School nutrition directors and child advocacy groups across Kansas are sounding the alarm about a state bill that they say would add unnecessary work for school staff and reduce the amount of funding available for at-risk students.
The bill initially required school districts to verify the household income of each student who qualifies for free meals under the National School Lunch Program. Federal law currently requires school districts to verify a random sample of whichever is lesser — 3% or 3,000 of their applicants for free or reduced-price meals.
Lawmakers have since amended the bill, so it shouldn’t prevent students from receiving free meals through the national program, and narrowed how many students are subject to income verification.
Another addition proposes that the state foot the bill for students’ copays if they qualify for reduced-price meals. But education stakeholders say implementing these provisions will be complicated.
Ruchi Favreau, the Kansas City, Kansas, Public Schools' nutrition director, said she hates to call the additional verification requirements a “herculean task,” because she’s said it’s even greater.
“If that is the case and we have that increased workload, we would need to hire additional clerical staff and compliance personnel to also collect, track, reconcile these documents,” Favreau said.
Leaders with Wichita Public Schools, the Shawnee Mission School District, Olathe Public Schools and the Manhattan-Ogden Unified School District voiced similar concerns in written testimony opposing the bill.
Funding for academically at-risk students
Sen. Doug Shane, a Republican from Louisburg, said the bill targets school finance following a state audit that estimated 54% to 72% of Kansas students who qualified for free lunch were likely ineligible in the 2023-24 school year.
As a result, the audit had what it called “important caveats” but estimated that the state likely overpaid schools for students identified as academically at-risk by about $38 million to $53 million in the 2023-24 school year.
Kansas provides additional funding specifically for students who meet at least one condition to be identified as at-risk, including not meeting grade-level standards, having a high rate of absenteeism, being homeless or being identified as an English language learner.
Shane’s bill looks at the number of students eligible for free meals because that figure is used as a proxy to determine the amount of at-risk funding each school district receives.
“The main issue that we were trying to get to is what's hopefully a relatively simple tool so that we can clean up our school finance, make sure that we're appropriately funding schools, but we're also putting it in the right places,” Shane said.
Shane said he understands why there were concerns about students’ access to meals and ramifications for districts based on the bill’s first language, but said the bill is in a better place now with its current amendments.
He said schools would now only have to verify the income of students who don’t directly certify for free lunch through other assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Shane said he doesn’t view the additional verification requirements as a “massive administrative burden.”
“Transparently, I think that it's being a little bit overplayed the amount of work that will go into this, especially when we think about refining it down to those students that would only be qualifying through income alone,” Shane said.
The bill's current language said students who don’t qualify through direct certification or provide written evidence of their household gross earned income may still submit an application and be eligible for the national school lunch program under federal law.
Frank Harwood, deputy commissioner of the Kansas State Department of Education’s division of fiscal and administrative services, said the intended outcome of this bill would allow school nutrition departments to only verify their typically required 3% of applications.
Outside of that process, all students who apply based on their income would be subject to verification for at-risk funding, Harwood said.
But Harwood said reality may play out differently because school nutrition departments can’t share with districts why a student is eligible for free or reduced-price lunches without parental permission.
There’s always been a disconnect between the number of students who qualify for free lunch and those who are considered at-risk, Harwood said. He said legislators had the same concerns about at-risk funding when approving a new school funding formula in 2017, but decided to consider using free lunch eligibility as a proxy.
“There was no overpayment in at-risk funds, because it's working the way it was supposed to work,” Harwood said. “If the legislature wants to look at how they distribute at-risk funds, they could make that decision, but you can't say that it's not working the way it is supposed to."
Concerns over regulation violations
Harwood and some lawmakers worry that conducting additional verification outside of the school lunch program and requiring legislative approval for schools to participate in another federal program for free meals violates U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations.
The Community Eligibility Provision program allows schools with a certain percentage of families that participate in federal assistance programs to offer free meals to all of their students.
Shane said requiring legislative approval is necessary because it lowers the threshold for evidence of income and impacts school finances — but he added that he would be willing to remove the provision because the bill’s original intent would still be there.
But Shane said he disagrees that requiring evidence of a student's income to be defined as at-risk would be a violation. While at-risk funding uses the same eligibility criteria as the free lunch program, he said they are distinct and separate programs.
Kansas City, Kansas, Public Schools began offering free meals to all of its students a few years ago through the Community Eligibility Provision. Favreau said schools already have to go through rigorous state and federal applications to participate in the program, and she doesn’t understand the need to duplicate oversight.
She said more kids in the district are eating school lunches and getting better grades since making the switch.
“It's as important as transportation. Kids can’t come learn if they don't have transportation,” Favreau said. “Kids can't learn without nourishing food, simply put.”
Fewer resources for students in need
The bill passed the Kansas Senate and was recommended on Wednesday to be passed as amended by the House Education Committee. The amendments include striking the requirement for school districts to get legislative approval before participating in the Community Eligibility Provision program.
It would also change the definition of an “at-risk student” in state statute to include students whose household gross earned income is less than 130% of the poverty level and those who are qualified for free meals through direct certification. Currently, it only includes students who are eligible for free meals.
Harwood said there’s yet to be any funding appropriated in either chamber’s budgets to cover copays for the state’s more than 34,000 students who qualify for reduced-price lunches.
Providing funding for free school meals was one of Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly's priorities this year, but she still opposes the bill.
Favreau worries that if the bill reduces at-risk funding for schools, it will shift resources away from students who need extra support. Students who aren’t low-income can still qualify for at-risk funding and rely on it for services including tutoring, counseling and after-school homework assistance.
Nutrition budgets already operate on lean margins. Favreau said to meet new requirements, districts may need to dip into their general funds, diverting money that could better student learning.
“I am so passionate about feeding our students, feeding our scholars in the state of Kansas,” Favreau said. “It just is so disheartening to see all these challenges when all we're trying to do is feed our kids.”
Shane said there may be some “temporary discomfort” if at-risk funding is reduced for school districts, but said lawmakers can better decide where those dollars go.
As Kansas prepares for the expiration of its current funding formula in 2027, Shane said he hopes they can find a better way to determine at-risk funding.
Leaders with Wichita Public Schools asked lawmakers to hold off on the bill until there are recommendations on a new funding formula, which could include a different proxy for at-risk funding. If not, they asked for a “hold harmless” year to allow schools to prepare.
