Swissvale Area School District v. Hoots Brief in Opposition

    COURT OF APPEALS 
STATE OF NEW YORK

BOARD OF EDUCATION, LEVITTOKN 
UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, 
NASSAU COUNTY, et al. ,

Plaintiffs-Respondents

BOARD OF EDUCATION,
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Respendents 

- against -

EWALD B. NYQUIST, Commissioner 
of Education, et al.,

Defendanfcs-Appellants.

BRIEF FOR THE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF THE 
CITY OF NEW YORK, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 
DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., AND THE NEW YORK 
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH 
CONGRESS AS AMICI CURIAS

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT III*
STEVEN L. WINTER
The NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

Attorneys for The Amici Curiae

PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON S. GARRISON
NANCY A. KILSON 

345 Park Avenue 
New York, New York 10154 
(212) 644-8000

Of Counsel to The NAACP Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Inc.

GALLET & DREYER
JEFFRY H. GALLET

42 Broadway,Suite 1701 
New York, New York 1000,4 
(212) 269-5566

Of Counsel to the New York Metropolitan 
Council of the American Jewish Congress

HURLEY, KEARNEY & LANE
KEVIN KEARNEY

32 Court Street 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
(212) 852-5900

Of Counsel to The Department of Education,
Diocese of Brooklyn

♦Member of the District of Columbia Bar



TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........ .........
THE INTEREST OF THE AMICI ..................
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................

A. The School Finance System Discrimi­
nates Against Urban Children .....

B. The Problems of Urban Schools Are
Disproportionately Problems of Minority Children ................

C. Poverty Creates Educational Disad­
vantage and Educational Overburden, 
Which Disproportionately Affect New York's Minority Children ..........

D. Reduced Aid to Cities Condemns
Minorities to Separate and Unequal Schools .......................

ARGUMENT ......................
1• THE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM DEPRIVES NEW

YORK'S MINORITY CHILDREN OF EQUALPROTECTION OF THE LAWS ................
A. The State's Equal Protection

Clause Accords Minority Children the Right to an Equal Education ___
B. The School System's Disparate Impact 

on Minority Children Was Forseeable 
and Foreseen, and Is Unjustified ...

C. The Disproportionate Racial Impact
Shown Here Justifies Intermediate Equal Protection Scrutiny .........

II. THIS SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM DEPRIVES
MINORITY CHILDREN OF THE OPPORTUNITIES
GUARANTEED BY THE EDUCATION ARTICLE ___

CONCLUSION

iii
2

4
6
8

8

Page

12

14

20

24

24

24

26

32

36
41

i



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Alevy v. Downstate Medical Center, 39 N.Y.2d
326 (1976) ..................................  33,34

Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 ( 1979) .......... 37
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing

Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) ......  7,27
Arthur v. Nyquist, 573 F.2d 134 (2d Cir.),

cert, denied, 439 U.S. 860 ( 1978) .......... 30
Berkelman v. San Francisco Unified School

District, 501 F .2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1974) .....  35,36
Board of Education v. Nyquist, 94 M.2d 466 

(Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 1978), aff'd as
modified, 83 A.D.2d 217 (2d Dep't 1981) .....  passim

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483
(1954) ......................................  2,3,25

Brown v. Board of Education of the City 
of Chicago, 386 F. Supp. 110 (N.D.Til. 1 974) ..................................  25

Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725 (1stCTrT 1 9 72") ". . .'................................ 35

Cisco v. School Board, 161 N.Y. 598 (1900) .... 38-39
Columbus Board of Education v. Penick,

443 U.S. 449 (1979) ......................... 8,30-31 ,37
Cooper v. Morin, 49 N.Y.2d 69 ( 1979) ........... 30
Cullen v. Nassau County Civil Service

Comm1 n, 53 N.Y.2d 492 ( 1 981) ................ 28
Donohue v. Copiague Union School District,47 N.Y. 2d 440 ( 1975) _______................. 40
Hart v. Community School Board of Education,

383 F. Supp. 699 , aff'd, 512 F. 2d 37
(2d Cir. 1975) .............................. 30

CASES Page

ii



CASES Page
Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, 506 (D.D.C. 1967), cert, dismissed, 393 U.S.

801 (1968), affirmed, 408 F.2d 175
(D.C. Cir. 1969) ............................  25

Judd v. Board of Education, 278 N.Y. 200,
rehearing denied, 278 N.Y. 712 ( 1938) .......  37

Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D.
Cal. 1979) ...... ............................ 26,31-32,35-36

Lee v. Nyquist, 318 F. Supp. 710 (E.D.N.Y.
1970), aff’d sub nom. Nyquist v. Lee,
402 U.S. 935 TT971 ) .........................  29

Lee v. Smith, 43 N.Y.2d 453 (1977) ............  33
Lora v. Board of Education, 456 F. Supp.1211 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), 623 F.2d 248

(2d Cir. 1980) .............................. 26
Matter of Fay, 44 N.Y.2d 137 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom. Buck v. Hunter, 439 

U.S. 1059, rehearing denied, 440 U.S. 359 
( 1978) ......................................  33

Matter of Lalli, 43 N.Y.2d 65 (1977), aff’d 
sub nom. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 359 (1978)   33

Matter of Levy, 38 N.Y.2d 653 (1976)   40
Matter of Skipwith, 14 M.2d 325 (Dorn. Rel.

Ct. N.Y. Co. 1958) ..........................  26
Natonabah v. Board of Education, 355 F.

Supp. 716 (D.N.M. 1973) .....................  26
Pace College v. Comm'r of Human Rights,

38 N.Y.2d 28 ( 1975) .........................  28
Parent Ass'n of Andrew Jackson High School 
v. Ambach, 451 F. Supp. 1056 (E.D.N.Y.1978), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and
remanded, 598 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1979) .......  22

iii



CASES Page

People v. Acme Markets, Inc., 37 N.Y.2d
326 (1 975) ................. ................. 28

People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 241 ( 1 981) .........  30
People v. Elwell, 50 N.Y.2d 231 (1 980) ........  30
People ex rel Board of Education v. Graves,

243 N.Y. 204 ( 1 926) ....... . ................. 39
Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts v.

Feeney, 4 42 U. S. 1 256 (1 979) 7...............  31
Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 , 303 A.2d

273, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 (1973) ......  37
San Antonio Independent School District
v. Rodriguez, 4TT U.S. 1 (1973) .... ......... 2

Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc.,
45 N.Y.2d 152 ( 1 978) ........................  30

Sinhogar v. Parry, 53 N.Y.2d 424 (1980) .......  30
303 W. 42nd Street Corp. v. Klein, 46

N.Y.2d 6 8 6, 695 (1 979) ......................  28

U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S.
1 44 ( 1 938 ) ..................................  35

U.S. v. Texas Educational Agency, 564 F.2d 
162 (5th Cir. 1 977) , cert, denied,
443 U.S. 915 (1979) .........................  31

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) ......  36
Wiltwyck School for Boys v. Hill, 11 N.Y.2d

1 82 (1 962) ................................. - 40

IV



CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES Page
N.Y. Const. Art. I, § 11  ....................  7,12,24
N.Y. Const. Art. XI, § 1 ......................  12,36,41
N.Y. Educ. Law § 3201 (2) ....................... 29
N.Y. Educ. Law § 3602 ..........................  8,10,12
L. 1841 , c. 20, § 15 ............................  38
Elementary and Secondary Education Act,20 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et se_q.....................  15

MISCELLANEOUS
Dimond, "Minorities, The Poor and School 

Finance Reform," in 8 Brischetto, Ed.,
A History of School Finance Reform 
Litigation and the Interests of Urban,
Poor and Minority Children ..................  26

II Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Dep't of 
Education, Directory of Elementary and 
Secondary School Districts ( 1979) ............ 20

Office of Information Services, New York 
City Board of Education, E.S.E.A. Title I Target Schools (1980-81) ....................  15,26

State Education Department, University of the State of New York, Racial/Ethnic Distri­
bution of Public School Children in New
York State (1980-81) ........................  5,14,16,22

State Education Department, University of the 
State of New York, Racial/Ethnic Distri­
bution of Public School Students and Staff,
New York State ( 1975-76) ....................  19

State Education Department, University of the 
State of New York, Racial/Ethnic Distri­
bution of Public School Students and Staff 
m  New York State ( 1974-75)..................  13,21 ,22

v



Page

State Education Department, Urban Education,
A Statement of Policy and Proposed Action by 
the New York State Board of Regents (1967) ...

Statement by Regent Genrich, Journal of the 
Board of Regents at 359 (October 23-25,
1974) .......................................

vi



2

THE INTEREST OF THE AMICI

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
("LDF") is a New York non-profit membership corporation 
created in 1939. LDF is authorized by its charter to render 
legal services free of charge to persons suffering discrim­
ination on account of race or color whose financial circum­
stances prevent them from engaging counsel on their own 
behalf.

Because public education affords the principal 
means by which disadvantaged members of our society can hope 
to improve their status, elimination of discriminatory bar­
riers to equal educational opportunity has been a primary 
focus of LDF's activities. Since Brown v. Board of Education, 
347 U.S. 483 (1954) and in many subsequent cases, LDF attor­
neys have served as counsel for plaintiffs or as friend of 
the court in major school desegration cases before the 
United States Supreme Court and other federal courts.

Educational opportunities may be as effectively 
abridged by inequities in public aid to education as by 
segregation in school programs. For this reason, LDF has 
been involved in efforts to reform school finance systems 
which discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities 
such as San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 
411 U.S. 1 (1973), where it appeared as amicus curiae.

o



3

The New York Metropolitan Council of The American 
Jewish Congress ("The Metropolitan Council") is a division of 
the American Jewish Congress organized and existing in the 
greater New York area, including the five boroughs of New 
York City. Like its parent organization, which has appeared 
as amicus curiae in many civil rights cases including Brown 
v. Board of Education, supra, the Metropolitan Council has 
long been concerned with issues of educational equity.

The Department of Education, Diocese of Brooklyn 
("The Department") is an independent corporation formed 
pursuant to the New York Education Law to administer Catholic 
education programs in the New York City boroughs of Brooklyn 
and Queens. Additionally, the Department serves as an advo­
cate, before the New York City Board of Education and federal 
education agencies, for Catholic children within its service 
area who attend public schools. This case presents issues 
which touch the children whose educational interests the 
Department endeavors to serve.

The Council of Churches of the City of New York 
("The Council") is a non-profit corporation which has repre­
sented the Protestant and Orthodox Churches of the New York 
City boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, The Bronx and Staten 
Island since 1943. The Council and its members are vitally



4

concerned with promoting the equitable distribution of school 
aid to the children of New York City.

In this case, the lower courts found disparities 
in State education aid to many New York school districts, 
including the State's four largest city school districts.-^ 
These disparities deprive many children of vitally important 
constitutional rights. Most of this State's minority children 
attend schools in the cities which are most severely deprived 
of adequate educational resources and will be profoundly 
affected by the outcome of this case. This brief is submitted 
to focus attention on those children.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The facts found by Trial Term and affirmed in the 

Appellate Division present a stark picture of educational 
deprivation. By systematically underestimating the educa­
tion costs of this State's largest cities, and consistently 
over-rating the cities' ability to meet those costs, the 
State of New York denies equal educational opportunities 
to children who attend urban public schools in violation of 
the guarantees of this State's Constitution. Board of Educa- 
tion v. Nyquist, 94 M.2d 466 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 1978) ,

1/ The city school districts of New York City, Buffalo,
Rochester and Syracuse appeared in Trial Term as inter- venor—piaintiffs and are appellees and cross—appellants 
here. They are referred to herein as "the cities."



5

aff'd as modified, 83 A.D.2d 217 (2d Dep't 1981). Indeed, 
it seems obvious that no school finance system which consist­
ently disserves children in city schools can fulfill the 
State's constitutional obligations to provide a public edu­
cation to all of its children and to accord them all equal 
protection of the laws.

Similarly, a system which in its design disserves
the overwhelming majority of the State's minority pupils
cannot be upheld. But that is precisely the system which New
York operates. Eighty-four percent of this State's minority

2/children attend resource-starved city schools.—' This pro­
foundly disproportionate and adverse impact on minority 
children was recognized in the Appellate Division, 83 A.D.2d 
217, 254-55 (Weinstein, J., concurring) and in Trial Term's 
findings of fact (A. 6514, IFF. 162). It furnishes compel­
ling support for affirmance of the judgment below.

