BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1594
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1594 (Eng)
As Amended May 25, 2012
Majority vote
EDUCATION 6-3 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, Butler, Carter, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Eng | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Ammiano, Hill, |
| | | |Lara, Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Grove, Halderman |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a charter school to provide each needy pupil
with one nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal, that
qualifies for reimbursement under the federal child nutrition
program regulations, each schoolday. Specifically, this bill :
1)Exempts charter schools that only offer nonclassroom-based
instruction or only online instruction from the requirement to
provide a free or reduced-price meal each school day; and,
exempts charter schools that offer both classroom-based
instruction and nonclassroom-based or online instruction to
provide a meal to pupils enrolled in only nonclassroom-based
instruction or only online instruction.
2)Specifies that if providing meals to needy pupils creates a
demonstrable financial hardship, a charter school may submit a
request for a time-limited hardship waiver from the State Board
of Education (SBE) 90 days before the last SBE meeting of the
fiscal year; and, specifies the SBE may grant a two-year waiver.
3)Requires charter schools that become operational after July 1,
2013, to implement this measure when the school begins operation;
requires charter schools that provided meals to needy pupils
during the 2012-13 school year to implement this measure in the
2013-14 school year; and, requires charter schools that did not
provide meals to needy pupils during the 2012-13 school year to
AB 1594
Page 2
implement this measure immediately following the next scheduled
charter renewal.
4)Makes findings and declarations regarding the importance of
school meals in supporting the academic achievement and overall
well-being of students.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, 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. Likewise, actual
costs may be reduced depending on the number of charter schools
that receive a hardship waiver, as specified. The State Auditor
identified 213 charter schools that were participating in the
school meal program in 2010. According to the California
Department of Education (CDE), approximately 812 million meals are
projected to be served in the 2011-12 school year.
COMMENTS : Current law requires all K-12 schools to provide one
nutritionally adequate meal, that qualifies for reimbursement under
the federal child nutrition program regulations, to all students
eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Public schools and
districts across California are bound by this requirement, also
known as the "State Meal Mandate," but the majority also choose to
participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the
School Breakfast Program (SBP), so they can feed all their students
(not just those eligible for free/reduced-price meals), and receive
federal and state reimbursement for all meals served, and federal
commodities. Charter schools, however, are exempt from the "State
Meal Mandate" requirement. While many charter schools provide an
education to students who qualify for free and reduced priced
meals, many charter schools do not provide meals to the children.
This bill would require charter schools, with the exception of
schools that only provide nonclassroom based instruction or online
instruction, to provide a meal during the schoolday to students,
who are present in the classroom, who are eligible for free and
reduced priced meals.
According to the author, 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 audit
suggests that a significant number of charter schools currently
AB 1594
Page 3
provide meals via the NSLP and SBP, while a number of charter
schools serve meals without utilizing the federal nutrition
programs and others provide no meals at all. Of the schools that
did not participate in NSLP and SBP, some adjusted the price of
meals for low-income students while others did not. The results of
the audit indicate that it is feasible for California charter
schools to provide meals, including meals for free and
reduced-price eligible students.
State Auditor's Report: According to the State Auditor's October
2010 report on Charter Schools, "Despite the limitations of
Education's data, we were able to identify 815 charter schools
active in California as of April 2010. According to the data, 451
were participating in the breakfast or lunch program and an
additional 151 were providing instruction to their students outside
the classroom, either online or independently, and thus do not
provide meals. We surveyed the remaining 213 charter schools to
identify those that provide an alternative meal program and those
that do not provide meals to their students. Of the 133 responses
we received, 46 charter schools stated that they offer their
students an alternative meal program, 39 stated that they do not
provide meals to their students, 41 stated that they were in fact
participating in the programs, and four stated that they provide
instruction based outside the classroom. In addition, three charter
schools stated that they do not provide meals to students or
participate in the breakfast and lunch programs because their
students are age 18 or older and are not eligible to participate in
the programs.
"The 46 charter schools responding to the survey that provide an
alternative meal program have varying methods of providing meals,
ranges of meal costs, and reasons for offering an alternative meal
program. Most of these schools either have their staff prepare and
deliver the meals or hire contractors to do so. The students at
these charter schools paid between 50 cents and $5 for their meals.
In addition, the primary reason cited by 15, or 33%, of these
schools for having an alternative meal program is to allow them to
provide what they described as fresher, healthier food choices to
their students than the breakfast or lunch program provides. Some
of these charter schools stated that they provide meals that meet
or exceed the �United States Department of Agriculture's] USDA's
nutritional standards. Generally, these charter schools believe
that the nutritional needs of their students, including low-income
students, are being met.
AB 1594
Page 4
"As mentioned previously, state law does not require charter
schools to provide each needy student with one nutritionally
adequate free or reduced-price meal during each school day. The 39
charter schools that do not provide meals to their students gave
various reasons for not participating in the breakfast and lunch
programs and not providing an alternative meal. The primary reason
was lack of a kitchen, cafeteria, or other facility to prepare and
deliver meals to their students. Another reason commonly cited was
a lack of funding and staffing to operate an alternative meal
program or participate in the breakfast and lunch programs.
Generally, however, these charter schools believe that the
nutritional needs of their students, including their low-income
students, are being met. Many of the schools stated that their
students bring lunch from home. We also found that some of these
charter schools inform parents via handbooks that can be found on
their Web sites that they do not provide meals. Thus, when parents
choose to pack their children's lunch and schools make parents
aware of the fact that they do not provide meals, it becomes the
parents' responsibility to ensure that their children's nutritional
needs are met."
Arguments in support: The California Food Policy Advocates
supports the bill and states, "AB 1594 should be viewed as an
opportunity to advance the mission of charter schools and support
the well-being and academic achievement of students attending them.
Parents and students should not have to leave an essential
resource behind when making the decision to attend a charter
school. Access to school meals should be available to all
low-income students regardless of whether they attend a traditional
public school or charter school."
Arguments in opposition: The California Charter Schools
Association Advocates opposes the bill and states, "AB 1594 begins
with an unspoken and unfortunate premise, that some charter schools
do not provide a meal to low-income children because they choose
not to. Such a premise does not acknowledge or account for the
profound challenges some charter schools have in providing a meal
program. If enacted, the bill would place many charter schools in
an impossible situation: requiring a service without the resources
to provide that service."
Previous legislation: AB 2954 (Liu) from 2006, allowed charter
school authorizers to require charter schools to provide free and
AB 1594
Page 5
reduced priced meals to students as a condition for approval, among
other things. The bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
While I understand the plight of school districts
faced with fiscal challenges of declining enrollment
and other management issues, I cannot 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. 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.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0003882