Establishes a three-year pilot program to be known as the "learner engagement and attendance program of New York (LEAP-NY)" in certain school districts of the state.
This bill would create a three-year pilot program called the Learner Engagement and Attendance Program of New York (LEAP-NY) within the Education Law. The commissioner of education would select 15 participating school districts from among the 100 largest districts in the state outside New York City, using a competitive application process that weighs the severity of absenteeism, the district’s outreach plan, and its ability to track attendance and outcomes. The program is designed to address chronic absenteeism through targeted outreach, family engagement, case management, and connections to community-based supports.
Participating districts would be required to form learner engagement and attendance teams made up of trained staff and, where feasible, community partners. Those teams would intervene when students reach specified absence thresholds, including five consecutive unexcused absences or ten total unexcused absences in a semester or early in the school year. The bill directs teams to identify the underlying causes of absenteeism, such as transportation problems, housing or food insecurity, health or mental health needs, and caregiving responsibilities, and to develop written re-engagement plans for chronically absent students. The Education Department would provide training, technical assistance, and model protocols, and districts would have to report data on absenteeism and program activities. The program would sunset as a pilot, with interim and final reports used to determine whether it should be expanded statewide.
The bill amends the Education Law by adding a new section establishing LEAP-NY and creating new duties for the commissioner of education and selected school districts. It would not apply statewide immediately; instead, it authorizes a limited pilot in 15 large districts outside New York City, funded competitively and subject to appropriation. Affected districts would need to build or enhance attendance-tracking systems, create outreach teams, maintain referral directories for community services, and submit annual reports with disaggregated attendance and intervention data. The bill also encourages supportive interventions before truancy proceedings, child protective services, or law enforcement are considered.
The bill text and available context suggest a generally supportive, problem-solving approach focused on reducing chronic absenteeism through early intervention rather than punishment. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or floor debate to indicate broader political sentiment. The structure of the bill, including training, family engagement, and service referrals, reflects an emphasis on collaborative school-community responses to attendance problems.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the scope and cost of the pilot, the selection of only 15 districts from among the largest districts outside New York City, and the administrative burden of data collection, outreach teams, and reporting requirements. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s preference for supportive interventions and its instruction that referral to truancy proceedings, child protective services, or law enforcement occur only after an initial intervention fails. Some stakeholders may view that approach as appropriately restorative, while others may argue it limits enforcement tools. The bill also relies on future appropriation, which could raise concerns about funding certainty.