BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-12 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1594
AUTHOR: Eng
AMENDED: May 25, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 27, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : Charter schools: pupil nutrition.
SUMMARY
This bill requires a charter school, as specified, to provide
each needy pupil with one nutritionally adequate free or
reduced-price meal each schoolday.
BACKGROUND
School districts and county offices of education are required
to provide for each needy pupil, one nutritionally adequate
free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday. A school
district or county office of education may use funds made
available through any federal or state program to provide
these meals, including the federal National School Lunch
Program, the federal Summer Food Service Program, the federal
Seamless Summer Option, or the state meal program.
(Education Code § 49550)
Current law defines a nutritionally adequate meal as a
breakfast or lunch that qualifies for reimbursement under
federal child nutrition program regulations.
(EC § 49553)
Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for
the establishment of charter schools in California for the
purpose, among other things, of improving student learning
and expanding learning experiences for pupils who are
identified as academically low achieving. Current law
requires governing boards to grant a charter unless the
petition fails to meet one or more of the following:
1) The charter school presents an unsound educational
program.
AB 1594
Page 2
2) The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to
successfully implement the program described in the
petition.
3) The petition does not contain the number of required
signatures.
4) The petition does not contain affirmations that the
school will be nonsectarian in its programs and
policies, will not charge tuition, will not
discriminate, and other affirmations, as specified.
5) The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of 16 required elements, including a
description of the educational program at the school.
(EC § 47605)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires a charter school to provide each needy pupil
with one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price
meal (FRP) during each schoolday.
2) Exempts charter schools that offer only
nonclassroom-based instruction or only online
instruction from the requirements of the bill.
Specifies that a charter school that offer both
classroom-based and nonclassroom-based or online
instruction is not required to provide meals to pupils
enrolled in the nonclassroom-based or online programs.
3) Requires new charter schools established on or after
July 1, 2013, to offer FRP meals when the school begins
operation.
4) Requires existing charter schools that provided needy
pupils with FRP meals during the 2012-13 school year to
comply with the provisions of the bill commencing with
the 2013-14 school year.
5) Requires charter schools that did not provide FRP meals
during the 2012-13 school year to begin offering FRP
meals immediately upon the renewal of their charter.
6) Authorizes the State Board of Education to grant a
AB 1594
Page 3
two-year hardship waiver to schools that demonstrate
that implementation of the requirements of this bill
would create a financial hardship.
7) Makes findings and declarations regarding the struggle
of many families and children to access nutritious food;
the number of low-income children who may not have
access to free or reduced-price meals that they
otherwise would have in a traditional public school; the
role of nutritious meals in supporting academic
achievement.
8) States the intent of the Legislature that all California
public schools, including charter schools, provide for
each needy pupil one nutritionally adequate free or
reduced-price meal during each schoolday.
9) Requires local agencies and school districts to be
reimbursed for costs of implementing the bill if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that this act
contains costs mandated by the state.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : Existing law requires all K-12
schools to provide one nutritionally adequate meal to
all students eligible for free and reduced-priced meals.
Public schools and districts across California are
bound by this requirement, also known as the "State Meal
Mandate." According to the author's office, the mandate
is meant to ensure that low-income students have access
to an essential resource that supports their academic
achievement, health and overall well-being. Repeatedly,
research has shown that school meals matter and help
ensure that students receive adequate nutrition.
Information provided by the author's office indicates
that while 55.8% of students in charter schools are FRP
eligible, many do not have access to a free or
reduced-price meal because their school does not provide
one. The author maintains that low-income students,
whether they attend a traditional public school or a
charter school, should have access to these benefits.
This bill would make charter schools subject to the
AB 1594
Page 4
State Meal Mandate.
Charter schools are exempt from most laws governing school
districts and schools, including the State Meal Mandate.
