Executive Summary
A.   Assembly L.A.D.D.E.R.
B.   Principles
C.   Recommendations—Summary of Multi-Year Plan
I.    Pre-Kindergarten
II.   Kindergarten
III.  Class Size
IV.  Professional Development
V.    Infrastructure and Technology

Executive Summary

New York State’s commitment to providing a quality education for its children is long and illustrious. For generations, our schools have served as incubators for countless students who have gone on to make their mark, not only in their communities, but throughout the state, the nation and the world.

As proud as New York’s educational history is, our schools are at a critical crossroads. Without question, our children still have the talent and enthusiasm required to meet the increased demands of modern society, and our teachers still possess the skills necessary to equip them for that challenge. But in too many of our schools, both must now compete with an array of obstacles that frustrate educational productivity. If our goal is to make New York’s the strongest public education system in the nation once again, we must embark now on a comprehensive, multi-year education initiative to secure a brighter future for all our children.

Every child is born with a natural desire to learn. Each has limitless energy, creativity and the belief that they can attain anything. But today, for many of New York’s children, that appetite for knowledge falls victim to the myriad issues confronting their schools and society.

For some of our children, this innate desire to learn has lost its edge even before they enter the schoolhouse door. While countless studies have documented the lifetime benefit that is provided by early education, too many of New York’s children fail to receive the early education experience they need to begin school with the social and cognitive skills necessary for a successful journey through our educational system.

Barriers exist for many of our best-prepared children as well. Although New York’s skilled teachers impart an energy and commitment that is commendable, often times children are struggling to learn against a reality that includes crowded, under-equipped classrooms in outdated and dilapidated facilities.

Simply, our educational system is failing to match our children’s natural enthusiasm for learning.

There is clearly too much at stake to allow any of New York’s children to fall through the cracks of our educational system. Our schools must not only meet, but exceed, their highest expectations, furnishing every child with the tools he or she needs to reach their potential. To achieve this goal, we must endeavor to provide every student with a classroom that fosters learning; a classroom that challenges, inspires and draws out their best talents.

Our first step must be a dramatic one. Our children’s education is too critical to the future success of this state not to focus our collective efforts on leveling the playing field for all children; to alter fundamentally each child’s educational destiny. Our challenge is to achieve nothing less than a new standard of excellence in New York’s schools.

This effort is crucial, not only to our children’s educational and economic future, but to our state’s economic stability. The two are forever linked. New York’s competition is no longer just Connecticut, New Jersey and North Carolina, but Taiwan, Singapore, China and the European Community in the changing global economy. In order for New York to meet the challenges of the rapidly changing world marketplace, we must first have a well- trained, well-educated workforce equipped for that effort.

The questions that define our challenge are simple. Will our schools provide students the knowledge and the skills they require to answer the demands of the new economy? Will they find their place in the workforce of the world marketplace of the 21st century?

Without question, an essential ingredient to New York’s economic future must be strengthening the educational tools available to every New York child, as early in life as possible. To reach that objective, we must follow a comprehensive vision for quality education that provides every New York child equal access to every educational possibility, from early childhood to graduation. That means providing the time-proven benefits of early education and full-day kindergarten to every child; reducing class size to alleviate the stress of crowded classrooms and their overburdened teachers; building upon the Board of Regents' ongoing efforts to raise standards, and; making certain that children walk into buildings and classrooms that are safe, modern showpieces equipped for the 21st century instead of crumbling relics of the 19th century.

This ambitious undertaking will require a significant commitment of resources. But, truth be told, New York cannot afford not to increase our investment in our children’s education.

A. Assembly L.A.D.D.E.R. Education Plan

The Assembly Majority has developed a comprehensive, five-year initiative to provide each New York child the educational experience he or she must receive as a strong foundation for future educational and economic success.

Our five-year plan, L.A.D.D.E.R., (Learning, Achieving and Developing by Directing Educational Resources), is a thorough, step-by-step approach to strengthening our educational system.

