Federal School Nutrition Programs, Free and Reduced-Price Meals.
The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) are child nutrition programs funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture). The NSLP and the SBP are designed to promote the health and well-being of children by providing nutritionally balanced, low-cost or no-cost meals to children each school day. The NSLP and the SBP are administered in Washington by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), and both programs provide reimbursements to school districts for served meals that meet federal requirements.
Household applications submitted by families to schools are used to determine student eligibility for free or reduced-price meals (FRPMs). To qualify for free school meals, a student's family income must be at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Students whose families have an income between 130 percent and 185 percent of the FPL are eligible for reduced-price meals. Students whose families earn more than 185 percent of the FPL pay full price, but the meals are federally subsidized to some extent.
The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act provides an alternative to household applications for FRPMs by allowing schools with high numbers of low-income students to serve free meals to all students. A school, group of schools, or school district is eligible for the CEP if at least 40 percent of its students are identified as eligible for free meals through means other than household applications.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (P.L. 116-127), federal legislation adopted in 2020 and subsequently extended, allowed states, through a waiver issued by the Department of Agriculture, to provide meals at no charge to all students, regardless of family income, though the 2021-22 school year. Federal provisions authorizing states to provide meals at no charge to all students during the school year have expired.
Program of Basic Education.
The state's program of basic education is defined in statute as that which is necessary to provide students with the opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to meet state-established high school graduation requirements. Those requirements are intended to allow students to have the opportunity to graduate with a meaningful diploma that prepares them for postsecondary education, gainful employment, and citizenship.
The minimum components of the instructional program of basic education include multiple education requirements, student transportation requirements, and statewide salary allocations necessary to hire and retain qualified staff for the state's statutory program of basic education.
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
In addition to its constitutional charge of supervising all matters pertaining to public schools, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and its office have numerous and broad responsibilities prescribed in statute, including:
Learning Assistance Program.
The Learning Assistance Program (LAP) supports the provision of supplemental instruction and services for students who are not meeting academic standards, a term defined to mean students with the greatest academic deficits in basic skills as identified by statewide, school, or district assessments or other performance measurement tools.
The state provides two types of funding allocations for the LAP: a general LAP allocation, and an additional high poverty-based allocation for qualifying schools. School districts and schools qualify for one or both allocations based on prior years' percentages of students who qualify for FRPMs.
National Board Certification Bonuses.
Teachers and other certificated instructional staff (CIS) who have attained certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (National Board) are eligible for a state-funded bonus for each year they maintain the certification. A qualifying CIS who holds a valid certificate from the National Board for the duration of the 2022-23 school year will receive a bonus of $6,019.
An additional state-funded annual bonus of $5,000 is paid to each qualifying CIS with a valid National Board certificate and an instructional assignment in a qualifying high poverty school. "High poverty schools" are designated in rule by the SPI and must meet threshold requirements for the percentage of students who are eligible for FRPMs.
Providing All Public School Students with Access to Meals Served Without Charge.
Beginning with the 2023-24 school year, each school district, a term that includes charter schools and state-tribal compact schools, must provide breakfast and lunch each school day to any student who requests a breakfast, lunch, or both. The school district must provide the meals at no charge to the student and without consideration of the student's eligibility for a federally reimbursed FRPM. The provided meals must be nutritiously adequate and qualify for reimbursement under the NSLP or the SBP, and students are not eligible for more than one meal in a meal service period.
The obligation to provide meals at no charge to requesting students is made part of the state's statutory program of basic education, effective July 1, 2025.
Beginning with the 2023-24 school year, school districts are required to participate in the NSLP and the SBP and to continue collecting FRPM eligibility applications. The OSPI must reimburse school districts on a per-meal reimbursement basis for meals that are not already reimbursed at the Department of Agriculture free rate. The additional state reimbursement amount must be the difference between the Department of Agriculture's free rate and its paid rate.
The SPI must adopt and periodically revise rules to implement requirements obligating school districts to provide meals at no charge to requesting students. Until the 2025-26 school year, the SPI may exempt school districts from the requirements to provide meals at no charge to all requesting students if the district shows good cause for not being able to comply with the requirements.
School districts must continue collecting meal applications where applicable and run direct certification at least monthly. Additionally, school districts must annually monitor data for eligibility in the CEP and apply where eligible.
Related Provisions and Amendments.
Numerous changes are made to align statutory provisions with requirements obligating school districts to provide meals at no charge to requesting students. Examples include:
Funding Related Provisions.
Learning Assistance Program. Funding provisions for the LAP are modified as follows for the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years:
National Board Certified Teacher Bonuses. For the 2024-25 and 2025-26 school years, a qualifying CIS is eligible for the high poverty schools annual bonus of $5,000 if they are in an instructional assignment in a school that met the definition of high poverty school during the 2022-23 school year.
Funding Impacts Work Group.
The OSPI, by September 1, 2023, must convene a work group to identify and examine actual and potential impacts to education programs funded by the state, including the LAP, resulting from requirements obligating school districts to provide meals at no charge to requesting students. The work group must also recommend actions for avoiding or mitigating identified impacts. Staff support for the work group must be provided by the OSPI.
The work group must, at a minimum, include representatives of school districts and persons with relevant expertise in state-funded education programs. The work group must meet at least monthly and provide a report of findings and recommendations to the appropriate committees of the Legislature by June 30, 2024.