(There are about 982 active charter schools operating
in California.) At the request of the Joint Legislative
Audit Committee, the California State Auditor recently
reviewed California charter schools in an effort to gain
a broader understanding of how charter schools are
meeting the nutritional needs of students, particularly
low-income students. The October 2010 report,
California's Charter Schools: Some Are Providing Meals
to Students, but a Lack of Reliable Data Prevents the
California Department of Education from Determining the
Number of Students Eligible for or Participating in
Certain Federal Meal Programs, indicated that a majority
of charter schools, approximately 60%, provide meals via
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School
Breakfast Program (SBP). Of the 815 charter schools
included in the study, 451 were participating in the
breakfast or lunch program, and 151 did not provide
meals because instruction is nonclassroom based. The
auditor surveyed the remaining 213 charter schools, and
of the 133 that responded, 41 stated that they were in
fact participating in the federal nutrition programs, 46
stated they offer their students an alternative meal
program and 39 stated they do not provide meals to their
students, mainly because they lack resources such as
funding, staff, or a kitchen, cafeteria, or other
facility in which to prepare and deliver meals. A small
number of schools do not provide meals because their
students are age 18 or older and are not eligible to
participate in the programs.
2) Nutrition programs . To comply with the State Meal
Mandate, local educational agencies may use funds made
available through any federal or state program that
provides meals to students. Most schools districts
choose to participate in the NSLP and the SBP so they
can feed all their students, not just those eligible for
FRP. School districts that choose to take part in these
programs get a subsidy from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture for each meal they serve. In exchange, they
must serve meals that meet federal requirements and
offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible children.
The breakfasts and lunches served by schools must meet
federal nutrition requirements, but decisions about the
AB 1594
Page 5
specific foods to serve and how to prepare them are made
by local school food authorities. In addition, schools
must comply with the requirements of local (county)
health agencies in complying with food safety laws with
regard to preparation and distribution of the meals.
3) Underlying challenges . The California Charter School
Association Advocates (CCSAA) maintains that some
charter schools would face significant challenges in
meeting the State Meal Mandate. The CCSAA notes that
some charter schools may not have the resources to
install facilities that would meet local county
requirements and others may not have access to kitchen
or cafeteria facilities. Because county food safety
rules, including the interpretation of state law, can
vary considerably from county to county, similar charter
schools in two different counties offering the same meal
program could face significantly different costs in
meeting the mandate. Very small charter schools could
find administrative costs would exceed the funds
received by the program. While the bill provides for a
waiver process for schools that can demonstrate they
would face a significant challenge in implementing the
mandate, these underlying challenges could create
barriers for some charter schools to successfully meet
the mandate.
4) Fiscal impact . According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, this bill could result in increased
General Fund/Proposition 98 costs, likely between
$175,000 and $500,000 to provide charter schools with
the state meal reimbursement funds. These costs will
likely not materialize until after the 2013-14 fiscal
year.
5) Prior legislation . AB 2954 (Liu, 2006), would have
added "negative fiscal impact" to the reasons a
governing board could deny a charter school petition and
would have required petitions to describe how a charter
school would provide FRP meals to eligible students.
That measure was passed by the Senate Education
Committee on an 8-2 vote, and subsequently vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, whose veto message read:
While I understand the plight of school districts
faced with fiscal challenges of declining
enrollment and other management issues, I cannot
AB 1594
Page 6
condone allowing them to deny parents and students
their rights to petition for the establishment of a
charter school. In essence, this bill would grant
school districts the authority to punish charter
petitioners because of problems caused by their own
fiscal management issues or their unwillingness to
make tough decisions, or both.
In addition, allowing school districts to require,
as a condition of approval, that the petition
describe how the charter school will provide free
and reduced-priced meals to eligible pupils would
simply provide districts with another pretext on
which to deny a
charter school. Charter schools are generally
exempt from most laws and regulations governing
school districts and they should continue to be
exempt from this one.
In sum, this bill runs counter to the intent of
charter schools, which is to provide parents and
students with other options within the public
school system and to stimulate competition that
improves the quality not only of charter schools,
but of non-charter schools as well.
SUPPORT
Alameda Community Food Bank
California Association of Food Banks
California Chiropractic Association
California Communities United Institute
California Federation of Teachers
California Food Policy Advocates
California Hunger Action Coalition
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California State Parent Teacher Association
California Teachers Association
Community Action Partnership of Orange County
Feeding America San Diego
Hand Up Student Advisory Board
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Interfaith Community Services
Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank
AB 1594
Page 7
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
Regional Task Force on the Homeless
San Francisco and Marin Food Banks
Western Center on Law & Poverty
OPPOSITION
California Charter Schools Association Advocates