The record shows that minority children suffer 
three distinct types of disadvantage in this school finance 
system. Urban schools receive less than their fair share

2 / State Education Department, University of the State of 
New York, Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Public School 
Students and Staff in New York State (1980-81). Because 
of the significance of the data presented in this state publication, and for the convenience of the court, it is 
reproduced as an Appendix to this brief (hereinafter, 
"App. A").



of state support because the State purports but fails to 
allocate aid on the basis of local ability to meet local 
costs. Thus, at the first level, minority children suffer 
disproportionately just because the vast majority of them 
attend city schools. Second, as the poorest of the urban 
poor, minority children suffer the various educational handi­
caps flowing from poverty even more than other urban chil­
dren. Thus, when the State aid formulas deprive the cities 
of ability to meet needs resulting from poverty, minority 
children are the most deprived. Third, the schools which 
minority children attend are in the main predominantly "minor­
ity" schools. By depriving them of their fair share, the 
state aid formulas condemn these schools to an inferior and 
increasingly segregated status. The State's financing method 
ultimately perpetuates separate and unequal education for the 
minority children of this State.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Appellate Division held that this State's 
equal protection guarantee forbids invidious disparities in 
State aid to education. 83 A.D.2d at 242-44. It also held 
that the Education Article requires the State to allocate 
school aid so that educable urban children can in fact be 
educated. 83 A.D.2d at 251. The minority impact shown here



7

leaves no doubt that the State disserves its minority children 
even more than others. In short, the facts on which we focus 
here establish strong reason for affirmance of the judgment 
appealed from in accordance with the reasoning of the lower 
courts. We rely on the briefs of appellees, plaintiffs and 
intervenor-plaintiffs below, which show abundant support and 
justification for the judgment of the Appellate Division.

Additionally, we focus on important equal protec­
tion implications of this adverse minority impact. Measured 
against the equal protection guarantee of this State's Consti­
tution, N.Y. Const. Art. I, § 11, that minority impact fur­
nishes strong ground for affirmance. The consequences of the 
State's methods of financing education have been known for 
decades. In the guise of effectuating reform, the State 
continues to allocate fewer resources to the schools most 
minority children attend. This foreseen disparate impact, 
coupled with the at best ineffective remedial measures and 
unsupportable justifications, gives rise to a strong infer­
ence that invidious discriminatory purpose was a motivating 
factor. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development 
Corp. , 429 U.S. 252, 265-67 ( 1977). At a minimum, this severe, 
disparate impact on minorities raises the specter of invidious 
discriminatory purpose. Since the legislative decisions have 
produced such racially disparate results, an intermediate 
standard of equal protection review must be applied.



s

Finally, because our Constitution requires the 
state to provide for the education of all of its children, 
the minority impact shown here means that this method of 
financing education must fail. N.Y. Const, Art. XI, § 1.
The State's self-imposed obligation to support education,
"an element of American life that is essential, especially 
for minority children," Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 
443 U.S. 449, 480 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting), does not 
vary with the race of the children affected. The judgment 
below should be affirmed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The School Finance System Discriminates 
Against Urban Children_________________

The State's school finance system, consisting of aid 
allocation formulas which comprise what one Justice at the 
Appellate Division called a "veritable jungle of labyrinthine 
incongruity",3/ 83 A.D.2d at 269 (Hopkins, J., dissenting), 
provide about 40 percent of all education funding in the 
State. Local property tax receipts support all but five 
percent of the remainder. A major purpose of the school 
finance system is to "provide 'an apportionment [which] will 
vary according to the ability of the community to support its

3/ See N.Y. EDUC. LAW § 3602.



9

education program.'" (A. 4013; A. 6491, IFF. 1) In reality, 
the school finance system delivers a grossly inequitable share 
of resources to the cities because the system ignores the 
realities of the world in which city schools operate.

The State gives inadequate aid to cities in several
ways. First, the State defines local fiscal capacity on the
basis of local property wealth and excludes other factors
bearing heavily on local ability to support education. The
State ignores the reality that large cities confront enormous
costs (many of them state-mandated) for essential non-school

4/services. Like school costs, this "municipal overburden"— 
must be funded primarily from finite local property tax 
receipts. (A. 6491-6507, IFF. 2-110; A. 6508-10, IFF. 117-130) 
The cities also face substantially higher costs than their 
non-urban counterparts in purchasing most components, from 
teacher salaries to school buildings, of an education 
program. (A. 6507, IFF. 111-116; A. 6512-15, IFF. 148-167)
The State is blind to these cost differentials in allocating 
education aid.

More importantly, New York's school finance system 
ignores the "educational overburdens" city schools face 
because they must educate overwhelming numbers of children 
with various special educational requirements. By 1980-81,

4/ The parties and courts below used this term to refer to 
the problem of severe non-educational demands on the 
urban tax base.



10

the cities collectively enrolled 37 percent of the State's 
children, but 56 percent of its pupils with special educa­
tional needs ("PSEN").-/ (A. 6521-22, IFF. 217) Fifty-one
percent of such students were concentrated in New York City 
alone (A. 6510, IFF. 138; A. 6522, IFF. 218). City schools 
also enrolled 44 percent of the State's handicapped pupils in 
1980-81. (A. 6522, IFF. 219) The cities have the State's
highest concentrations of costly vocational education students 
(A. XIII 6526, IFF. 240), and are over-burdened with non- 
English speaking pupils. (A. 6552-53, IFF. 363-367; App. A, 
Tables 1 , 2

The education of pupils with special educational 
needs and mental or physical handicaps, non-English speakers, 
and vocational education students is especially costly. (A. 
6547, IFF. 350; A. 6554, IFF. 373; A. 6555-56, IFF. 385-387) 
The State aid allocation formula is in theory designed to 
reflect and meet the extra costs of educating students 
affected by various forms of educational disadvantage. But 
the aid received by three of the four city school districts 
at the time of trial and in 1980-81 actually fell below

5/ "PSEN" are children who score below certain norms on 
standardized achievement tests. See, N.Y. EDUC.
LAW § 3602 1.e.

6/ The current statistics mirror findings below which 
focused on the 1974—75 school year. (A. 6510, IFF.
138; A. 6522, IFF. 219; A. 6543, IFF. 324)



11

7/ • •statewide average funding levels.—' The cities must 
stretch these below average funds to meet their above 
average needs.

Moreover, the cities must address additional needs 
not accounted for in the State aid allocation. As a result 
of their poverty many poor children suffer from educational 
deprivation. Impaired learning readiness (A. 6529-6532, IFF. 
259-271), impaired learning progress (A. 6532-6535, IFF. 
272-285), impaired mental, emotional and physical health 
{A. 6535-43, IFF. 286-322), and high rates of school absentee­
ism (A. 6518-20, IFF. 191-199) are specific poverty-related 
problems identified below. These poverty-based problems 
affect many children who are not otherwise handicapped.
Because the cities' education resources are finite and so 
many city children are "special," less education money is 
available for "normal" children. As a result, many urban 
children fail to attain rudimentary levels of educational 
achievement. The Appellate Division found that this was true 
to an "unconscionable" degree. (83 A.D.2d at 232).

But the state aid formula does not simply fail to 
compensate for the educational overburdens the cities face.

7/ The single exception was Buffalo which, because of its 
relatively low property wealth, was relatively well 
served by the State aid allocation formula. (A. 6511, 
IFF. 140)



12

It also penalizes them for their inexorably high rates of 
absenteeism, because it apportions aid and measures local 
wealth by the number of children in "average daily attend­
ance"-^ in city schools. This measure ignores the cities' 
need to provide for large numbers of enrolled children 
who need more education aid because of the very same poor 
attendance records which depress State aid to the cities.
(A. 6516, IFF. 179-81; A. 6517, IFF. 187-89; A. 6520, IFF. 211) 
The result is a severe systematic inflation in the State's 
estimation of city schools' ability to meet their costs with 
local and state funds.

In consequence, city school children as a group 
are "subjected to educational deprivation" (83 A.D.2d at 233, 
citing and quoting from 94 M.2d at 518-19) by the school 
finance system. These results could not be squared, by either 
Trial Term or the Appellate Division, with the commands oi 
the Equal Protection Clause (Art. I, § 11) and Education 
Article (Art. XI, § 1) of this State's Constitution.

B. The Problems of Urban SchoolsAre Disproportionately Problems 
of Minority Children_________

Because of the geographic concentration of racial 
and ethnic minorities in this State, opportunities denied to 
city school children are, pro tanto, opportunities denied to

8/ see N.Y. EDUC. LAW § 3602 1.d.



13

the vast majority of minority children.— 83 A.D.2d at 254- 
57 (Weinstein, J., concurring). (A. 6514, IFF. 162) Undis­
puted evidence introduced at trial showed that, in 1974-75, 
there were 3,422,059 children in pre-kindergarten to twelfth 
grade programs in this State. Sixteen and one-half percent 
(565,293) of those children were black. But in that year, 
fully 80.5 percent of New York State's black public school 
children attended the cities' schools with the remaining 
1 9 . 5 percent scattered throughout the rest of the State.
New York City alone accounted for 71.6% of the black pupils. 
The State's 344,116 Hispanic children that year (10.1 per­
cent) were similarly clustered: 89.6% of them attended
schools in New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester. 
(A. 2399-2400)

The most recent records compiled by State educa­
tion officials show the same pattern. In 1980-81, 517,007 
(18.2 percent) of the State's 2,848,528 public school chil­
dren were black. Nearly eighty (79.5) percent were concen­
trated in New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. 
Again New York City accounted for 70.4 percent of the black 
pupils in the State. Similarly, 329,964 (11.6 percent) of 
New York's public school children were Hispanic. Nearly 89

9/ New York's population includes many groups which may be 
regarded as "minorities." We focus here on the largest 
two, blacks and Hispanic or Spanish-surnamed Americans.

9 /



14

percent were concentrated in the cities' schools 87. 
percent in New York City alone. (App. A, Tables 2, 3) 
Together, black and Hispanic students comprised 29.8 percent 
of the State's public school children in 1980-81, but 83.1 
percent of them converged in the cities. (App. A, Tables

2, 3)
As the courts below found, urban children as a 

class are deprived. 94 M.2d at 518-19; 83 A.D.2d at 233;
83 A .D.2d at 252-55 (Weinstein, J., concurring). Minority 
children thus disproportionately suffer educational depriva­
tion for the simple reason that they are disproportionately

urban.

C. Poverty Creates Educational Disad­
vantage and Educational Overburden,
Which Disproportionately Affect 
New York's Minority Children._____.

Trial Term's findings, affirmed by the Appellate 
Division, establish the existence of eight "educational over­
burdens" in city schools, which are "principally a function 
of the conditions of life in urban poverty" (A. 6529, IFF. 
259) and which the state financing system improperly fails to 
address. (A. 6529-6558, IFF. 258-408) New York's minority 
children are often very poor even relative to other city 
children, and suffer the educational disadvantages caused by 
poverty to a disproportionate extent.



15

Indeed, the courts and parties below used race as 
a probable indicator of impoverishment. As plaintiff inter­
veners' witness Landers testified:

[T]he facts of ethnicity and the facts of social 
class are so closely interwoven that it is almost 
impossible to separate them. Not all blacks, of 
course, are poor. Not all whites are middle class 
or well to do . . .On the other hand, it is a fact 
that the great majority of black people in our city 
are poor, very poor.

{A. 2302) In 1976, New York City— ^ had 65 percent of the 
State's children eligible for services under Title I of the 
federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C.
§ 2701 et seq.— ^ (A. 4149) Comparison of official racial

1 2/enrollment data with Title I eligibility records for 1980-81— 7 
shows, generally, that the New York City districts with the

10/ Because the overwhelming majority of minority children 
were concentrated in New York City at the time of trial 
and remain so today, we focus here and elsewhere in this 
brief on conditions prevailing there.

11/ Amending Title I in 1978, Congress recognized "the spe­
cial educational needs of children of low-income families 
and the impact that concentrations of low-income fam­
ilies have on the ability of local educational agencies 
to support adequate educational programs." 20 U.S.C.
§ 2701.

12/ The New York City Board of Education annually publishes 
statistics on its Title I target schools. Relevant 
pages of the current version of this publication, Office 
of Information Services, New York City Board of Education, 
E.S.E.A. Title I Target Schools (1980-81), are reproduced, 
for the convenience of the Court, as Appendix B (herein­
after "App. B.").



16

largest percentages of "low income" students had relatively
low percentages of students classified as "others" (i»e.,
children who were neither black, Hispanic, American Indian,
Alaskan, Asian or of Pacific Islands extraction). These
figures demonstrate a persistent, close correlation between

1 3 /race and poverty in the city schools.—
Testimony of Frank Messer, co-deputy superintendent 

of New York City Community School District 8 which includes 
the mainly black and Hispanic Morrisania section of the South 
Bronx (A. 2882-83), illustrates the reality underlying the 
statistics. Messer characterized the housing of his Morrisania 
pupils as "dilapidated, except for what you would think of as 
the city projects, which are somewhat better than the rest of 
the area down there." Between 90 and 99 percent of Morrisania 
children were eligible for free school lunches at the time of 
trial.— / (A. 2884) In a nearby school with a 99 percent 
black and Hispanic enrollment, 95-98 percent of the students 
met school lunch eligibility criteria. (A. 3122-23)

13/ For the convenience of the Court a table (Table I) 
compiling State racial census figures for 1980-81 
(App. A at A-7 to A-8) with City Board of Education 
Title I eligibility statistics for 1980-81 (App. B at 
B-3 to B-35) is set forth as Appendix C.

14/ To qualify for free school lunches in 1975-76, a stu­
dent's annual family income —  for a family of four 
could not exceed $6,260. (A. 2886)



17

Single mothers headed many families in the Morrisania 
area with large numbers of children present in the home. (A. 
2885) City-wide, 25 percent of New York's children lived 
with a mother alone in 1973 according to a high-level city 
school administrator. However, 43 percent of such children 
were black, and only 13 percent were neither black nor 
Hispanic. (A. 2302)

Testimony of trial witnesses confirmed that condi-
1 5 /tions of educational overburden flowing from poverty—

are overwhelmingly encountered in the cities' predominantly
black and/or Hispanic schools. Witness O'Donnell, a remedial
reading teacher from a 90 percent minority (60 percent black)

16/New York City high school (A. 3292; O'Donnell Tr. 8276),
described the consequences of impaired learning readiness
among ninth and tenth graders in his school:

[W]e have a number of students that do not have 
basic readiness skills. They are illiterate.
They may know some of the letters of the alphabet 
but not all of them. They may not know the sounds 
that those letters make, and they may not have, 
for instance, auditory discrimination. They may 
not be able to hear the difference between p and 
b, m and n, and that of course is necessary if you 
are going to begin to learn to read, to have those 
skills.

15/ See A. 6518-20, IFF. 191-99; A. 6529, IFF. 259; A. 6532, 
IFF. 272; A. 6535, IFF. 286; A. 6540, IFF. 304, A. 6556, 
IFF. 394.
We refer to a few pages of record testimony which were 
not reproduced in the Joint Appendix. The relevant 
record pages are reproduced for the Court's convenience 
as Appendix D to this brief, in the order in which 
they are cited herein (hereinafter, "App. D").

16/



18

(A. 3294) The impact of these deficiencies was apparent from 
O'Donnell's ninth-grade students' March 1976 standardized 
reading test results. Seventy percent of those tested fell 
two or more years below grade level, and 25 percent fell more 
than five years below grade level (A. 3292-93)

Those in need of remedial help were not, as one 
might suppose, entirely non-native speakers of English. The 
following colloquy between O'Donnell and the trial judge is 
revealing:

BY THE COURT:
Q. What proportion of those 750 students 
had come through the lower grades as compared 
to kids that came into high school perhaps from 
other places and things like that? Are they 
mostly —
A. I would say the majority of the black
kids, and that is the majority of the kids in the 
school, are native New Yorkers. A good number 
of the Hispanic kids are not, and speak another 
language at home.
Q. That is another problem, but with the ones 
you talked about, the black children who were 
native New Yorkers, then would the inference be 
that this has been a reading problem that has per­
sisted through grades 1 through 8 when you get 
them in the ninth grade?
A. I would say that somewhere along the line 
something broke down, whether it was a truancy

17/ Precarious funding available at the time of trial per­
mitted O'Donnell to make special remedial efforts for 
75 percent of his students who needed such help 
(App. D, O'Donnell Tr. 8284). Even with funding he 
could only hope to bring ninth to eleventh grade students 
to an eighth grade reading level. (App. D, O'Donnell 
Tr. 8285)



19

pattern or whatever, but yes. They are native New 
Yorkers, most of them, and that is what happens.

(App. D, O'Donnell Tr. 8370-71.)
Trial witnesses linked another poverty-based edu­

cational overburden to minority children in particular. 
Problems caused by poverty prevent many urban children 
from attending school regularly. Poor attendance leads to 
academic failure and ultimately to total abandonment of the 
effort to learn. {A. 6518-20, IFF. 191-200) The magnitude 
of the problem for minority children is reflected in the 
racial composition of New York City high schools. In 1976, 
black and Hispanic students made up, respectively, 37.1 and 
28.4 percent of students in grades pre-kindergarten through 
12.— ^ Black students comprised only 28 percent of the 
group in grade nine. By grade twelve, they were only 19 
percent, while Hispanic representation fell to five percent. 
(App. D, Wilner Tr., 8930-32) Viewed another way, while
56 percent of ninth grade students were white, by the twelfth

1 9 /grade, that group increased to 70 percent.—

18/ State Education Department, University of the State of 
New York, Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Public School 
Students and Staff, New York State, (1975-76).

19/ One trial witness estimated New York City's overall
dropout rate, the percentage of ninth graders failing to 
graduate, at 50 percent. (A. 4158) As indicated in the 
text, those failing to graduate were disproportionately 
black or Hispanic.



20

Handicapped children in city schools receive fewer 
educational resources than their counterparts elsewhere.
(A. 6522-26) Here too, the ultimate victims are dispropor­
tionately minority children. For a survey conducted by the 
U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, school 
officials classified city school children by several types 
of educational impairment, according to race. They labeled 
Black and Hispanic children as deficient at least in propor­
tion with their representation in the school population. 
However, whites were generally underrepresented in compar­
ison with their overall numbers. We abstract the most 
telling statistics in Table II, attached to this brief as 
Appendix E.

In short, the minority children of this State are 
especially in need of compensatory educational effort. These 
children need more educational resources but the State give 
them less.

D. Reduced Aid to Cities Condemns 
Minorities to Separate and 
Unequal Schools.______________

The State aid allocation system deprives cities of 
their fair share of education aid. This decreased aid creates 
significant educational disadvantages for predominantly 
minority schools.

One trial witness described the increasing concen­
tration of black and Hispanic students within New York City's
school system:



21

[W]hen the first ethnic census was taken in 1957, 
approximately 18 percent of the total population 
of the school[s] was black. Approximately 14 
percent of the total population of the [schools] 
was Hispanic . . . and 68 percent fell into the 
category that we call others, that is other than 
black or Hispanic. . . . [I]n 1974 36 percent of
the school population of New York City . . . 
was black, 28 percent was Hispanic; and 36 percent 
fell into the category that we call others . . . .
That would mean, then, that is the first time in 
1974 that the black population had outstripped 
all other ethnic categories as used by the State.

*  *  *

As one views the school population in New York 
City [today], one finds a hug[e] almost contin­
uous belt of minority group population in Brooklyn 
extending from the East River on the West, going 
eastward in a hug[e] arc across Bedford Stuyvesant 
and up to the Queens border. Then with small 
breaks of white population, there continues 
that curve into Queens going southward, so that a 
good part of southern Queens now is composed of 
children who attend minority schools and who are 
of minority group status.

(App. D, Landers Tr. 5189-91.)
Statistics available at trial (for 1974-75) showed

that the State's black children comprised 16.5 percent of the
total public school population (A. 2399), but 50.9 percent of

20/them attended schools which were at least 50 percent black.— '

20/ State Education Department, University of the State of New 
York, Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Public School Students 
and Staff in New York State (1974-75), Table 5. Portions 
of this document containing Tables 1-3 appear at A. 2398- 
2401. For the court's convenience we annex two additional 
pages containing Tables 4 and 5 hereto as Appendix F 
(hereinafter, "App. F"). The entire publication was in 
evidence at trial as piaintiff-intervenors' Exhibit 147.



22

V

Overall, 51.2 percent of the State's minorities attended 
schools which were at least 90 percent minority and 75.5 
percent attended at least 50 percent minority schools.
(A. 2399; App. F, Table 4) In 1980-81, black children com­
prised 18.2% of total enrollment, but 53.7 percent attended 
schools which were between 50 and 99.9% black. (App. A., 
Tables 1,5) That year 50.8 percent of black and Hispanic 
children attended schools which were at least 90% black and
Hispanic; 75.4% attended schools with at least 50% minority

21 /enrollments. (App. A., Table 4)—
The State aid allocation formulas are related to 

this consistent pattern of segregation in two distinct ways. 
First, by depriving the cities of their fair and needed share 
of educational aid, they condemn the predominately minority 
schools to a secondary and inferior status. Second, by thus 
disadvantaging predominately minority, urban schools, they 
provide a significant impetus for flight to suburban schools; 
those with the means to do so (principally whites) will send

21/ For New York City's public shools, the problem appears 
to be intractable. One court has concluded that:

[A]n overall expectation that the City school 
district will find its problems of segregation 
solved by time and migration of population does 
not exist.

Parent Ass'n of Andrew Jackson High School v. Ambach, 
451 F. Supp. 1056, 1060 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd in part, 
rev'd in part on other grounds and remanded, 598 F.2d 
705 (2d Cir. 1979) .



23

their children elsewhere. This was noted by a member of the
Board of Regents long ago:

The most serious problem related to education 
in our society is the flight of the middle and 
upper class whites to suburban areas. One 
principal reason for this is because we have 
allowed, by our taxing and financing methods, 
the building of better educational systems 
outside our cities.

Statement of Regent Genrich, Journal of the Board of Regents
at 359 (October 23-25, 1974).

Increased aid could make a difference, as testi-
2 2/mony taken at trial shows.— ' But the State's aid formulas 

condemn the bulk of minority children to suffer educational 
disadvantages which strike hardest in the cities. By depriv­
ing city schools of needed funding, the State effectively 
condemns urban minority children to increasingly separate 
and unequal educational opportunities.

22/ With adequate resources, a South Bronx high school with 
a 99% black and Hispanic enrollment participated in a 
citywide magnet school program designed to "encourage 
schools to stand for a particular kind of educational 
philosophy for which . . . parents and students could 
opt." (A. 3151) With a special grant of $10,000 the 
program achieved measurable success in its first year 
of operation, but immediate cutbacks followed. At 
trial, the school's principal described the results:

We have parents from the wealthy North Bronx 
opting to send their kids at their cost down to 
our school and yet at the same time we have no 
support. They are eliminating all the programs 
that made them originally opt for this. One of 
the things they opted for was this kind of 
philosophy [of] education, and now for all 
intents and purposes in September of next year 
that will not exist.

(A. 3151-52)



24

ARGUMENT
I

THE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM DEPRIVES 
NEW YORK'S MINORITY CHILDREN OF 
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

A. The State's Equal Protection Clause 
Accords Minority Children the Right 
to an Equal Education______________

The Appellate Division found the evidence of dis­
parity and discrimination in this school finance system to 
be "extensive." 83 A.D.2d at 242. But the most severe 
inequity demonstrated in the record is that:

The subject legislation has a disproportionately 
adverse effect with respect to so important a right as education on the vast majority of the State's 
minority students. Minority children with greater 
needs are receiving not equal, but less aid. . . .

83 A.D.2d at 257 (Weinstein, J., concurring) (citations 
omitted, emphasis in original). The State's method of 
financing public schools inflicts a profoundly dispropor­
tionate share of its inequity on minority children. In doing 
so, it deprives them of the equal protection of the laws 
guaranteed by this State's Constitution.

Finding invidious denial of equal protection below, 
83 A.D.2d at 242, the Appellate Division relied on that por­
tion of N.Y. Const. Art. I § 11 which provides: "No person
shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this 
state . . . ." In addition to this general equal protection 
command, the Article states:



25

No person shall, because of race, color, creed or 
religion, be subjected to any discrimination in his 
civil rights by . . . the state or any agency or 
subdivision of the state.

These fundamental provisions require the State to provide
education to all on an equal basis:

In these days it is doubtful that any child may 
reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he 
is denied the opportunity of an education. Such 
an opportunity, where the state has undertaken 
to provide it, is a right which must be made avail­
able to all on equal terms.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954).
If residential patterns mean that most minority

children will continue to attend the cities' schools, then
the State must insure that the same educational opportunities
are available in those schools as elsewhere:

[I]t should be clear that if whites and Negroes, 
or rich and poor, are to be consigned to separate 
schools, pursuant to whatever policy, the minimum 
the Constitution will require and guarantee is 
that for their objectively measurable aspects 
these schools be run on the basis of . . . equality, 
at least until any inequities are adequately 
justified.

Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, 496 (D.D.C. 1967), cert. 
dismissed, 393 U.S. 801 (1968), affirmed, 408 F.2d 175, 185 
(D.C. Cir. 1969) (finding federal equal protection violation 
in inequitable pattern of resource allocation to predominantly 
black District of Columbia schools). Accord, Brown v. Board 
of Education of the City of Chicago, 386 F. Supp. 110, 125 
(N.D. 111. 1974) (finding equal protection violation in
eight percent disparity in resources allocated to district's



26

primarily "non-Caucasian" schools); Matter of Skipwith,
14 M .2d 325, 338-47 (Dom. Rel. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1958) (finding 
equal protection violation as result of inequitable staffing 
patterns in predominantly black schools); see also Natonabah 
v. Board of Education, 355 F. Supp. 716 (D.N.M. 1973) (finding 
violation of civil rights statutes in consistent pattern of 
allocation of lesser resources to Native American schools).— / 

Surprisingly few previous school finance cases have 
focused on the problem of racial, as opposed to economic, 
discrimination.— ^ But in the small number of cases squarely 
presenting school finance systems which deprive minority 
children of equal educational opportunities (pp. 25-26, supra), 
the results are uniform. Such systems are unconstitutional.

B. The School Finance System's 
Disparate Impact on Minority 
Children Was Foreseeable and 
Foreseen, and Is Unjustified.

The inequalities discussed above cannot be excused
because they result from a statutory scheme that is neutral

23/ Analogous problems of racially disparate impact can
arise from the operation of non-finance school policies, 
with the same result. School policies, fiscal or other­
wise, which deprive minority children of equal educa­
tional opportunities fail on equal protection grounds. 
See Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926, 974-86 (N.D. 
Cal. 1979); Lora v. Board of Education, 456 F. Supp. 
1211, 1275-77 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), remanded on procedural grounds, 623 F.2d 248 (2d Cir. 1980).

24/ See generally Dimond, "Minorities, The Poor and School 
Finance Reform," in 8 Brischetto, Ed., A History of School Finance Reform Litigation and the Interests of 
Urban, Poor and Minority Children (1979).



27

on its face. The school finance implications for this State's 
minority children are well known to State education officials. 
Knowing that the system provides an inadequate and inequit­
able share of funds to the schools where most minority chil­
dren are —  and knowing that the educational needs of those 
children are, if anything, greater than others' —  the State 
has enacted "reforms" with, at best, no appreciable impact 
on the relative level of resources available to city schools. 
The resulting inequity is not justified by any sufficient 
state purpose. Where the State's actions have such a fore­
seeable, and indeed an anticipated racially disparate impact, 
and where —  as here —  the State's remedial efforts have had 
no positive effect on a recognized problem, a violation of
the equal protection clause is shown. See, 83 A.D.2d at 256

25/(Weinstein, J. concurring) (citations omitted).—

25/ The Supreme Court described the elements of proof thata law discriminates in Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan 
Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1979):

[Washington v.] Davis does not require a 
plaintiff to prove that the challenged action 
rested solely on racially discriminatory purposes. Rarely can it be said that a 
legislative or administrative body operating 
under a broad mandate made a decision motivated 
solely by a single concern, or even that a 
particular purpose was the 'dominant' or 'primary' one . . . .

(Continued)



28

This Court recently held that:
Proof of [discriminatory] intent . . . may appear from 
a convincing showing of a grossly disporportionate 
[impact] . . . .  (cf♦ Gomillion v. Lightfoot,
364 U.S. 339; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 . . .).
For history teaches that it is by no means to be 
assumed that motive and disproportionality have to 
be discrete. The more convincing is the demonstra­
tion of the 'unequal hand' . . . the stronger will 
be the inference of illicit motive, since conscious 
discrimination may then stand out as the only reason­
able explanation for the pattern of enforcement.

303 W. 42nd Street Corp. v. Klein, 46 N.Y.2d 686, 695 (1979).— ^
In a 1967 position paper, the State Board of Regents

explicitly recognized the problems of municipal overburden

(Continued)
Determining whether invidious discriminatory 
purpose was a motivating factor demands a 
sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial 
and direct evidence of intent as may be available. 
The impact of the official action —  whether it 
'bears more heavily on one race than another, . . . 
—  may provide an important staring point. Some­
times a clear pattern, unexplainable on grounds 
other than race, emerges from the effect of State action even when the governing legislation 
appears neutral on its face . . . .
The historical background of the decision is 
one evidentiary source, particularly if it 
reveals a series of official actions taken for 
invidious purpose . . . .

Id. at 265-67 (citations omitted).
26/ See also People v. Acme Markets, Inc■, 37 N.Y.2d 326, 

330-31 (1975); Pace College v. Comm'r of Human Rights,
38 N.Y.2d 28, 40 (1975); Cullen v. Nassau County Civil 
Service Comm'n, 53 N.Y.2d 492, 496 (1981).



29

and racial isolation in city schools.—-/ Citing "all too
abundant" evidence that equal educational opportunities are 
denied children in city schools, the Regents called on the 
Governor and Legislature to respond with "major steps" and a 
$112 million committment for 1968-69. Urban Education supra 
n.27, at 15. The Legislature responded, but not with an urban 
education aid package. Instead, it enacted a law forbidding 
school authorities to assign students or alter school bounda­
ries or attendance zones for purposes of achieving integrated 
schools. L. 1969 c. 342, § 1, N.Y. EDUC. LAW § 3201(2). ^

27 /

27/ Foreshadowing findings made by the courts below, the 
Regents said:

The proportion of non-white population in the 
cities, and especially in the public schools of 
the cities, is increasing. Racial isolation in 
the schools is also increasing. Continuation or 
expansion of this isolation will perpetuate under­
achievement for large portions of the non-white 
population . . . .
*  * *  *

The loss of economic strength of the cities, heavy 
demands for safety, welfare and other city services 
on the tax dollar —  the "municipal over-burden" —  
and restrictions of State legalities constitute a 
debilitating burden on the cities' capacity to fi­
nance necessary educational services.

State Education Department, Urban Education, A Statement 
of Policy and Proposed Action by the New York State Board 
of Regents 5 (1967).

28/ This law was invalidated on Constitutional grounds in 
—  Lee v. Nyquist, 318 F. Supp. 710 (E.D.N.Y. 1970), aff'd 

sub nom. Nyquist v. Lee, 402 U.S. 935 (1971).



30

Subsequent legislative responses to inequities in the school 
finance system fell predictably short of improving the cities' 
capacity to cope with their educational burdens. 83 A.D.2d 
at 256 (Weinstein, J., concurring). (A. 6510, IFF. 138-139;
A. 6521-27, IFF. 216-245; A. 6567, IFF. 476)

Such governmental action and inaction with the 
"natural and forseeable effect of maintaining and perpetu­
ating severe racial imbalance” is discriminatory in viola­
tion of the state equal protection clause. See Hart v. 
Community School Board of Education, 383 F. Supp. 699, 721 
(E.D.N.Y. 1974), aff'd, 512 F.2d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1975).
Accord, Arthur v. Nyquist, 573 F.2d 134, 143 (2d Cir.), cert. 
denied, 439 U.S. 860 ( 1978) (reaffirming Hart, supra).— /
See also, Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, 443 U.S.

29/ Of course, even if this court should view federal prece­
dents as circumscribing establishment of a federal equal 
protection violation on the basis of this record of 
grossly disproportionate, racially discriminatory impact, 
those precedents are not binding here. The federal 
constitution as interpreted by the federal courts "defines 
the minimum level of individual rights" and "leaves the 
State free to provide greater rights for its citizens through its Constitution . . . ." Cooper v. Morin, 49 
N.Y.2d 69, 79 (1979). Accord, People v. Adams, 53 N.Y.2d 
241, 250 (1981) (police "show-ups"); Sinhogar v. Parry,53 N.Y.2d 424, 443, (1980) (Fuchsberg, J., dissenting) 
(right to "family integrity"); People v. Elwell, 50 
N.Y.2d 231, 235 (1980) (probable cause); Sharrock v. Dell 
Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 152, 159 (1978) (state 
action). See p. 28 and n. 26, supra.



31

449, 464 (1979) ("[A]ctions having foreseeable and anticipated 
disparate impact are relevant evidence to prove the ultimate 
fact, forbidden purpose.")

The inference of invidious purpose to be drawn from 
this foreseeable adverse impact is confirmed by the lack of 
any substantial justification for the inequity which results. 
See U.S. v. Texas Educational Agency, 564 F.2d 162, 168 (5th 
Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 443 U.S. 915 (1979). —  ' As the 
courts below found, this system fails to serve the purposes 
alleged to justify it by denying local control over education 
to many school districts. (A. 6563, IFF. 447; A. 6567, IFF. 
475)

Black children were similarly denied equal protection 
of the laws in Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 
1979), where the state placed children in classes for the 
mentally retarded in severe disproportion to their numbers in 
the school population. The resulting "profound discrimina­

30/ The Fifth Circuit said there:
"When the official actions challenged as discriminatory 
include acts and decisions that do not have a firm 
basis in well accepted and historically sound non-dis- 
criminatory social policy, discriminatory intent may be 
inferred from the fact that those acts had foreseeable 
discriminatory consequences."

Compare Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 
U.S. 256, 279 & n.25 (1979).



32

tory effects," known to the defendants there and condemned by 
the legislature, were "complacent[ly] accept[ed]" by officials 
with responsibility to act. 495 F. Supp. 926, 983. Beyond 
merely acquiescing, those officials continued to "set policy 
as if the legislative findings about testing and dispropor­
tionate enrollment meant nothing," id. at 982, implementing 
new versions of old policies which were known to discrimi­
nate. On those facts, the court charged defendants with 
actual "desire to perpetuate the segregation of minorities in 
inferior, dead end, and stigmatizing classes for the retarded." 
Id. at 983.

Similarly, this record shows: (1) official knowl­
edge of the increasingly pronounced adverse impact of the 
existing system on the State's black and minority children;
2) failure to take corrective action; 3) implementation 
of "reforms" with —  at best —  nugatory effect and 4) the 
absence of a sufficient justification for the discriminatory 
results. This Court must conclude that invidious discrimina­
tory purposes played a role in the maintenance of the school 
finance system.

C. The Disproportionate Racial Impact 
Shown Here Justifies Intermediate 
Equal Protection Scrutiny_________

The disproportionate, adverse racial impact found 
here strongly suggests that invidious purposes infected the



33

school finance scheme. This supplies "a cogent reason
for the application, if not of strict scrutiny, of the
heightened scrutiny test developed in Alevy v. Downstate
Medical Center . . . 83 A.D.2d at 257 (Weinstein, J.,

3 1 /concurring)
Several recent decisions of this court have rejected 

traditional "polarized and outcome-determinative" approaches 
to equal protection analysis in favor of a middle level or 
intermediate standard of review. Alevy v. Downstate Medical 
Center, 39 N.Y. 2d 326, 33 (1976); Matter of Fay, 44 N.Y.2d 
137 (1978), appeal dismissed sub nom. Buck v. Hunter, 439 
U.S. 1059, rehearing denied, 440 U.S. 968 (1978); Matter of 
Lalli, 43 N.Y.2d 65 (1977), aff'd sub nom. Lalli v. Lalli,
439 U.S. 259 (1978). This Court has recognized that where 
legislation affects groups which are historically disadvan­
taged or infringes on important rights something more than

31/ We believe that this education finance system lacks 
even a "rational basis." Simply put, an "equalizing" school finance system which overestimates the fiscal 
capacity of the urban districts where many (84.1%) of 
the State's minority children must learn, and grossly 
underestimates the educational costs of those same districts, directing diminished aid to the very neediest 
children of the State, is not justified by any legitimate state concern. See, Lee v. Smith, 43 N.Y.2d 453 (1977). 
The brief of plaint iff-intervenors, appellees here, shows the failure of this system even under the "tooth­
less" rational basis standard. Accordingly, we do not 
elaborate further on that question.



34

minimal scrutiny is required.— / Alevy, which involved an 
explicit but benign racial classification was such a case.— / 
The courts below took a similar approach here. They held that 
the importance of education in our society, demonstrated by 
the Education Article of our Constitution,— / justifies 
intermediate scrutiny of the school finance scheme. That

32/ In Alevy v. Downstate Medical Center, 39 N.Y.2d 326,
333-34 (19761 this Court cited with approval the "candid" 
assessment of equal protection standards made by at least 
one member of the United States Supreme Court:

'[Tjhis Court has . . . applied a spectrum of 
standards in reviewing discrimination allegedly violative of the Equal Protection Clause. This 
spectrum clearly comprehends variation in the degree 
of care with which the Court will scrutinize particu­
lar classifications depending, I believe, on the 
constitutional and societal importance of the 
interest adversely affected and the recognized invidiousness of the basis on which the particular 
classification is drawn.' San Antonio School 
District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 98-99 (1972) (Marshall, J ., dissenting)1

33/ Alevy presented an equal protection dilemma because a
racially discriminatory classification was employed there 
for benign purposes —  to promote racial equality in a 
medical school admissions program. Rejecting the strict 
scrutiny test for such "benign" racial discrimination, 39 
N.Y.2d at 335, this Court recognized the important 
historical purpose of the (federal) equal protection clause "to guarantee equality for Blacks, and by logical 
extension . . . all minority groups." _Ic3. at 334.
Because this Court believed racially preferential govern­
ment programs might tend to "perpetuat[e] undesirable 
perceptions of race as criteria affecting State 
action . . .," it also rejected the "toothless" rational basis standard of review as inappropriate on the facts of 
Alevy. I_d. at 335-36.

34/ See 83 A.D.2d at 241.



35

scheme's profoundly adverse impact on minorities also impli­
cates the policy held by this Court in Alevy to require 
heightened scrutiny: the historic goal of the equal protec­
tion clause "to guarantee equality for Blacks . . . "  Alevy, 
supra, 39 N.Y.2d at 334. Cf. U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 
304 U.S. 1 44, 152-53 & n. 4 (1938).— '/

As noted by the Ninth circuit:
Where a nonsuspect classification . . .  is alleged 
to operate to the detriment of a disadvantaged 
class or classes . . . neither 'strict' nor 'minimal' scrutiny provides useful guidance as a standard 
of review.

Berkelman v. San Francisco Unified School District, 501 F.2d 
1264, 1267 (9th Cir. 1974) (applying intermediate level scru­
tiny to academic achievement tests which disproportionately 
excluded minority students from a preferred school). By 
requiring the State to show some actual relationship to a 
substantial state purpose to sustain legislation with a raci­
ally discriminatory impact courts can provide some protection 
against invidious results. Berkelman, supra; Castro v. 
Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 732-33 (1st Cir. 1972) (intermediate

35/ A finding that the school finance system was infected 
with discriminatory purposes is not necesary for the application of intermediate scrutiny (pp. 26-32, supra)♦ 
Larry P., supra, 495 F. Supp. at 986, citing Berkelman, 
supra. The fact of the disparate impact of the school 
finance system on the minority children of this state 
is enough to suggest that invidious purpose might have played a role and therefore requires that the decision 
be subject to heightened scrutiny.



36

scrutiny applied to civil service examinations with racially 
disparate impact); Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926,
985-86 (N.D. Cal. 1979) (applying intermediate scrutiny to 
school tracking system which disproportionately classified 
black children as "educable mentally retarded").

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Appellate 
Division rejected the State's interest in preserving local 
control as a justification for the wealth discrimination found 
here. Property-poor and urban school districts are deprived 
of control over their education programs by this school 
finance scheme. 83 A.D.2d at 242-43. The State's illusory 
objectives provide no greater justification for the racial 
discrimination which also results.

II
THIS SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM DEPRIVES 

MINORITY CHILDREN OF THE OPPORTUNITIES 
GUARANTEED BY THE EDUCATION ARTICLE

The Education Article of this State's Constitution 
provides that:

"The Legislature shall provide for the mainte­
nance and support of a system of free common 
schools, wherein all the children of this State may be educated."

N.Y. Const. Art XI, § 1. In fact, the State now maintains 
and supports a public school system which systematically



37

delivers inadequate educational opportunities to the over­
whelming majority of the State's minority public school 
pupils. (See pp. 8-23, supra.) But if the Education 
Article means anything, it surely requires the State to see 
that "all the children of the State may receive their educa­
tion, whatever may be their race, creed, color or condition." 
Judd v. Board of Education, 278 N.Y. 200, 205, rehearing 
denied, 278 N.Y. 712 (1938) (emphasis in original).

Public education is "the one national resource that 
traditionally has made this country a land of opportunity for 
diverse ethnic and racial groups." Columbus Board of Educa­
tion v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449, 486 (1979) (Powell, J., dissent­
ing). The implications of education for political participa-

o r /  3 7 /tion=—' and effective participation in the labor force^-' are 
also well recognized. 83 A.D.2d at 249. However, under New 
York's system of financing public education, the State's 
ethnic and racial minorities —  traditionally disadvantaged 
in their access to political power —  receive the least 
education of all. The resulting "gross educational under­
achievement," 83 A.D.2d at 233, particularly violates the 
command of the Education Article, because its impact is felt 
along racial lines.

Even when maintenance of racially segregated

36/ See Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76-78 (1979).
37/ See Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273, 295, 

cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976 (1 973).



38

schools was explicitly allowed, the law forbade discrimina­
tion against black children in the extent of educational 
opportunities provided to them. This requirement for equal 
educational opportunity was reflected in the very law autho­
rizing establishment of segregated schools, which provided 
that local school:

commissioners shall apportion and pay over to the 
trustees of such schools, a portion of the money 
received by them annually, in the same manner now 
provided by law in respect to school districts, al­
lowing to such schools the proper proportion for 
each child over five and under sixteen years. . . .

L. 1841 , c. 20, § 15.
Following adoption of the Constitution’s Education

Article in 1894, this Court addressed the question whether
segregated schools deprived black children of their rights
under that Article, where a school board "made the same
provisions for their education as are made for others, so far
as the nature, extent and character of the education and
facilities for obtaining it are concerned." Cisco v. School
Board, 161 N.Y. 598, 599 (1900). Even though the invalidity
of official segregation was not yet recognized or understood,
the equalizing principle of the Education Article was plain:

[T]he . . . Constitution requires the legislature to 
. . . furnish a system of common schools where each 
and every child may be educated, not that all must 
be educated in any one school, but that it shall 
provide or furnish a school or schools where each 
and all may have the advantages guaranteed by that 
instrument. . . .  It was the facilities for and 
the advantages of an education that it was required 
to furnish to all children. . . .



39

Id. at 601. Even the Cisco court, applying a nineteenth- 
century concept of a natural distinction between the races, 
recognized the rights of black children to a fair distribu­
tion of the State's education resources. But under today's 
school finance system, many minority children are educated in
schools which receive a grossly inequitable share of those

38/resources. — '

The Education Article requires the State to give 
all its children equal educational opportunities. 83 A.D.2d 
at 247-48. This Court accordingly recognized that provisions 
of the Education Law authorizing the Commissioner of Education 
to require school districts to finance transportation of 
geographically isolated school children implement the command 
of the Education Article. People ex rel Board of Education v. 
Graves, 243 N.Y. 204, 209 (1926). The Constitutional duty to 
support and maintain a system of common schools also obliges 
the State to make special provision for delinquent and 
handicapped children, orphans, Native Americans, the deaf, 
and the blind, who cannot benefit from the facilities generally

38/ Compare the facts found by the Appellate Division here, 
83 A.D.2d at 233: "As concerns educational offerings
the city schools . . . have among the highest pupil-
teacher ratios in the State and a severely constricted 
variety of elective courses. Many pupils attend classes 
in buildings . . .  in need of repairs and lacking in 
facilities for counseling, study or recreation. Pupils 
attending schools in the large cities were . . . pro­
vided with less physical security in their schools; less 
transportation; restricted sports and extracurricular 
activity; inadequate library and health services; and 
diminished offerings in art and music . . . "



40

provided for others, Wiltwyck School for Boys, Inc, v. Hill,
11 N.Y.2d 182, 191-93 (1962)); see also Matter of Levy, 38 
N.Y.2d 653, 657 (1976).

Construing analogous provisions of the New Jersey
constitution, that state's highest court said:

[W]e do not doubt that an equal educational op­
portunity for children was precisely in mind. The 
mandate that there be maintained "a thorough and 
efficient system of free public schools for the 
instruction of all the children in the State be­
tween the ages of five and eighteen years" can have no other import.

Robinson v. Cahill, supra, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273, 294 
(1973) The Appellate Division correctly held, 83 A.D.2d at 
247-48) that the Education Article of New York's Constitution 
requires no less for the children of this State.

Recently this court observed that, in the field of 
education: "'there may . . .  be gross violations of defined
public policy which the courts would be obliged to recognize 
and correct.'" Donohue v. Copiague Union Free School District, 
47 N.Y.2d 440, 445 (1979). Here, the evidence overwhelmingly 
showed that New York's black and Hispanic school children are 
consistently deprived of access to the educational advantages 
other New York children enjoy because the Legislature has 
failed to adequately support and maintain the schools where 
they must try to obtain an education. The magnitude and



4 1

extent of the resulting discrimination leave no room for doubt 
that the Education Article is violated here.— ^

CONCLUSION

The State's school finance system is suffused with 
inequity. The quality of education received by New York chil­
dren is largely a function of the place where they reside.
As we have shown, it is also largely a function of minority 
or majority group status. The Constitution of this State 
forbids such discriminations. Accordingly, for all the 
reasons stated above, it is respectfully submitted that the 
judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

April 16, 1982
Respectfully submitted,
JACK GREENBERG JAMES M. NABRIT III* *
STEVEN L. WINTER
The NAACP Legal Defense andEducational Fund, Inc.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for the Amici Curiae

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON NANCY A. KILSON 
345 Park Avenue 
New York, New York 10154 

Of Counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Inc.

(List of counsel continues on next page)

39/ The brief of intervenor-plaintiffs discusses the
equalizing objective of the Education Article from 
an historical perspective. We support the views set forth there and do not repeat them here.

* Member of District of Columbia Bar



GALLET & DREYER
JEFFRY H. GALLET

42 Broadway Suite 1701 
New York, New York 10004 
(212) 269-5566

Of Counsel to the New York Metropolitan 
Council of the American Jewish Congress

HURLEY, KEARNEY & LANE
KEVIN KEARNEY 

32 Court Street 
Brooklyn, New York 11201 
(212) 852-5900

Of Counsel to The Department of Education, 
Diocese of Brooklyn



APPENDIX A



RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION
OF

PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS

AND STAFF 
NEW YORK STATE 

1980-81

The University of the State of New York 

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

mmmmmmlnformathn Center on Education ■ 

Albany, New York 12234



T A B L E  1

RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
NEW YORK STATE 

1980-81

Location Enrollment 
Pre-K - 12

Black
(not Hispanic Origin) Hispanic—^

American Indian, 
Alaskan Native, 
Asian or Pacific 

Islander

White
(not Hispanic Origin)

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

"Big Five" Cities 

Buffalo 47,814 22,537 47.17= 2,098 4.47= 918 1.97= 22,261 46.67=

New York 943,805 363,959 38. 5 287,485 30.5 38,673 4.1 253,688 26.9

Rochester 35,105 17,036 48.5 3,255 9.3 562 1.6 14,252 40.6

Syracuse 21,824 7,334 33.6 396 1.8 780 3.6 13,314 61.0

Yonkers 21,863 4,534 20. 7 3,489 16.0 363 1. 7 13,477 61.6

Total "Big Five" 1,070,411 415,400 38.8 296,723 27. 7 41,296 3.9 316,992 29.6

Rest of State 1,778,117 101,607 5.7 33,241 1.9 20,021 1.1 1,623,248 91.3

TOTAL STATE 2,848,528 517,007 18. 27. 329,964 11.67= 61,317 2.17= 1,940,240 68. 17=

a/t, n- "Hispanic" includes Mexican, Central American, South American, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American or other 
Spanish-speaking origin.



4 A- 3

TABLE 2
a/DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK AND HISPANIC- 

PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS
NEW YORK STATE

1980-81

Black
(Not Hispanic Origin)

,, # . a / Hispanic— Black and Hispanic—^

Location Number of 
Black 

Students 
Pre-K - 12

Percent 
of State 
Black 
Students

Number of 
Hispanic 
Students 
Pre-K - 12

Percent 
of State 
Hispanic 
Students

Number of 
Black and 
Hispanic 
Students 
Pre-K - 12

Percent 
of State 
Black and 
Hispanic 
Students

"Big Five" Cities 

Buffalo 22,537 4. 47. 2,098 0.67. 24,635 2.9%

New York 363,959 70.4 287,485 87.1 651,444 76.9

Rochester 17,036 3.3 3,255 1.0 20,291 2.4

Syracuse 7,334 1.4 396 0.1 7,730 0.9

Yonkers 4,534 0.9 3,489 1.1 8,023 1.0

Total "Big Five" 415,400 80.4 296,723 89.9 712,123 84.1

Rest of State 101,607 19.6 33,241 10.1 134,848 15.9

TOTAL STATE 517,007 100.07. 329,964 100.07. 846,971 100. 07.

-^"Hispanic" includes Mexican, Central American, South American, Cuban, Puerto 
Rican, Latin American, or other Spanish-speaking origin.



T A B L E  3

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS 
BY RACIAL/ETHNIC ORIGIN

NEW YORK STATE
1976-77 THROUGH 1980-81

1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81
Location

Black His-
panicS/ Other Black His-

panicSV Other Black His-
panicii/ Other Black His­

panic—/ Other Black His­
panic—/ Other

"Big Five" Cities

Buffalo 44.6% 3.6% 51.8% 45.7% 3.9% 50. 4% 46.0% 4.0% 50.0% 46.5% 4. 3% 49.2% 47.1% 4.4% 48. 5%

New York 37.9 29.0 33.0 38.1 29.4 32.5 38.4 29.5 32. 1 38.6 29.8 31.6 38.5 30.5 31.0

Rochester 44.5 8.0 47.6 45.9 8. 5 45.6 46.8 8.8 44.4 47.6 9.1 43.3 48.5 9. 3 42.2

Syracuse 30.9 1.3 67.9 31.9 1.6 66. 5 32.0 1.5 66.5 32.4 1.7 65.9 33.6 1.8 64.6

Yonkers 17.4 11.3 71.3 18.5 11.9 69. 6 19.0 13.3 67.7 20. 1 14.4 65.5 20. 7 16.0 63.3

Total "Big Five" 37.8 26.2 36.0 38. 1 26.5 35.4 38.5 26. 8 34.7 38.7 27.1 34.2 38.8 27.7 33.5

Rest of State 5.2 1.6 93.3 5.3 1.6 93.1 5.4 1. 7 92.9 5.6 1.8 92.6 5.7 1.9 92.4

TOTAL STATE 17. 2% 10. 7% 72.1% 17.4% 10. 8% 71.8% 17. 7% 11.0% 71.3% 17.9% 11.1% 71.0% 18.2% 11.6% 70. 2%

a/— "Hispanic" includes Mexican, Central American, South American, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Latin American, or other 
Spanish-speaking origin,

NOTE: In this table, the category "Other" includes all students not classified as black or Hispanic.



6
A-5

TABLE 4
a/NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND NUMBER AND PERCENT OF MINORITY- STUDENTS 

IN SCHOOLS OF DIFFERING RACIAL COMPOSITION
NEW YORK STATE

1980-81

Racial Composition 
of Schools 

(Percent Minority)

Number
of

Schools

Number
of

Minority Students

Percent of 
Minority Students 

in State

None 354 0 0.07.

0.1 - 9.9% 2,108 32,957 3.9

10.0 - 19.9 290 28,452 3.4

20.0 - 29.9 200 34,201 4.0

30.0 - 39.9 165 49,797 5.9

40.0 - 49.9 143 62,527 7.4

50.0 - 59.9 109 46,491 5.5

60.0 - 69.9 75 43,239 5.1

70.0 - 79.9 81 48,334 5.7

80.0 - 89.9 104 70,628 8. 3

90.0 - 99.9 440 390,871 46. 1

100.0 74 39,474 4.7

Total 4,143 846,971 100. 07o

2 /— Minority includes black and Hispanic students.



T A B L E  5

NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND NUMBER AND PERCENT OF BLACK STUDENTS 
IN SCHOOLS OF DIFFERING RACIAL COMPOSITION

NEW YORK STATE
1980-81

Racial Composition 
of Schools 

(Percent Black)

Number
of

Schools

Number 
. of

Black Students

Percent of 
Black Students 

in State

None 599 0 0.0%

0.1 - 9.9% 2,115 32,821 6.3

10.0 - 19.9 351 41,055 7.9

20.0 - 29.9 280 54,267 10.5

30.0 - 39.9 175 60,642 11.7

40.0 - 49.9 148 51,159 9.9

50.0 - 59.9 136 60,969 11.8

60.0 - 69.9 73 37,014 7.2

70.0 - 79.9 64 39,050 7.6

80.0 - 89.9 80 54,678 10.6

90.0 - 99.9 122 85,352 16.5

100.0 0 0 0

Total 4,143 517,007 100.0%



A-7

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS 21
BY RACIAL/ETHNIC ORIGIN

19 80-81
AMER INO/

SCHOOL DISTRICT black HISPANIC ALASKAN ♦ WHITE
(NOT HISP.) AS IAN/PAC IS (NOT HISP)

MASSAPEQUA __ V 1 .1 ? 0 .6? 98.3?
MEPHAM 0 . 6 0.4 0.4 98.6
MERRICK 0.1 0.5 1.0 98.5
MINE OLA 3.a 2 . 6 1.3 92.4
Ntw HYDE PARK 0.7 2 . 0 4.3 93.0
NORTH BELLMORE 1.5 1 . 0 1.4 9b . 1
NORTH MERRICK 0 . 8 0.9 2 . 2 96.2
NORTH SHORE 0.4 0.4 0 . 8 98-4
OCEANSIDE 0 . 2 2 . 1 0.5 97.2
OYSTER BAY 5.7 1.4 1.7 91.3
PLAINEDGE — 0.9 0.5 98.7
PLAINVIEW 0.3 0 . 2 1.0 98.5
PORT WASHINGTON 3.0 3.7 3.6 89.7
ROCKVILLE CENTRE 5.9 4.5 1 . 2 88.4
ROOSEVELT 97.3 2 . 0 — 0 . 6
ROSLYN 6 . 2 1 . 2 2 . 2 90.4
SEAFORO * 1.0 1.0 97.9
SEWANHAKA 3.3 2.3 1.3 93.1
SYQSStT 0 . 2 0.7 2 . 2 96.9
UNIONDALE 50.2 7.5 1.5 40.9
VALLEY STR HEMP 13 — 0.3 2 . 1 97.6
VALLEY STR HEMP 24 0.1 1 . 2 0.9 97.8
VALLEY STR HEMP 30 * 2 . 0 2 . 0 95.8
VALLEY STREAM CHS 0 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 6 98.3
WANTAGH 0.1 1 . 0 1.3 97.6
WEST HEMPSTEAD 4.0 1.4 1.3 93.3
WESTBURY 73.7 6 . 2 1 . 8 18.3

COUNTY TOTAL 10.7 2 . 8 1.4 . 85-0

MANHATTAN
MANHATTAN DISTRICT 1 14.4 ' 73.8 7.8 3-9
MANHATTAN DISTRICT 2 13.2 25.6 28.7 32.4
MANHATTAN DISTRICT 3 47.3 39.6 1 . 8 1 1 . 2
MANHATTAN DISTRICT ^ 36.2 56.3 0.3 7.3
MANHATTAN DISTRICT 5 80.9 18.5 0. 4 0 . 2
MANHATTAN DISTRICT 6 19.8 7<*.l 1 . 6 4.5
MANHATTAN H S GIST ^7.4 35.0 5.8 1 1 . 8
MANHATTAN SPECIAL 49.0 35. 8 1 . 0 14.3

c o u n t y total 39.1 42. 7 6.7 11.5

BRONX
BRONX DISTRICT 7 32.8 66.5 0 . 2 0.5
BRONX DISTRICT 8 33.7 51.3 0 . 6 14.4
BRONX DISTRICT 9 52.0 46.0 1 . b 0.5
BRONX DISTRICT 1 0 25.9 54.2 3.4 16.5
* LESS THAN 0.1?



A-8
PERCE NT OISTRI8 UTION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS 

BY R ACT AL/E THNIC OR IGIN 
i 9 ao-8 i

SCHOOL DISTRICT BLACK 
C NOT HISP

BRONX DISTRICT 11 49.2?
bRUNx DISTRICT 12 34.9
BRONX H S DISTRICT 41.2
BRONX SPECIAL SCH 46.9

COUNTY TOTAL 39.2

BROUKLYN
BROOKLYN SPECIAL 55.6BROOKLYN DISTRICT 13 ~ 80.4
BROOKLYN DISTRICT ■ \k 2 2 . 0BKUOKLYN DISTRICT 15 16.0
BROOKLYN DISTRICT 16 89.0
BROOKLYN DISTRICT 17 8 6 . 2
BROOKLYN DISTRICT 18 62.1
BROOKLYN DISTRICT 19 49.6BROOKLYN DISTRICT 20 9.2
BROOKLYN DISTRICT 21 2 1 . 8BROOKLYN DISTRICT 22 31.4BRUUkLYN DISTRICT 23 83.2
BROOKLYN DISTRICT 32 28.7
BROOKLYN H S DISTR 46.6COUNTY TOTAL 45.8

yUEENS
yUEENS SP EC1AL 52.5
CUEE NS DISTRICT 24 9.7
UUEE NS DISTRICT 25 14.3C'UEENS DISTRICT 2 6 19.3
UUEENS DISTRICT 27 40.3
wUEENS DISTRICT 28 46.3UUEE NS DISTRICT 29 70.9
CUE E NS DISTR ICT 30 18.1
WUEENS H S ulSTRIL 35.6
WUEEnS SPEC 33 2 1 . 2COUNTY TOTAL 33.3

RICHMOND
kichmu no SPECIAL 39.4
RICHMOND QISTk ICT 31 11.5
STATtN 1SL ANO H S 1 0 . 1

county TOTAL 11.5

new york city total 38.5

HISPANIC
AMEK 1N0/ 
ALASKAN * WHITE

25.1?
ASIAN/PAC IS 

1 .8?
(NOT HI 

23.9?63.7 0.4 1 . 041.b 1.9 15.341.2 0- 6 11.447.2 1.7 1 1 . 8

2 7. 1 1 . 0 16.317. 1 0 . 6 1.967.3 1.5 9.260.6 2. 7 2 0 . 8
1 0 . 8 — 0 . 111.4 1 . 8 0.78.5 1.7 27.842. 4 1.4 6 . 624. 9 6 . 0 59.915.4 3.9 58.99. 7 3.9 65.0
1 6 . 6 -- 0 . 266.3 0.5 4.521.5 2 . 8 29.127.0 2.4 24.8

19. 9 0.9 2 b. b35. 8 1 1 . 8 42.7
1 2 . 8 15.6 57.45.3 8.9 6 6 * 615.4 2 . 0 42.2
19.5 8.4 25.8
1 1 . 1 2 . 8 15.130.9 1 1 . 1 39.9
17.9 5.3 41.223.2 8 . 1 47.519. 2 7.4 40.1

17. 1 0.5 43.0
6 . 1 2.3 80.1
5. 4 1.4 83.0
6. 0 2 . 0 80.5

30.5 4. I 26.9
f LESS THAN U.l?



APPENDIX B



New York City 110 Livingston Street 
Public Schools Brooklyn, New York 11201

Frank J .  Macchiarola 
Chancellor of Schools

Thomas, Gross 
Director (Acting)
Office of Student Information Services 
(212) 596-4045

E.S.E.A. TITLE I TARGET SCHOOLS

1980-1981 School Year



B-2

EXPLANATION OF CODES AND TERMINOLOGY

1. LEVEL - 110-Elementary School
220-Intermediate and Junior High School

2. DISTRICT - The Community School District number.

3. P.S. # - The Public School number.

4. TOTAL AFDC - The total number of children, ages 5-17, whose families
receive assistance under the New York City Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children(AFDC) program.

5. ADMATCH SUCCESS RATE - This is a borough-wide rate which is calcu­
lated by dividing the number of AFDC children in a borough by 
the number of children successfully placed in attendance zones 
in that borough.

6. BOROUGH FALLOUT FACTOR - This number compensates for the children
who could not be placed in an attendance area because of ad­
dress matching fallout(names and addresses of children could 
not be matched with an attendance area because of poor address 
information, e.g., no street name, non-existent street number 
or name.)

7. AGE DISTRIBUTION FACTOR - The number of grades in a school divided
by 13(the number of grades in a K-12 grade span).

8. NORM AFDC - Calculated by the following formula:

Norm AFDC= (T&!B£) X (Fal58u£UFactor) X (Distribution)

9. FREE LUNCH -The number of students eligible for free lunch under the
federally subsidized program in which children in families with 
low income are entitled to a free lunch at school. (Number ex­
cludes Pre-K and Special Education Classes.)

10. LOW INCOME CHILDREN - Calculated by the following formula:

Low Income Children= .4(Free Lunch) +.6(Norm AFDC)

11. REGISTER - The enrollment of a school(excluding Pre-K and Special
Education Classes.)

12. % LOW INCOME CHILDREN - Calculated by dividing the number of low
■ income children in a school by the register of the school and 
multiplying by 100.

% Low Income_ Number of low income children 
Children Register X 100

-32-



9

30AR D OF EDUCATION DF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY 
1333-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

LEVEL DISTRICT PS u
TOTAL 
AF DC

ADMATCH 
SUCCFSS 
RATE

BOROUGH
FALLOUT
FACTOR

AGE
DISTRIBUTION

FACTOR
NORM
AFDC

FREE
LUNCH

LOW
INCOME

CHILDREN REGISTER

* LOW 
INCOME 

CHILDREN
— — — ~ — ----—— — -----— -— —

110 1 15 551 97.10 1 .030 0.533 305 362 327 382 85.86
n o 1 19 373 97.10 1.030 0.533 206 585 357 597 59.97
n o 1 20 A 15 97.10 1 .030 0.533 229 628 388 651 59.78
n o I 3A 327 97.10 1.030 0.533 181 522 316 569 5 5.80
n o 1 61 A 2 7 97.10 1 .030 0 .538 236 3A2 277 38b 72.22
n o 1 63 600 97.10 1.030 0.533 332 350 338 A 37 77.68
11 0 1 6A 737 97,10 1 .030 0.5 33 A 0 8 A65 A3 0 501 86.03
n o 1 97 681 97.10 1.030 0.538 377 A 50 A05 A 71 86.28
n o 1 n o 26 A 97.10 1 .030 0.538 1A6 370 2 3 A A52 52.16
11 0 1 1 3 A 273 97.10 1.030 0.533 151 36 A 235 A A 6 52.99
n o 1 137 A A5 97.10 1.03 0 0.538 2A6 5 1 A 352 582 60.7A
11 0 1 1 AO A 07 97.10 I .030 0.533 225 A06 297 A20 70.88
11 u 1 1 A 2 A 6 6 97.10 1 .030 0.533 269 AA3 338 A90 69.1 A
n o 1 186 1273 97.10 1 .030 0.533 705 659 686 67A 101.90
220 1 2 2 2 A 3 8 97.10 1 .030 0.231 591 A5A 536 938 57.22
220 1 25 1960 97.10 1.030 0.231 A 6 6 381 A31 503 85.92
22 0 1 5b 1508 97.10 1.030 0 .231 358 1252 715 1503 A7.6A
220 1 60 1835 97.10 1 .03 0 0.231 A3 6 715 5 A 6 739 7 A . 1 A

0 T A l S ! IT OF S CHLS = 18) 15050 97.10 * 1 .030 5867 9262 7225 1 07 A 1 67.27

CITYWIDE * LOW LNCOME CUTOFF - A5.12

-33- tdIU>



- REVISED
33AR) -OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK .. 5 19 8

METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1930-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

AOMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW * LOW
total SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE .. . INCOME. INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT ps n A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
no 2 ....... 1 3 01 97.10 1 .03 0 0.533 ........ .... 166 ... 625 .... 3A9 652 53.69
110 2 2 308 97.10 1.030 0.538 170 7 AO 397 778 51.21
no 2 3 125 97.10 1.030 0.462 59 129 86 A76 18.3A
1 1 0 2 fa .. 13 . 97.10 1.03 0 0.538 7___  78 ... 35 637 5.58
no 2 1 1 358 9 7.10 1.030 0.462 170 329 233 358 65.31
no 2 2fa 0 97.10 1.030 . 0.538 0 0 0 520 0.0
no ... .... 2 .... .... 33 9 53 97.10 . 1.030 0.462 ... .. 220 __  265 ...___ ...2 37 ___ 3 A 1 69,85
no 2 90 37 97.10 1 .030 0.538 20 90 A7 556 8.69
1 1 0 2 91 129 97.10 1.030 0 . A 6 2 58 380 186 8 A1 22.28
no 2 92 2 1D 97.10 1 .03 0 . 3.538 116 632 321 635 50.81
1 1 0 2 51 992 97.10 1 .030 0.538 2 A A 360 289 A 1 6 69.9A
1 1 0 2 59 21 97.10 1.03 0 0 .538 11 1 0 A A 7 A05 12.00
no 2 .. ni . 9 33 97.10 1.030 0.5 33 ........ 239 _ 505 3 AA 6 6 A 52.10
no 2 no 199 97.10 1 .030 0.538 107 303 185 508 36.55
no 2 129 10 97.10 1.030 0.538 5 7 A 0 298 958 31.24
no 2 1 2 fa 380 97.10 1 .030 0.538 210 Alb 292 A36 67.1A
no 2 130 197 97. ID 1.030 0.538 81 7A7 3A6 7 A 7 A6.5A
1 1 0 2 151 276 97.10 1 .030 0 .538 152 209 1 7 A 257 68.23
no 2 158 39 97.10 1.030 0.538 18 53 32 579 5.61
1 1 0 2 183 12 97.10 1 .03 0 3.538 6 78 3 A 301 11 .69
1 1 0 2 190 91 97.10 1 .030 0.538 22 153 7 A 285 26.2b
no 2 19b 291 97.10 1.030 0 .538 161 A3 9 271 A 5 8 59.A6
1 1 0 2 217 0 9 7.10 1.030 0 . A 6 2 0 25 9 A 8 1 2 .08
2 2 0 2 17 8 75 9 7.10 1 .030 0.308 277 35 A 307 637 48*37
2 2 0 ? 6 5.. 792 9 7.10 1.030 . 0.231 188. 1292 630 13 5 A 46.52
2 2 0 2 70 1081 97.10 1 .030 0.308 3 A 2 583 A3 3 1053 41.68
2 2 0 2 109 2 78 97.10 1.030 0.231 6 6 312 163 919 17.90
2 2 0 2 157 652 97.10 1.030 0.231 155 A 1 5 258 ' 1090 23.77
2 2 0 2 217 0 97.10 1.030 0.303 0 25 9 237 A.22

DTAL5 [ I t □F SCHL$= 29) 78 98 97.10 % 1 .03 0 3270 __10381 _ 6115 17579 3A.79

CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 95.12



s t a r d x f  fdoc a t r a m f the ctty  tif rjrw york—  -------•"--------— --------------
MEr’XQPOLmM EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY Revised 6/19/80

— rararo - s i ..rove rty cdkrone rrs'TTSTWG '----- — ----------- ~

AOKATCH SOROUSH AGE LOW % LOW
LEVEL DISTRICT PS it

TTJT At 
AFDC

S Jt L F S S 
RATE

"FALLOUT
FACTOR

7 ISTRI3UTIOM 
FACTOR

NORM
AFDC

FREE
LUNCH

1 N L LJ M b 
CHILDREN REGISTER

TNIUMF
CHILDREN

113 3 9 235 97.10 1 .030 0 .962 1 1 1 360 2 1 0 9 27 99.93
- m r 3 T5~ 313 97917 1 • D 3 D —g ̂ 3 3 3 1 7 3 723 393 871 ~~46 . 2 1
113 3 76 392 9 7.10 1.030 0.533 272 909 329 909 80.99
113 ~ 3 8 579 97.10 " 1.03 0 0 .53 8 " " 717 787 "142 5 2.90
113 3 87 109 97.10 1.030 0.962 99 216 115 979 29.29
103 3 11 3 991 97.10 " 1.737 7.53 3' 219""~ 399 "377" "399 76.79 "
113 3 13 9 389 97.10 1 . 030 0.538 215 991 325 992 6 6 . 2 0

"~1T3 “ 3 i 96 6 0 6 97.17 ~ 117 37 01578 775 771 187 7g3- 51 .07
113 3 19 9 9 05 97.10 1.030 0.231 96 1 2 0 109 1 2 0 88.17
11 3 3 163 902 _ 9 7;17 1 .73 3 ' ' 0 . ?7 3 2 2 2 95 6 .. 3 1 5 70S ' 62.21 .
113 3 165 926 97.10 1.030 0.538 513 678 578 799 72.93
1 1 3 3 16 6 ' 199 77.10 1.030" 0.962 9 9 "377 197 " 566 3 511 3
113 Q 179 953 97.10 1.030 0.533 251 332 282 353 80.38
1 1 J 3 1 BO 9 97 9 / . 1 0 ~T173 0 01777 2 1 / 320 ' ■ 277 37tr 71."T6"
11 3 3 185 513 97.10 1.030 0.231 1 2 2 303 199 303 69.17
1 1 u 3 191 959 97.10 ~ 1 . 0 3 0 0 .3 U 3 199 291 182 "2 9 3 75.23 ~
103 3 199 959 97.10 1.030 0.231 108 235 157 293 65 .3511 3 3 207 h lii 9 / * i D r. 7 3 0 '0 .303" 1 ^ 8 197 177 199 91.19
113 3 203 513 97.10 1 . 030 0.303 1 6 2 917 263 922 62.66T ?  J 3 99“ 1 017 9 / . 1 0 11737 "7.271 290 790 460 ““TOO 7"" 45.77
2 ? J 3 53 1392 9 7.10 1.030 0.231 331 900 357 736 98.74223 3 80“ 2 b 3 0 9 7.10 1 .030 D * 1 > ■+ 917 5 OU 98 9 " """ 6 2 5 "" 78141223 3 118 1862 9 7.10 1.03 0 0.231 992 957 607 1 2 0 2 50.63

0TAL5 (ft OF S C H L S = 2 3 ) 1 5223 97.10 % 1.030 5239 10,046 7160 12226 58.56

n T Y ¥ T D T ~ T 'X trr  TTCOK E CUTUFF""^----4'5.1 2

-35-
taim



BOARD "OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

A D M A T C H BURDOCK AGE LOW * LOWTOTAL SJCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE.. INCOME . . INCDMELEVEL DISTRICT ps a AFOC RATE FACTOR FACTOR A FDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN•— — — — — — — — —  — - ----- — ------ — •—  — — - ------- — —
110 ... ..  A ... .. 7 6 61 . 97.10 ___ 1 .030 .. .0.5 3 8 366 563 AAA 569 78.20110 A 50 ABO 97.10 1.030 0.538 265 A65 3 A A 567 60.95110 A 57 5 A3 97.10 1.030 0 .538 300 530 391 63A 61.91110 A ... 72 _. 781 __97.10 1.030 . .. . 0.538 A3 2 ... . 5 A A _.... A76 580 82.28no A 83 A A 9 97.10 1 .030 0.538 2 A 8 5 A 6 367 615 59.78110 A 9b 6 6 A 97.10 1.030 0.538 367 35A 361 A1 6 86.68100 .__  A ___ 101. .8A9 97.10... 1.030 0.533 A70 385 A35 393 111.00no A 102 55 8 97.10 1.030 0.538 309 A20 352 A 23 83.57110 A 108 617 97.10 1.03 0 0.538 3 A 1 BOO AAA 6 A3 69.22no A 109 . A 6 3 97.10 1 .030 0.533 . .. 256 333 ....... 286 333 86,22110 A 112 13 1A 97.10 1 .03 0 0.231 312 33A 320 33A 96,16100 A 121 923 97.10 1.030 0.538 511 562 530 562 9A.60110 A .. 1 Ab ..._. 712 . .. 9 7.10 .1 .030 .. . . _ 0.538 .... ... 39A - „ A72 A2A A9 1110 A 155 75 A 97.10 1.030 0.538 A 1 7 5A2 A66 5A2 86.25110 A 171 600 9 7.10 1 ..030 0.538 332 A 26 369 539 68 .62110 A ... 206 131 A 97.10 1,030 0.308 A 1 6 A90 AA5 512 87.12COO N A 1 3 2 5 95 97.10 1.030 0.231 617 681 6A2 1191 53.97220 A AS 2628 97.10 1.030 0.231 625 706 657 1063 61 .85220 A 99 23A5 97.10 I .03 0 ; 0.231 557 .876 68 A 1019 67.23220 A 117 2838 97.10 1.030 0.231 675 677 675 116 A 58.07