We begin by offering pre-kindergarten to every four-year-old in New York. We follow up by extending full-day kindergarten to every school district in the state. We will reduce class size from kindergarten through grade three, with the ultimate goal of classes of no more than 20 students throughout New York by the year 2001. LADDER also includes a multi-year effort to address pressing infrastructure and construction needs in school districts throughout this state, and provides for increased aid for textbooks and computer technology for every New York school. Finally, we underscore our commitment to our teachers by providing funding for programs that strengthen their professional development.

This comprehensive initiative increases New York’s share of state aid for education by $5.5 billion during the next five years, raising the state share of support of public education to 44 percent, the highest level of spending since 1988.

LADDER does not spend resources on luxuries. It addresses the pressing educational needs of our children, and ensures that state aid and local property taxes are spent effectively.

The plan:

• Places no new mandates on School Districts or parents;
• Ensures that each component of the LADDER plan is matched by a strong financial commitment from the state and requires local approval; and
• Relies on the Board of Regents to ensure that educational resources are spent wisely and targeted directly to children in the classroom.
  

B. Principles

The LADDER plan is premised on the following guiding principles:

• All children must enter school ready to learn;
• New York State must achieve a world-class education system;
• New York’s education system must result in a highly-educated and skilled workforce;
• All education programs must be governed by uniform quality standards which challenge all children to learn, develop and achieve their greatest potential and which demonstrate quantifiable positive outcomes with regard to educational success as well as future success;
• Every education program must contain adequate mechanisms to encourage parents as partners;
• New York State must increase its financial commitment to education in order to relieve the pressure of local property taxes;
• The professional development of New York’s teachers must be a priority;
• New York State schools must be fully-equipped with technology to better prepare students for the demands of the 21st century economy, and afford teachers an enhanced teaching environment; and
• The learning environment must be physically adequate, safe and conducive to meeting these principles.

C. Recommendations Summary of Multi-Year Plan

Restore State Commitment:

• The Assembly plan will spend $5.5 billion and return the State share of support for public education to historic levels by 2001. Slow growth in State aid has eroded the State’s share of overall education spending from 44% to under 37.8% under Governor Pataki. The Assembly program will increase the State’s share to approximately 40% this year and increase it to 44% by 2001, the highest level of state spending since 1988.
• The Assembly plan will ensure that every school district in New York State receives a significant increase in education aid to better meet the needs of all children.
• In 1997-98, State Aid will increase by $979.5 million over the 1996-97 school year, a 9.23% increase.
• In 1998-99 and beyond, State Aid will increase by approximately $1 billion per year and provide average annual increases of more than 8% per year. The Governor’s proposed aid increase, which will total $1.7 billion by year five of his STAR proposal, falls significantly short of the $2.6 billion needed just to maintain the current level of services, when adjusted for inflation and enrollment growth. This plan will allow the state to reach the goal of providing 37% of total state aid to New York City.

Pre-Kindergarten for Every New York Child:

The Assembly plan recommends that Pre-kindergarten programs be made available to all 4 year olds and earmarks $1 billion by 2001-2002. Funding will be available for all districts which chose to participate. The state will provide nearly 90% of the funding for this effort.

Full-Day Kindergarten Throughout New York State:

The Assembly plan earmarks $60 million to provide full-day kindergarten for all school district students by the 2001-02 school year. School Aid caps will be removed to encourage all districts to participate, but is not a mandate on parents or school districts.

Reduce Class Size:

The Assembly plan recommends that class sizes in kindergarten through third grade be reduced to 20 students per class by 2001-02 and earmarks $445 million to support this initiative. The state will provide 100% of the funding for this effort.

Textbooks and Computers:

• The Assembly plan recommends increased funding for Textbook Aid and provides $228 million, quadrupling the State’s current level of support.
• The Assembly plan recommends an increased financial commitment for the development and implementation of school technology by increasing computer software and hardware aid by $83 million (which quadruples the State’s current level of support); allowing for increased technological advancements through the Bond Act and other aid enrichments, and by increasing funding for professional development by $50 million.

Safe Schools:

School safety and extended day initiatives which ensure safe children, safe teachers and safe schools are a priority and an additional $50 million is earmarked by 2001-02.

Included in this amount is funding to support school bus safety initiatives.

