House Bill 302, titled the “Leave No Georgia Child Hungry Act,” would amend Georgia education law to create a statewide program providing free meals to public school students enrolled in after-school education programs or summer school programs. The bill directs the State Board of Education to determine annually how much state funding is needed for the program and to use those funds to supplement any available federal meal funds.
The bill also requires the State Board of Education to adopt rules setting minimum nutritional standards for these meals, at or above federal requirements, and to require participating local school systems to submit compliance plans. In addition, the Board would be tasked with helping school systems apply for start-up grant money. Local school systems are encouraged to establish such meal programs, and those that do would be reimbursed by the state subject to board rules and legislative appropriations.
Impact
HB302 would add a new Code section, O.C.G.A. § 20-2-187.1, within the education funding provisions of Title 20. It would create a state-supported reimbursement framework for free after-school and summer school meals, expand the State Board of Education’s rulemaking responsibilities, and potentially increase state education expenditures depending on appropriations and participation by local school systems. The bill would affect public school students in after-school and summer programs, local school systems operating those programs, and the State Board of Education.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed in strongly supportive terms focused on child nutrition and access to meals. The short title and structure suggest a policy goal of reducing food insecurity among schoolchildren. Because no vote history or transcript is available, there is no documented opposition or support from legislators in the provided record beyond the bill’s sponsor group and its affirmative policy framing.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be fiscal and administrative rather than ideological: the bill requires annual state funding determinations, reimbursement of local systems, and start-up grant assistance, all of which depend on appropriations by the General Assembly. Another possible issue is the bill’s use of the word “encouraged” for local school systems, which may raise questions about whether participation is mandatory or effectively optional, and how uniformly the program would be implemented across districts. No specific objections or supporters are recorded in the provided committee or vote materials.