BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1594
Page 1
GOVERNOR'S VETO
AB 1594 (Eng)
As Amended August 22, 2012
2/3 vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-26|(May 30, 2012) |SENATE: |22-13|(August 23, |
| | | | | |2012) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-29|(August 28, | | | |
| | |2012) | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
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.
The Senate amendments :
1)Require charter schools that become operational after July 1,
2014, to implement this measure when the school begins
operation; and, require charter schools that did not provide
meals to needy pupils during the 2012-13 school year to
implement this measure commencing with the school year that
follows the next scheduled charter renewal.
2)Delete the authorization for a charter school to submit a
request for a time-limited hardship waiver from the State
Board of Education (SBE) if providing meals to needy pupils
creates a demonstrable financial hardship.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was substantially similar
to the version passed by the Senate.
AB 1594
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, approximately $600,000 in federal funds, annually, to
provide state administrative support to charter schools. The
California Department of Education (CDE) would require authority
for both limited-term and ongoing federally funded personnel
years. Unknown ongoing General Fund costs, depending on the
number of meals provided which are eligible for partial state
reimbursement.
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 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
AB 1594
Page 3
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.
"As mentioned previously, state law does not require charter
AB 1594
Page 4
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."
AB 1594
Page 5
Previous legislation: AB 2954 (Liu) of 2006, allowed charter
school authorizers to require charter schools to provide free
and 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.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE :
"Pupil nutrition is profoundly important, but so also is the
fundamental premise of charter schools that they be free from
large portions of the voluminous state Education Code.
"I am reluctant to erode the independence and flexibility that
have well served the families and teachers who choose charter
schools."
AB 1594
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0005986