Professional Development:

Staff development efforts will be crucial to enabling students to meet the higher standards outlined by the Board of Regents and the objectives of the LADDER plan. The Assembly proposal provides $50 million to support new staff development initiatives, in addition to restoring funding for Teacher Centers and other existing programs which support teacher training.

Infrastructure:

The Assembly plan will ensure that all schools have increased resources to address infrastructure problems, including the need for new capacity, aging and deteriorating buildings as well as minor maintenance. To address these pressing concerns, this plan provides for a $2 billion Bond Act, an enriched building aid formula that will increase the state’s commitment to reimburse debt service on bonds that are locally approved and increases aid by 50% and a new financial commitment of $250 million for minor maintenance and repairs.

Real Property Tax Relief:

The LADDER plan will reverse the trend of shifting state obligation onto the hard-pressed middle-class real property taxpayers. By increasing the State’s commitment to education, the LADDER plan will significantly offset the property tax burden. When the program is adopted, the State will again act in partnership with localities, instead of passing costs on to local taxpayers.

I. Pre-Kindergarten

Goal:

To provide every New York child with the opportunity to participate in high-quality pre-kindergarten programs (which are not a mandate on either parents or school districts) funded primarily by New York State and which meet stringent state standards. The State will provide approximately 90 percent of the funding for all approved programs.

Population Affected:

The focus of the early childhood program will be children who will be 4 years of age on or before December 1, 1997 and each year thereafter. It is estimated that by year 2001-2002, nearly 200,000 new children will be participating in this program. This initiative is not a mandate on parents or school districts, but is designed to provide the funding for districts to provide Pre-kindergarten programs.

Standards:

Funding will be based on the following statutory guidelines and accompanying rules to be promulgated by the State Board of Regents.

Every Pre-Kindergarten Program shall:

• Provide age and developmentally appropriate curriculum which includes but is not limited to minimum daily and weekly time requirements as well as other comprehensive services which the Regents deem appropriate and necessary;
• Provide development of language, cognitive and social skills;
• Provide appropriate maximum class-size standards to achieve optimal results;
• Encourage children to be self-assured and independent;
• Utilize highly-qualified teachers and staff and promote continual professional development. The Regents shall establish standards and transitional rules to deal with existing programs;
• Encourage strong parental partnerships;
• Require collaborative efforts between school districts, day care providers, Head Start programs, community-based organizations, businesses and other groups which provide quality child care services;
• Encourage co-location and integration of children with special needs; and
• Ensure a continuity of educational opportunities to link children between pre-kindergarten and elementary grades to enhance long-term success.

Mechanism:

This program is designed to provide all school districts with financial incentives to provide high quality pre-kindergarten programs. Districts who decide to participate will be eligible to receive funding which is sufficient to cover up to 20% of the eligible children in the first year and an additional 20% in each year thereafter. By the fifth year, each district choosing to participate will have sufficient resources to serve all eligible children.

Local Involvement:

• Each school district will form a Pre-Kindergarten Policy Board composed of Board members, administrators, teachers, parents, community leaders and existing child care providers. Each Board shall make specific recommendations for the identification and implementation of pre-kindergarten programs in each district;
• School districts may engage in cooperative arrangements with other school districts to meet these objectives;
• In the development of this plan, districts shall conduct public hearings; and
• Upon completion of the process, each school district must either adopt or reject the local plan developed by the Pre-kindergarten Policy Board. Each district participating in the program shall report to the State Board of Regents, the Commissioner of Education, parents, teachers and the public on an annual basis regarding the implementation of this program.

Grant Awards:

Each district which adopts a plan to provide pre-kindergarten programs and receives state funding, will develop or coordinate proposals for the provision of pre-kindergarten programs in each district.

• Proposals which meet all statutory guidelines and Regent standards shall be reviewed by the State Education Department (SED). Applicants not included in a school districts’ application must receive written notice from the district stating the reasons why an applicant was not included. A review process by SED will be established for entities which are not included in a districts’ applications, but otherwise meet all programmatic criteria.
• When developing proposals, consideration shall be given to those proposals which encourage innovative methods for serving the target population, taking into account physical capacity for providing services in an expeditious manner and which address the pre-kindergarten needs of each districts’ children.