The substitute bill changes the original bill by:
(In support) Food is health. Providing free school meals is the most effective way to ensure that kids get the food they need to thrive. About 700,000 students have benefited in Washington from recent changes to meal program participation requirements, but the Legislature should not stop there. The pandemic showed us that schools can feed all children and reduce hunger.
The federal income requirements for free and reduced-price meals do not vary within the state, so families earning $52,000 must pay student meal costs. School meal costs are significant for families just above the income eligibility requirements.
This bill is a good idea that recognizes current circumstances and the long hours that kids spend at schools. Children cannot learn effectively when they are hungry. Policymakers should ensure that all Washington students have the nutrition they need and the meals they deserve.
Families experience hardships, and this bill will help. Students should not be burdened by the circumstances of their parents. This bill addresses an equity issue and will allow school meal staff to focus on meal preparation, not operating cash registers.
The bill creates a work group to identify issues resulting from the provision of no-charge meals to students, and this will be helpful for stakeholders.
Healthy meals are foundational to learning. The universal meals program that started during the COVID-19 pandemic was very successful and more students received school meals. Students had more time for meals and socialization when they no longer navigated a payment system. The bill addresses funding around the Learning Assistance Program and this is appreciated.
Surveys by the State Board of Education indicate that elementary school students support free meals for all. This bill will support the whole child and provide adequate nutrition for intellectual development.
Less than half of qualifying students are participating in free meals. When students dine together, they are building community. The law compels students to attend school and should compel districts to feed students. Free meals stigma is real, especially with middle and high school students.
Child hunger is a real problem with widespread impacts. Children who are hungry are more likely to be truant, have academic difficulties, and repeat a grade. This bill is not about helping students and families that don't need supports, it's about helping those that do. Children who are hungry carry a stigma and a hunger in their belly, but this bill can help with both of those issues.
(Opposed) Schools are partners with communities and parents and schools need to stay in their own lane. Parents are responsible for feeding children, not schools. We have options to feed children if parents cannot do so. This bill undermines the goal of creating independent, self-reliant children. Kids that need food are being fed, it's not the role of the state to feed them.
The Appropriations Committee recommends the following changes:
(In support) Nutritious food is how we protect children's health and help them learn and grow. Spending time on a student's academic growth will help little if the student is hungry. Providing summer meals during the pandemic showed that childhood hunger could be reduced. This substitute bill focuses on our youngest learners and moves things forward. This policy is also a tax credit for working families. The cost of food has increased, forcing families to make tough decisions. It should not require a pandemic to feed hungry children. Meals should be locally sourced when practical.
This is an excellent bill. Pairing down the cost is appreciated so that the bill can be fully funded. Universal meals have full support, but there are understandably many budget priorities being considered. The substitute bill moves the conversation forward. Consider re-adding the work group in the original bill.
The original version of the bill would end hunger at school, allowing all children to eat meals at school without worry or stigma. Free meals are good for many positive reasons. The price tag is the only drawback. This substitute proposes a simple and targeted way to help those most in need, young students that are still developing and attend higher poverty schools.
Working with families in crisis shows the impact that food insecurity can have. The State Superintendent highlighted that students cannot learn when they are hungry. The policy ensures students get the food they need without the stigma. It protects the confidentiality of students that qualify for free and reduced-price meal (FRPM) status.
School districts support the bill. The Sumner-Bonney Lake School District, which is not eligible for the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), saw a significant drop in meals this year when free meals were discontinued. Students have to ask staff for food or money, or simply go without eating. Students from working families that do not meet the criteria for FRPMs are also impacted. Remove the barrier of hunger. Providing free meals removes financial stigma, the possibility of student debt, and other things that lead to student shaming. It will help middle income families that are dealing with the rising costs of basic goods. It will create more jobs in schools. Franklin Pierce is a CEP district, and providing free meals allows staff to make a connection with students without having to discuss money. Kids have enough to worry about without worrying about money, something they have no control over. The Edmonds School District has one-third of students qualify for FRPMs, which does not qualify for CEP. Students eligible for FRPMs will skip meals to avoid being stigmatized. The state should pick up the gap left by federal funding. Feeding more kids means more dollars into Washington farms and other parts of the local economy.
It would be difficult to make it through a workday distracted by hunger pains. There are children at school dealing with hunger right now. A family of four that makes $50,000 a year does not qualify for FRPMs. Hunger has a cost for children and society in the form of health issues, depression, and learning problems. Children that have the nutrition they need have better outcomes and limit the downstream social costs.
Educators support the bill because many students will be positively impacted. Expanding meals, reducing stigma, eliminating debt, and removing barriers are all good things. Schools participating will collect less FRPM data, which is used to fund other state programs focused on higher poverty schools. The work group should be re-added to address the policy's impact on programs based on FRPM data.
This bill decreases food insecurity. While the fiscal note is high, the return on investment is immeasurable. When hungry, it is hard to learn, participate in activities, or make friends. School meals are often the healthiest meals a student can access. Hunger is tied to future economic outcomes and health outcomes, like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. This is a significant step and can change lives.
The initial decision package from the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) requested free meals for all students, and OSPI appreciates the continued work of the Legislature toward this goal. Free meals provide savings to families. A family of four making $52,000 with two children attending elementary school will spend $1,800 per year on school meals. This policy will save them money.
(Opposed) The only reason for being against the bill is that the money for it comes from taxpayers. They are taxed enough already. The need for meals is there, but there should be enough money to cover this without impacting taxpayers.