BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2491 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 11, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Julia Brownley, Chair AB 2491 (Blumenfield) - As Amended: March 29, 2012 SUBJECT : Pupil instruction: gifted and talented pupil program. SUMMARY : Prohibits a school district's application for a proposed gifted and talented (GATE) program to be approved by the State Board of Education (SBE), for a period of more than one year unless the application describes the process used by the school district to identify for eligibility in the program, pupils of ethnic minorities and pupils of diverse socio-economic status. EXISTING LAW: 1)Requires each applicant school district to submit an application for approval for a proposed GATE program to the SBE. The application shall be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). Applications shall be approved for a period of one, two, or three years, or denied, based on the quality of the plan, in accordance with criteria adopted by the SBE. Those criteria shall be reviewed by the board at least once every four years and shall address, but are not limited to, the elements of program design, identification, curriculum and instruction, social and emotional development, professional development, parent and community involvement, program assessment and budgeting. (Education Code 52212) 2)Requires the school district application to include budget information including separate data on identification and program costs, and any other data required by the SPI to administer and evaluate the program effectively. Each time a school district submits an application for renewal of its GATE authorization, the school district shall submit a program assessment in accordance with criteria adopted by the SBE. (Education Code 52212) 3)Authorizes the state to approve an application for a period of five years, if following a site validation of the application by the department, it determines that the district's program for GATE pupils is exemplary. (Education Code 52212) AB 2491 Page 2 4)Requires each district to use one or more of the following categories in identifying students for GATE: intellectual, creative, specific academic, or leadership ability; high achievement; performing and visual arts talent; or any other criterion that meets the standards set forth by the SBE; and, requires the school district's identification procedures are equitable, comprehensive, and ongoing. (Education Code 52202 & California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 3822) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : Background on GATE : According to the California Department of Education (CDE), the GATE program provides funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) to develop unique education opportunities for high-achieving and underachieving pupils in California public elementary and secondary schools who have been identified as gifted and talented. Special efforts are made to ensure that pupils from economically disadvantaged and varying cultural backgrounds are provided with full participation in these unique opportunities. LEAs may establish programs for GATE pupils consisting of special day classes, part-time groupings, and cluster groupings. GATE curricular components are required to be planned and organized as integrated differentiated learning experiences within the regular school day and may be augmented or supplemented with other differentiated activities related to the core curriculum, including independent study, acceleration, postsecondary education, and enrichment. For all programs for GATE pupils, including those programs for pupils with high creative capability and talents in the performing and visual arts, each participating LEA shall concentrate part of its curriculum on providing GATE pupils with an academic component and, where appropriate, with instruction in basic skills. GATE programs are operated in approximately 800 school districts located in all 58 counties. There are over 480,000 public school students that have been identified as gifted and talented in the state. According to the author, it is crucial that we provide an appropriate education for gifted children living in disadvantaged situations. While many parents can afford to provide extracurricular enrichment for their gifted children, AB 2491 Page 3 low-income parents lack the resources to provide these opportunities. If schools also lack the funds necessary to identify and appropriately educate our gifted low-income youth, the gifts and talents of these children may never be realized. The reasons are varied for the under-identification of gifted and talented students who are poor or don't speak English. Parents may be so stretched financially that opportunities for enrichment and development are almost non-existent, and school staff may base their judgments in part of the benefits of such enrichment. The focus on English language acquisition may obscure the recognition of high intelligence or talent. Cultural differences or poverty may preclude some parents from active involvement in the schools and from helping their children access appropriate programs. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has a large concentration of low-income and minority students and the GATE program is notoriously homogenous and concentrated in the higher-income student population, for various reasons including access and cultural differences. The goal of this bill is to encourage better integration of those students who are not in the GATE program but would otherwise qualify. Demographics in GATE : Below is a chart that illustrates the demographic differences between the general student population in California and the student population identified for GATE. The chart shows an over-identification of White, Asian and Filipino students and an under-identification of Hispanic and African American students in the GATE program state-wide. ------------------------------------------------- | |GATE Student | Statewide | | | Population | Student | | | | Population | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| |Hispanic or Latino | 30.6% | 51.4% | | | | | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| |White | 40.0% | 26.6% | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| |Asian | 17.8% | 8.5% | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| |Filipino | 4.3% | 2.6% | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| |African American | 4.0% | 6.7% | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| AB 2491 Page 4 |American Indian or | 0.6% | 0.7% | |Alaska Native | | | |-------------------+-------------+---------------| |Pacific Islander | 0.6% |0.6% | ------------------------------------------------- (Source: California Department of Education 2010-11 Data) Funding Flexibility : There are approximately 60 categorical programs that serve specific goals or specific programs. The fiscal year (FY) 2009-10 budget had an important impact on categorical programs. The budget agreement imposed a 20% reduction on 39 programs and gave local education agencies (LEAs) that received those funds in FY 2007-08 the flexibility to use the funds for any educational purposes from FY 2008-09 through FY 2012-13. This flexibility was extended to FY 2014-15 by SB 70 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2011. This reduction and flexibility provision is commonly known as "Tier 3" flexibility, which essentially gives LEAs $4.5 billion in additional unrestricted funds. Tier 1 protected four categorical programs from cuts and flexibility while 11 categorical programs sustained reductions but were given no flexibility under Tier 2. For Tier 3 funds, school districts receive their allocations for five years based on the applicable percentage the programs received in FY 2007-08. As a result, until 2015, LEAs are not required to justify or report average daily attendance (ADA) in order to receive the specified categorical funds. GATE is one of the categorical programs included in Tier 3 flexibility, therefore, districts are not required to submit an application to the CDE for approval. This mean AB 2491 would not be implemented until Tier 3 flexibility expires in 2014-15, or later if it is extended again. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support None on file. Opposition None on file. Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087 AB 2491 Page 5