Funding:

Funding shall be available for the following activities:

• Operation of an approved pre-kindergarten program;
• Upon approval of the school district, up to 10% of program costs can be used for start up costs, including capital improvements necessary to operate a pre-kindergarten program; and
• Approved pre-kindergarten programs may provide for transportation, provided it is done pursuant to the strict safety standards established by the Regents.

Total funding for the five-year plan will be as follows:

     YEAR 1 (1997-1998) $200 million, 40,000 children
     YEAR 2 (1998-1999) $400 million, 80,000 children
     YEAR 3 (1999-2000) $600 million, 120,000 children
     YEAR 4 (2000-2001) $800 million, 160,000 children
     YEAR 5 (2001-2002) $1 billion, 200,000 children

Regent Assessment and Annual Review:

The Regents shall provide:

• An annual review and report of all pre-kindergarten programs; and
• Recommendations to the Legislature on ways to improve this program.

Outside Evaluation:

The commissioner shall provide for an independent evaluation to assess the short and long-term effects and performance of these programs.

Investment Returns of Pre-Kindergarten Programs:

The long-term educational benefits to children enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs have been clearly documented. Participation in a high-quality preschool program helps children develop social and pre-academic skills that will help them succeed in kindergarten and throughout their educational experiences. These children enter the school system ready to learn and develop their full potential. The experience of pre-kindergarten programs and federally administered Head Start programs bear out the fact that early education is the most critical educational investment that can be made.

Children of every socio-economic background are affected by the underachievement that results from the lack of pre-kindergarten opportunities:

“Make no mistake about it: underachievement is not just a crisis of certain groups. It is not limited to the poor; it is not a problem afflicting other people’s children. The fact is, two out of three school dropouts in the United States are not poor at the time they leave school, and most children who drop out have never been poor”. (Carnegie Corporation of New York, Years of Promise, 1996)

Children who participate in a high quality pre-kindergarten program are:

• More likely to enter elementary school ready to learn;
• More likely to score higher in reading, writing and math; and
• More likely to achieve academic success on a long-term basis.
  

II. Kindergarten

Goal:

To provide all children with the opportunity to attend full-day kindergarten programs by the year 2001.

Population Affected:

By the 2001-2002 school year, all five-year-olds who are eligible to attend kindergarten will have access to a full-day kindergarten program. This initiative is not a mandate on parents or school districts. It is designed to provide all children with the opportunity to attend full-day kindergarten.

Overview:

There are approximately 63,000 children in half-day kindergarten programs, and 230,600 in full-day programs.

Mechanism:

Funding will be provided through school aid on a current year basis outside of the transition aids for the full-day programs, and will become part of a district's base aid in future years.

Local Involvement:

Each school district currently not offering full-day kindergarten programs to all its children will:

• hold a public hearing;
• adopt or reject full-day kindergarten; and
• report their decision to the Regents.

Funding:

Total state funding will be as follows:

     YEAR 1 (1997-1998) $12 million, 13,000 children
     YEAR 2 (1998-1999) $24 million, 26,000 children
     YEAR 3 (1999-2000) $36 million, 39,000 children
     YEAR 4 (2000-2001) $48 million, 52,000 children
     YEAR 5 (2001-2002) $60 million, 65,000 children

Regent Assessment and Annual Review:

The Regents will require a review of the number of programs progressing from half to full-day kindergarten.

Investment Returns of a Full-Day Kindergarten Program:

The long-term educational value of full-day kindergarten has been well documented. Attendance in full-day kindergarten results in academic and social benefits for students as they enter the primary grades (Rothenberg, 1995).

Several studies have also documented that many parents favor a full-day program because it reduces the number of transitions their children experience in a typical day (Rothenberg, 1995).

When comparing full day students to half-day students, those that participated in a full day program:

• Exhibited more independent thinking;
• Were more likely to approach the teacher; and
• Expressed less anger, withdrawal and shyness.
  

III. Class Size

Goal:

To improve classroom performance by reducing class size in grades K-3 to 20 students per class.

Population Affected:

Students and teachers who are in K-3 classes with greater than 20 students.

Mechanism:

Local school districts will be provided with financial incentives for both operating and capital assistance to reduce class size to 20 students for grades K-3.

