 |
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
Fifty-Fourth Legislature, Second Regular Session
pupils; unpaid school meal fees
Purpose
Prohibits a local education agency (LEA), school personnel or volunteers from shaming, disciplining or treating a pupil differently who is unable to pay for a school meal or has unpaid school meal fees. Prescribes parental and guardian notification policies and prohibits a debt collector from being used to collect unpaid school meal fees.
Background
The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) develops minimum nutrition standards that meet at least the federal guidelines and regulations for foods and beverages sold or served at an elementary, middle or junior high school during the normal school day. All elementary, middle and junior high schools are required to participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), except for a school district with fewer than 100 pupils (A.R.S. § 15-242).
Statute allows school districts offering instruction in grades 9 through 12 to adopt nutrition standards for high school campuses (A.R.S. § 15-242).
In 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture mandated that all school food authorities operating the NSLP and/or School Breakfast Program establish written policies to address situations where children participating at the reduced price or paid rate do not have money to cover the cost of a meal at the time of the meal service (USDA).
Accordingly, ADE promulgated guidelines for LEAs that prohibited them from including the following actions in their unpaid meal charge policies: 1) announcing or publicizing the names of children with unpaid meal charges; 2) requiring children with unpaid meal charges to use a different serving line; 3) using hand stamps, stickers, or other physical markers to identify children with unpaid meal charges; 4) sending clearly marked notices home with children who have an outstanding balance; 5) enlisting volunteers to request payment from a family with unpaid meal charges; 6) suggesting or requiring children with unpaid meal charges to work for a meal or to pay back debt; 7) throwing a child's meal in the trash if they are unable to pay; and 8) serving unappealing alternate meals as a strategy to embarrass children with unpaid meal charges (ADE).
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.
Provisions
1. Requires an LEA to ensure that a pupil, whose parent or guardian has not paid the pupil's school meal fees, is not shamed, treated differently or served a different meal under the LEA's policy.
2. Stipulates a school is not prohibited from serving an alternative meal to a pupil who requires a special meal for a dietary or religious reason.
3. Prohibits school personnel and volunteers at an LEA, serving meals meeting ADE nutrition standards to pupils during the instructional day, from disciplining a pupil in a manner that results in the denial or delay of a meal.
4. Prohibits a school from requiring a pupil to perform chores or do other work, who is unable to pay for a meal or owes unpaid school meal fees.
5. Requires an LEA to notify a parent or guardian within 10 days after the school meal account reaches a negative balance, only after all options and methods to directly certify the pupil for free or reduced-price meals have failed.
6. Directs, if the LEA is unable to directly certify the pupil for free or reduced-price meals, to:
a) provide the parent or guardian with a paper copy of or an electronic link to an application for free or reduced-price meals and notification of the negative balance; and
b) contact and encourage the parent or guardian to submit the application.
7. Prohibits an LEA from using a debt collector to collect unpaid school meal fees from a parent or guardian.
8. Prohibits the indefinite accrual of unpaid school meal fees.
9. Allows a school district governing board or a charter school governing body to establish a school meal fee debt fund consisting of donations or gifts for pupils' outstanding unpaid school meal fees.
10. Becomes effective on the general effective date.
Prepared by Senate Research
February 14, 2020
JO/gs