board member Pastor Rivera framed the vote as a defensive step to protect services and programs for historically marginalized communities, saying officials were faced with a "false choice" and that refusing to sign would risk "losing millions of federal dollars, monies that support everything from our students' meals to special education, mental health counselors, and more." Rivera called the action "signing the certification under protest" and urged the community to continue organizing and resisting what he called attempts to restrict honest teaching about history and identity.

Board member Cross said she would "peacefully say yes to this motion" to avoid immediate harm to students and to preserve the district's financial stability against encroachments by charter or private schools.

Representative Marquez said he considered the authorization a "necessary evil for now," and said the board would fight back if the state or federal agencies sought to force changes to district values.

The board did not adopt or amend local policies in this action; the vote authorized the superintendent to sign the required assurance so the district may receive federal financial assistance. After the vote the board moved on to routine business and adjourned the special meeting.

The discussion and vote were explicitly recorded as occurring during agenda item 2.a; the board convened and returned from an executive session before taking the public action authorizing signature.