Local Involvement:

• Each participating school district will adopt a five-year plan based on a future pledge of state aid;
• By resolution of their School Board, schools districts may choose not to participate;
• Each participating school district will hold at least one public hearing on the plan; and
• Each participating school district will provide written notification of the plan to the Regents and to the public.

Components:

• Each district will establish five-year targets for kindergarten through third grade with the goal of reducing the number of children per classroom to 20 by year five;
• Total cost by year-five (2001-2002) of $445 million; and
• Participation in class size reduction plans will be at the option of school districts.

Funding:

Funding shall be as follows:

     YEAR 1 (1997-1998) $89 million, 26,000 children
     YEAR 2 (1998-1999) $178 million, 52,000 children
     YEAR 3 (1999-2000) $267 million, 78,000 children
     YEAR 4 (2000-2001) $356 million, 104,000 children
     YEAR 5 (2001-2002) $445 million, 130,000 children

Regent Assessment and Annual Review:

• It shall be the responsibility of the Commissioner of Education to provide for an annual assessment and review of participating school districts’ efforts to achieve the class size goal by year five; and
• The Commissioner shall make a report to the Legislature pertaining to the progress of participating school districts, as well as any further recommendations.

Investment Returns on Class Size:

New York is unfortunately moving in the wrong direction. While class size is going down nationally, it is increasing in New York.

Smaller classes provide opportunities for teachers to focus on individual needs and opportunities for students to actively participate. Also, smaller classes pose fewer problems of classroom management while fostering higher morale among teachers and students.

Several recent studies have documented the benefits of smaller classes in grades K-3:

The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early Grades (1985, 1989), found that students in smaller classes performed better than those in larger classes. Smaller classrooms resulted in an improvement in both primary learning and later grades, including dramatic improvement in both reading and math scores.

In the Indiana State Prime Time Study (1981), reduced class size resulted in increased student achievement, increased teacher productivity and a drop in disciplinary problems.

A comprehensive study by Frederick Mosteller of Harvard University (Quality Counts, “Education Week”, January 22, 1997) analyzing the condition of schools in all fifty states showed that students in smaller classes achieve at a significantly higher level than students in larger classes.

IV. Professional Development

Goal:

To provide support and educational development to teaching professionals to foster improvement in teaching skills.

Population Affected:

The teaching professionals of New York State schools.

Overview:

Teachers are the core of our educational system. A key component to children achieving higher standards is adequate resources for professional development.

• The key to higher achievement is to properly and sufficiently support the teachers who are educating and preparing our children for the 21st century.
• The Regents and the Commissioner have made raising standards a cornerstone of education reform in this State. It is important that teachers and staff receive the finest professional development in order to achieve the high goals we have set, including utilizing technology in their classrooms.
• To meet the requirements that the Regents will be setting as part of their standards and the transition rules under our pre-kindergarten proposal, there is a need to provide enhanced professional training for early education teachers.

Funding:

Additional funding totaling $50 million (in addition to continuing support of existing programs) will be added over a five-year period as follows:

     YEAR 1 (1997-1998) — $10 million
     YEAR 2 (1998-1999) — $20 million
     YEAR 3 (1999-2000) — $30 million
     YEAR 4 (2000-2001) — $40 million
     YEAR 5 (2001-2002) — $50 million

Components:

Besides the additional $50 million in funding, the plan:

• Restores critical professional development programs, including Teacher Centers and teacher Mentor Intern programs; and
• Supports the Regents' concept that professional training is needed for the proper implementation of higher standards and new student assessments.

