BILL ANALYSIS �
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