BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 292
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Santiago |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 2, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date: July 8, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lynn Lorber |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Pupil nutrition: free or reduced-price meals:
adequate time to eat
SUMMARY
This bill requires school districts to ensure that each of their
schools provide students adequate time to eat after being served
a meal, and requires schools that do not provide students with
adequate time to eat to develop a plan to increase students'
time to eat lunch.
BACKGROUND
Current law requires each school district or county
superintendent of schools serving kindergarten or any of grades
1 to 12, to provide for each needy student one nutritionally
adequate free or reduced-price meal during each schoolday.
(Education Code § 49550)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires school districts to ensure that schools
provide students adequate time to eat after being served.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires school districts to ensure that each of their schools in
their respective jurisdictions makes available to its students
adequate time to eat after being served lunch.
2)States that the California Department of Education specifies that
AB 292 (Santiago) Page 2
of ?
adequate time to eat lunch is 20 minutes after being served.
3)Requires a school, upon annual review of its bell schedule and if
the school determines that it is not providing students with
adequate time to eat, to identify and develop a plan, in
consultation with the school district, to implement ways to
increase students' time to eat lunch.
4)Authorizes the appropriate school food authority, to the extent
that funds are available, to use federally or state-regulated
nonprofit school food service cafeteria accounts to defray any
allowable costs from that funding source.
5)States legislative findings and declarations relative to
nutritional standards, the benefits of healthy eating, and the
need for adequate time to eat.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, "Lunch periods
provide a much-needed time for students to take a break and
refuel their bodies. For many low-income students, school
lunch may be the most nutritious meal of the day. In recent
years, numerous legislative actions, both state and federal,
have improved the nutritional quality of school meals.
Unfortunately, students often miss out on the full benefits of
school lunch because they do not have adequate time to eat."
2)Guidance and resources. This bill states that the California
Department of Education (CDE) specifies that the adequate time
to eat lunch is 20 minutes after being served. The
Superintendent of Public Instruction issued a letter to
schools in January 2013, recommending that each student has at
least 10 minutes for breakfast and at least 20 minutes for
lunch after being served. This letter states that research
indicates inadequate time to eat discourages students from
buying and eating complete lunches. The letter further states
that waiting in line is the most commonly reported factor
contributing to student dissatisfaction with lunches.
A 2013 survey conducted by CDE of over 1,000 school principals
found that just under 25% of elementary schools and 8% of
AB 292 (Santiago) Page 3
of ?
middle/high schools had policies at the school or district
level specifying an amount of time that students have to eat.
When asked to estimate the amount of time the last student in
line has to eat during the lunch period, only 28% of
elementary principals and just under 45% of middle/high school
principals reported that students were provided at least 20
minutes to eat.
The CDE's website includes a list of best practices, examples of
ways to determine if a school provides adequate time to eat,
examples of how to include adequate time to eat in school
wellness policies, and information about the Smarter Lunchroom
Movement workshops, Recess Before Lunch, and other resources.
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/timetoeat.asp#smarter
3)Existing local policy. In 1990, the governing board of the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) passed a resolution
adopting the Cafeteria Reform Motion, which set goals of
increasing student meal participation. The LAUSD established
guidelines which ensure the last child in the food line be
given no less than 20 minutes of seat time to eat their meal
at lunch, and 10 minutes of seat time for breakfast. In 2005,
LAUSD passed another resolution reaffirming the goals of
providing at least 20 minutes of seat time to eat lunch. On
December 11, 2012, the LAUSD board of education approved yet
another resolution reaffirming the goals for providing
adequate time to eat.
4)Fiscal impact. According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill would impose unknown General
Fund/Proposition 98 state mandated costs, potentially in
excess of $1 million. Costs claims could include staff time
to develop and implement a plan as well as monitoring and data
collection to ensure each school is providing adequate time to
eat lunch. Depending on the plan, districts may need to
purchase equipment and make system upgrades; provide
additional points of service or
expand the school day to meet an adequate time goal. Actual
costs will depend on the size and types of claims districts
submit to the Commission on State Mandates to implement this
bill.
5)Prior legislation. AB 2449 (Bocanegra, 2014) was nearly
AB 292 (Santiago) Page 4
of ?
identical to this bill and was held by the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
American Heart Association
American Stroke Association
California Black Health Network
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Food Policy Advocates
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
Children Now
Los Angeles Unified School District
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --