Skip to content
Bills from the 2021–22 session

Assembly Bill 903

Programs for gifted and talented pupils. (FE)

Vetoed by the governor

Both chambers passed it, and the governor vetoed it on Apr 8, 2022. Lawmakers did not ⁠, so it stands.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jan 21, 2022

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Feb 22, 2022

  4. Senate vote, passed

    Passed 20 to 12

  5. Governor, stopped here

    Vetoed Apr 8, 2022.

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, May 17, 2022: “Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82”

Read the governor's veto message · All vetoes this session

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, each school board must ensure that pupils who have been identified as gifted and talented have access to a gifted and talented program. For purposes of this requirement, current law defines a “gifted and talented pupil" as a pupil enrolled in a public school who gives evidence of high performance capability in intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, or specific academic areas and who needs services or activities not ordinarily provided in a regular school program in order to fully develop such capabilities.

Under the bill, each school board must submit an annual report to the Department of Public Instruction that indicates whether the school board employs a gifted and talented program coordinator and, if it does, the amount of time the coordinator spends on the school board's gifted and talented program; the number of gifted and talented pupils enrolled in the school district who received services under a gifted and talented program; and certain demographic information for those pupils. The bill also requires DPI to annually post on DPI's Internet site all of the following information:

Read the full summary

1. For each school district: a) the number of pupils who were evaluated for and identified as a gifted and talented pupil; b) the number of pupils who received services under a gifted and talented program and certain demographic data regarding those pupils; c) whether the school district has complied with its duty to provide access to a gifted and talented program; d) the services and activities provided to pupils under the school district's program for gifted and talented pupils;

and e) whether the school district employs a gifted and talented program coordinator and, if it does, the amount of time the coordinator spends on the gifted and talented program.

2. For each gifted and talented program grant recipient, the services and activities that the entity provided to gifted and talented pupils.

3. The statewide pupil participation rate in advanced placement courses.

DPI also must notify the appropriate standing committees of the legislature that the information is available on DPI's Internet site.

Additionally, under the bill, DPI annually must audit at least 10 percent of school districts, which must be selected at random, for compliance with the requirements under current law and the bill. Finally, DPI must include in the school and school district accountability report, commonly known as school and school district report cards, DPI's determination of whether or not a school district complied with the state law requirements related to programs for gifted and talented pupils.

Under current law, the Department of Workforce Development awards workforce training grants, under what is commonly known as the Fast Forward Program, for various workforce training purposes. One of the purposes under current law is to provide grants for programs that train teachers and that train individuals to become teachers. This bill expands that purpose to explicitly include grants for providing professional development to teachers who serve gifted and talented pupils.

Who's behind it

8 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 8 are Republicans.

4 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 12 names

Authors (8)

Signed on in support (4)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There were 3 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Education vote to recommend it

Passed, 8 to 4 · Feb 17, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 8, Noes 4”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Education vote to recommend it

Passed, 4 to 3 · Mar 4, 2022

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 4, Noes 3”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 20 to 12 · Mar 8, 2022 · 1 didn't vote

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “CONCURRENCE”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. May 17, 2022

    The veto stood. Lawmakers didn't override it.

  2. Apr 8, 2022

    The governor vetoed it.

  3. Apr 4, 2022

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Mar 8, 2022

    The Senate passed it too, 20 to 12.

  5. Mar 4, 2022

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 4 to 3.

  6. Mar 2, 2022

    The committee held a public hearing.

  7. Feb 24, 2022

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Education.

  8. Feb 22, 2022

    The Senate received it.

  9. Feb 22, 2022

    The Assembly passed it.

  10. Feb 17, 2022

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  11. Feb 17, 2022

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 4.

  12. Feb 2, 2022

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  13. Feb 1, 2022

    The committee held a public hearing.

  14. Jan 31, 2022

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  15. Jan 21, 2022

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Education.

  16. Jan 21, 2022

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jan 21, 2022 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Petryk, Armstrong, Callahan, Dittrich, Edming, James, Krug and Novak; cosponsored by Senators Bernier, Darling and Felzkowski

  2. Jan 21, 2022 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Education

  3. Jan 31, 2022 · Assembly

    Representative Wichgers added as a coauthor

  4. Feb 1, 2022 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Feb 2, 2022 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Feb 2, 2022 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Feb 10, 2022 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 8, Noes 4

  9. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  10. Feb 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 2-22-2022 by Committee on Rules

  11. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  12. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  13. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  14. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  15. Feb 22, 2022 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  16. Feb 22, 2022 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  17. Feb 24, 2022 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Education

  18. Mar 2, 2022 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  19. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  20. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Education, Ayes 4, Noes 3

  21. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  22. Mar 4, 2022 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 3-8-2022 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  23. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Read a second time

  24. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  25. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  26. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 20, Noes 12

  27. Mar 8, 2022 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  28. Mar 9, 2022 · Assembly

    Received from Senate concurred in

  29. Mar 15, 2022 · Assembly

    Report correctly enrolled on 3-15-2022

  30. Apr 4, 2022 · Assembly

    Presented to the Governor on 4-4-2022 by directive of the Speaker

  31. Apr 8, 2022 · Assembly

    Report vetoed by the Governor on 4-8-2022

  32. May 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 5-17-2022 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)

  33. May 17, 2022 · Assembly

    Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82

Terms on this page

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Veto override

Lawmakers can still pass a bill the governor vetoed, but it takes two-thirds of each chamber.

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote