BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1594|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1594
Author: Eng (D), et al.
Amended: 8/22/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/27/12
AYES: Lowenthal, Alquist, Liu, Price, Simitian, Vargas
NOES: Blakeslee, Huff
NO VOTE RECORDED: Runner, Hancock, Vacancy
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Dutton
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-26, 5/30/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Charter schools: pupil nutrition
SOURCE : California Food Policy Advocates
DIGEST : This bill requires a charter school, as
specified, to provide each needy pupil with one
nutritionally adequate free or reduced-price meal each
schoolday.
ANALYSIS : 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
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
2
or state program to provide these meals, including the
federal National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the federal
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the federal Seamless
Summer Option, or the state meal program.
Existing law defines a nutritionally adequate meal as a
breakfast or lunch that qualifies for reimbursement under
federal child nutrition program regulations.
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. Existing 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.
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.
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
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
3
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, 2014, 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 commencing with the school year that follows the
renewal of their charter.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
Comments
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
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
4
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 NSLP and 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.
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 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.
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
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. The bill 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 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
State operations: Approximately $600,000 in federal
funds, annually, to provide administrative support to
charter schools. The California Department of Education
would require authority for both limited-term and ongoing
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
6
federally funded PYs.
Meal reimbursement: Unknown ongoing General Fund costs,
depending on the number of meals provided which are
eligible for partial state reimbursement.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/22/12)
California Food Policy Advocates (source)
Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Association of Food Banks
California Chiropractic Association
California Communities United Institute
California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL-CIO
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 Teen Leadership Program
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Interfaith Community Services
Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank
National Association of Social Workers-California Chapter
Regional Taskforce on the Homeless- San Diego
San Francisco Food Bank
Western Center on Law and Poverty
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/22/12)
California Charter Schools Association Advocates
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
7
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 State
Meal Mandate.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 51-26, 5/30/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Furutani, Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hall, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Bonnie
Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Perea, V.
Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson,
Torres, Wieckowski, Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Logue, Mansoor, Miller,
Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Smyth,
CONTINUED
AB 1594
Page
8
Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fletcher, Valadao, Williams
PQ:d 8/22/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED