Summary#
S-10693, called Firefighter Joseph P. Spor Jr.’s Law, would amend New York’s Education Law by adding a new section. Its stated goal is to establish September 11 awareness curriculum or instruction for school districts.
- Within one year after the law takes effect, the state education commissioner must establish curriculum or instruction about the September 11, 2001 attacks and their ongoing effects, consulting any appropriate agency.
- The curriculum or instruction must cover six themes, including the attacks, the response and recovery, post-9/11 global challenges, and examples of heroism and service.
- The content may vary among districts. The Education Department must post curriculum materials and other available resources for voluntary use by schools.
- Schools may place the curriculum or instruction in social studies or deliver it in another way they choose. The bill does not clearly state that each district must teach it.
The bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Rules Committee; it is not law. The current Education Law was not supplied, so its overlap with existing requirements could not be verified.
What it means for you#
- Schools and school districts: The commissioner would have to establish the curriculum or instruction. Schools may choose how to include it, but the bill does not clearly require each school to deliver it.
- Students and families: The material is intended to address the attacks and their continuing significance. Educational resources used must be age-appropriate, factually accurate, and from reputable sources. The bill does not create a separate student benefit or right.
- Schools using online resources: The Education Department must make available materials and other available resources for voluntary use.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.
- The bill assigns duties to the commissioner and Education Department, but gives no staffing or spending estimate and makes no appropriation.
- It does not set fees, fines, or a new tax.
- If enacted, it would take effect on July 1 after the date it becomes law. The commissioner’s one-year deadline would run from the section’s effective date.
What is unclear#
- Whether schools must teach the curriculum is unclear: the bill requires the commissioner to establish it for districts, but says schools may include it and calls the website resources voluntary.
- The bill does not set lesson plans, instructional time, grade levels, or how the curriculum will be used in each district.
- It does not define “reputable sources” or explain who decides whether materials meet the age-appropriateness and accuracy requirements.
- The bill does not explain how the commissioner will consult other agencies or how the curriculum will be reviewed or updated.
- Its cost, staffing needs, and relationship to current state or district curriculum requirements are not stated.
Case for#
- The bill appears intended to give schools a state-established set of themes for teaching about the attacks and their aftermath.
- Requiring age-appropriate, factually accurate resources from reputable sources could help guide what schools use.
- Allowing districts to vary the content and choose how to include it could leave room for local needs and existing course structures.
Case against#
- The bill does not clearly say whether districts must teach the curriculum, which could leave its reach uncertain.
- It requires the commissioner to establish curriculum or instruction but does not set detailed rules for content, teaching time, or oversight.
- The bill gives no cost or staffing estimate, so the resources needed to establish the curriculum and website materials are unknown.
- Allowing districts to vary the content could mean students receive different instruction, though the bill does not state how much variation is expected.