The plan also supports and encourages the development of new initiatives which:

• Provide linkages to higher education to maximize utilization of the techniques our universities are developing;
• Improve access and replicate models of successful professional development;
• Focus on improving student achievement and helping students meet high academic standards; and
• Develop knowledge about good teaching and all that teaching encompasses, i.e., subject-matter expertise, knowledge of how children learn and develop, a range of teaching practices, student assessment and parental involvement. Investment Returns of Enhanced Professional Development:
• Teachers who have experienced valuable professional development assert it is essential for learning more effective teaching practices, increasing their knowledge base and improving student performance;
• While research has documented the many benefits of high quality professional development, it has been found that many existing teacher professional development activities are sorely inadequate, irrelevant, poorly designed and viewed as a low priority. (Education Commission of the States, The ABCs of Investing in Student Performance, 1996);
• Program quality depends first on staff quality, especially the quality of teachers and providers who are responsible for children’s daily program experiences. (Caldwell and Hilliard, 1985);
• A review of the research shows that the quality of staff is related to the quality of the training (Phillips, 1987); and
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that by the year 2000, the demand for preschool teachers will grow by 36% (Willer & Johnson, l989).
  

V. Infrastructure and Technology

Goal:

• To increase the capacity of the school system to address the need for additional space in the face of growing enrollment throughout New York State;
• To rehabilitate aging school facilities to ensure that every student has a school environment that is safe and conducive to learning;
• To help local school districts reach the important objective of lowering class size;
• To improve the learning environment within and surrounding schools by helping schools with the capital costs necessary to ensure the setting is safe including asbestos removal and indoor air quality;
• To provide increased access for every student to the latest in educational technology; and
• To provide funding for repair and major and minor maintenance of school facilities.

Population Affected:

All school districts that need funding to expand existing capacity, or that must rehabilitate and/or renovate existing buildings.

Overview:

In its 1995 Report of the Commission on School Facilities and Maintenance Reform, the Levy Commission documented “shocking conditions in our schools, such as collapsing building facades, thoroughly rusted support beams, falling masonry, precariously hung windows, and roof gables held together with wires” and “primitive operating conditions including the existence of manually-stoked coal-fired boilers in 343 schools”.

• In Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers, as well as in New York City, school systems are experiencing a facilities crisis, as a result of growing enrollment, aging facility stock and declining local support;
• Spending on new school construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance is not keeping pace with current educational needs, growing enrollment trends, or the need to replace and/or renovate obsolete school facilities;
• New York City is over capacity by 91,000 students (10%);
• Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Yonkers are experiencing overcrowding and steady enrollment growth;
• Across the state, school facilities are aging. The average facility age in Buffalo is 65 years, Yonkers 58 years, New York City 57 years, Rochester 56 years, and Syracuse 45 years; and
• The Regents and the Commissioner of Education have estimated that the state needs an additional $5 billion in funding above the current budget to meet school infrastructure needs.

Mechanism:

The Assembly program includes three components:

$2 Billion School Facility Health and Safety Bond Act

• State Assistance would account for 100% of project cost; and
• President Clinton’s new proposal of federal aid for school construction would be utilized to leverage additional funds.

        Eligible projects:

• Major structural repairs to protect health and safety; and
• Construction/reconstruction to expand capacity for districts experiencing high rates of enrollment growth.

        Eligible expenditures:

• Acquisition or improvements to real property;
• Design, planning, land and fixture acquisition, demolition, construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of school facilities;
• Electrical upgrades, wiring, and cabling installations for telecommunications connections; and
• Capital costs related to compliance with environmental regulations.

        Distribution:

• Through a procedure developed by the Regents pursuant to Legislative guidelines. Guidelines will include distribution on a priority basis, including: health and safety; capacity; technology; continued maintenance; and statewide allocation.

Increased Building Aid to School Districts

The state will increase its commitment to reimburse debt service on bonds that are locally approved. State aid to local school districts would increase by 50% for any approved financing for capital improvements commencing during the five-year LADDER program.

The plan would implement a regional cost-factor to better reflect costs throughout the State.

Minor Maintenance Fund

• A new commitment of $250 million over five years in grants to local school districts for minor maintenance and repairs.

Investment Returns of Infrastructure/Technology:

The relationship between the physical condition of school facilities and student achievement and behavior is well-documented:

• Building age is significant factor in reading scores (Burkhead, Fox, and Holland, l967, Michelson 1970, Guthrie 1971, McGuffey and Brown, 1978);
• A significant relationship exists between building age and academic achievement as measured by composite, mathematics and vocabulary scores (Chan, l978); and
• A positive correlation exists between student achievement on standardized test scores and the physical condition of their school (Edwards, l992 and Cash, l993).