OTALS W OF $CHLS= 20.) 2 2088 97.10 % 1.03.0 8 210 1 0506 ... 9 1 2 8 12592 72.A9

. . CJTYWID(: * LOW INCOME CUTQFF - A5.12

-36-
toiCTl



3QARD;0F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1930-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW % LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOJT DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE INCOME INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS ft A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
..no 5 .30 327 97,10 1 ,030 .0 .538 ... HI 359 251 359 70.28
110 5 36 955 97.10 1.030 0.231 227 274 245 366 67.19
no 5 U 6 842 97.10 1 .,030 0.308 267 492 356 533 66.99
no 5 79 176 9 7.10 1.030 0.539 97 115 103 115 90.88
no 5 9 2 487 97.10 1.03 0 0.538 269 455 342 455 75.58
no 5 123 847 97.10 1.030 0.538 469 559 504 65 1 77.60
no ...... 5 125 ... 955 .97.10 1 .0 3 0 0.308 302 463 366 544 67.45
no 5 129 427 97.10 1.030 0.538 236 548 360 563 64.15
no 5 133 615 9 7.10 1.03 0 0.538 340 418 371 418 88.91
no 5 154 489 97.10 1.030 0.462 232 570 366 570 64.49
no 5 156 842 9 7.10 1.030 0.231 200 311 244 311 78.65
no 5 161 944 97.10 1.030 0.538 523 631 565 703 80.54
no 5 175 7 B 5 97.10 1 .030 0.538 43 4 263 365 279 131.2411 0 5 194 460 97.10 1 .030 0.538 254 497 350 4 97 70.77
no 5 197 516 97.10 1 .03 0 0.538 285 611 415 726 57.2911 0 5 200 847 97.10 1.030 0.462 403 586 475 704 67.64220 5 10 16 47 97.10 1 .03 0 0.231 391 605 .476 756 6 3.11220 5 43 2327 97.10 1.030 0.231 553 663 597 1009 59.20220 5 136 3171 97.10 1 .030 0 .231 754 746 750 760 98.82220 5 201 1594 97.10 1.030 0.154 252 251 251 253 99.64

OTALS U OF S C HL 5 = 20) 1 9253 97.10 % 1.030 6669 9417 7768 10572 73.48

........ ... ...... CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME CJTOFF - 45.12

•..; ••• " ... > . ,. •

Note: IS-195 Has a District-Wide Attendance Pattern. Statistics are Found on Page 66.

-37-. _ tfli



3 R 0 *QF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1930-81 POVER TY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BORUUGH AGE LOW % LOW
.TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT. ... DISTRIBUTION . NORM FREE . INCOME INCOME

LE YE L DISTRICT PS If A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
-™ — ~ — •--- - - - - ------— --- - ----- - - --—— -

110 .....6 ..... 28 13 74 __9 7.10 1*33 0 ..  3.5 38 ..... __761.... __ 954.......  8 37. . 1168 . 71.78
110 5 98 1937 97.10 1.030 0.538 1073 1034 1056 1343 78.74
110 6 115 1019 97.10 1 .030 0.533 564 1302 739 1207 61.27
110 5 128 ,. 1304 97.10 1.030 . 0.538 7 2 2_ 1050 852 1403 60.83
n o 6 132 875 97.10 1 .030 0.538 48 4 941 666 1099 60.72
110 6 152 769 97.10 1.030 0.538 426 ' 874 604 1325 45.68
110 6 153 .614 97.10 . .1.030 - 3.462 ......... .29 2.. 948.._____ 554 . .. .1104 50.22
110 5 173 1076 97.10 1.030 3.538 596 919 724 1349 53.77
n o 6 187 320 97.10 1 .030 3.385 126 258 179 530 33.84
n o 6 189 1328 97.10 1 .030 . 3.539 735 140 9 1004 1548 64.93
n o 6 192 1586 97.10 1 .030 3.538 879 13 6 4 1072 1382 77*63
220 6 5 2. 2742 97.10 1 .030 3.231 652 1215 876 1712 51.25
220 6 143 . 6429 9 7*10 .1 *030 0.231 _ . 1529 . 1.242 1413 1936 73.06
220 6 164 4417 97.10 1.030 0.231 1050 456 812 534 152.22
220 fe 187 320 97.10 1.030 0.308 101 277 170 523 32.83
220 6 2 33 503 ..... 9 7.10 1.030 3.231 . 119 84 104 84 125.47

OT ALS ( ft OF S CHLS = 16) 2 5 6 1 3 9 7.10 '< • 1.030 10108 14027 11676 18247 63.99

CITYWIDE % LOW LNCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

-38-

tdi
co



BOARD »3F EDUCATION DF THE CITY ClP NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

AOMATCH 8QROUOH AGE LOW % LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM .FREE. . INCOME INCOME

L E V F L DISTRICT PS I f AF DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR A FDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
.110... . ....7 .... . .. 1 __996 . 93.06 . ..1 .02 0 . 0.462 469 . .551 501 618 81.22
110 7 5 808 98.06 1 .020 0.462 380 486 422 516 81.94
110 7 18 721 93.06 1 .020 0.46 2 339 408 366 587 62.52
110 . . 7  . . . . . . 25. 276 98.06 1.020 . 0.538 151 292 ..... 205 292 71.11
no 7 2 7 673 93.06 1.020 0.538 3o9 351 361 440 62.26
no 7 29 528 98.06 1 .020 0.462 248 390 304 439 69.53

... 100.. . __ .7....... .....30. - .9 51...98.06... .1 .020 0.462 448 773 577 773 74,78
no 7 31 10 1 A 93.06 • 1.020 0.538 556 626 583 808 72.30
11 0 7 AO 698 98.06 1.020 0.538 382 482 421 509 83.02
no 7 A3 . 690 98.05 1.020 :: 0 .538 378 39 7 385 523 73.79
11 0 7 A9 1120 93.06 1.020 0.538 614 538 583 695 84.01
no 7 65 1 A 5 7 98.05 1.020 0.462 686 517 617 568 108.92
11 o. .... . 7 .... __1 2 A..... 183.... 9 3 . 06 . .....1 .02 0 . „ 0.533 . . 100 281 172 311 55.51
no 7 1 5 A 9 A 3 98.06 1.020 0.538 517 630 561 703 80.00
no 7 156 1103 93.05 1 .020 0.462 519 446 490 659 74.51
no 7 157 525 93.06 1,020 0 .538 288 275 281 459 61 .62
no 7 161 277 93.06 1.020 0.538 151 526 301 526 57.34
220 7 139 2087 98.06 1 .02 0 0 .231 491 551 554 677 82.04

... 22Q __ .. .7..... 149 .....13 80 .9 3.06 1.020 _ _ 0.231.... 325 516 401 808 49.68
220 7 151 1825 98.06 1.020 0.231 429 344 394 638 62.00
220 7 155 2537 93.06 1 .020 0.231 597 524 567 593 95.82220 7 152 3271 93.05 1 .020 0.231 77 0 549 681 738 92.40
220 7 183 2709 93.05 1.020 0.231 638 644 639 779 82.22

dials Iff DF. SCHLS =.. 23 )__ ..2 6 7 72...93 . 06 *< 1 .020 _ 9845 11199 10337 13659 76.05

__ ____ ____________________________ ________________________________ CITY WIDE \  LOW. INCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

Note:TS-184 Has a District-Wide Attendance Pattern.''Statistics are "Found on̂ Page 66'. ~ ~  ..~

-39-
tsiVD



30 AR 0 *3F EDUCATION DF THE CITY DF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRI3UTION NORM FREE INCOME INCOME

LEYFL DISTRICT PS ti A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AF DC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

110 .... 8 1 A 111. 93.06 1 .020 . 0 . A 6 2 . ___ 5 2 ....... 18 8. _..... 105 A5 6 . 23.37
110 8 3b 928 98.06 1.020 0.538 509 750 60 A 902 67.13
110 8 39 A 0 2 93.06 1.020 3.538 220 339 267 367 73.01
110 8 A 8 13 95 93.06 1 .02 0 . D .385 5 47 330 . 659 .... 658 77.00
110 8 60 A 8 5 93.06 1 .020 3.533 266 AA6 337 539 6 2.72
100 8 62 8 60 93.06 1.020 0 .385 337 AO 1 362 AO 1 90.52
110 8 69 ■ 220 93.06 1.020 .... . 0.385...... . ... 8 6 _.. 320 .. . >173. 336 53.52
no 8 71 230 98.06 1 .020 0 .538 126 A51 255 1089 23.52
11 0 8 7 2 8 AO 93.06 1 .02 0 0.462 395 7 3 A 530 1090 A 8.7 2
110 8 75 597 93.06 1.020 0.538 ..... .. 327 376 3 A 7 378 91.99
110 8 93 1 2 A 2 93.06 1.02 0 0.308 390 673 503 782 6A .36
no 8 . IDO 803 93.06 1.020 0.385 315 585 A 2 2 750 56 ,A2
no .. 8 . . 107 . . 1 0 A 6 . 93.06 1.02 0 .. D.A6 2...... 492. __.501 ... . . 535 692 7 7. A 7
no 3 11 9 520 93.06 1 .020 0 .538 285 A 8 3 36 A 573 63.59
no 8 130 680 9 3.06 1.020 0 .A62 320 A37 366 A 5 3 81.02
n o 3 138 791 93.06 1.02 0 . 0.385 . .310 A60 369 671 55.19
n o 8 1 AO 737 93.06 1 .020 0.533 AO A AA8 A21 A 70 89.75
n o 8 1 A6 513 93.06 1 .,02 0 0.538 281 522 376 522 72 .35
no..... 8 ..15 2 1 2 A 2 ..9 3 . 06 ... 1 .020 . 0.231 292 .. 500 A1 8 773 5 A . 1 7
n o 8 182 175 93.06 1.020 0 .385 68 199 120 316 38.2A
220 8 52 1717 98.06 1 .020 0.303 539 550 582 650 89.78
220 8 7 A 2 392 93.06 1.020 0.308 751 727 7A0 786 9 A . 3 5
220 8 101 608 93.06 1.020 0.30 3 190 581 386 819 A7.25
220 8 120 892 93.06 1.020 0.231 210 A 2 3 295 A 70 62.82
220 8 123 .3807 93.06 1 .020 . ....0.2 31.._____. 896 7 7 A 8 A 7 1313 64.56
220 8 125 2108 93.06 1 .020 0.231 A96 909 660 12A9 52.97
220 8 131 15 55 93.06 1.020 0.308 A8B 885 6 A 5 12A6 51.93
22 0 8 1 7 A 1383 93.06 1 .020 0.303 A 3 A 12 7A 769 1A A 3 53.19
220 8 192 5 6 A 98.06 1 .02 0 0 .231 137 505 233 687 41.42

QTAL5 (h UF $ CHL $ = .. 29) 28863 . 93.06.* .. 1.320 1016 3 . 1 65 8 1 ___12 770.. 21086 60.56

CITYWIDE \  LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 4 5.12

-40-
coit—1 o



BOARD -OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
198 0-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LI5TING

LE YE L DISTRICT PS }i

TOTAL 
A F DC

ADMATCH 
S0CCF5S 
RATE

BQRGU3H
FALLOUT
FACTOR

AGE
DISTRIBUTION

FACTOR
NOkM
AFDC

FR EE 
LUNCH

LOW
INCOME

CHILDREN REGISTER
% LOW- 
INCOME 

CHILDREN

no .. 9 ....... . . . 2 . 525 . 98.06 1 .020 3 .538 288 568 399 610 6 5.58
no 9 A 173 93.06 1.020 0.533 9 A 510 259 513 50.87
110 9 1 1 1653 93.06 1.020 3.303 519 667 577 669 86.AA
110 9 26 1891 93.06 1.920 0.533 1037 1001 1022 1225 83.50
11 0 9 35 800 93.06 1 .92 D 0.385 31A 599 627 630 67.95
110 9 A2 2 A 8 93.06 1.920 0.533 136 370 22 3 370 62.06
no 9 53 1756 98.06 1.920 0 , A 6 2 .. 827 930 867 999 86.93
no 9 55 2232 93.06 1.920 0.538 1226 808 1057 832 127.16
no 9 56 199 98.06 1 .020 0 .538 109 682 257 A 8 3 53. A8
11 0 9 63 A 38 93.06 1.020 0.533 2 AO 322 272 322 8A .78
no 9 6A 2238 93.06 1 . 920 0 . A 6 2 1 0 5 A 393 939 1112 89.01
no 9 70 2170 93.06 1.020 0.A62 1022 1809 1336 1961 68.18
no 9 73 1 A 73 98.06 1 .020 0 .A62 693 7A6 716 872 81.97
no 9 38 8 A1 93.06 1.020 0.303 2 6 A 660 361 A66 73.50
no 9 90 1.71.7 93.06 1 .020 0 .A62 808 1078 916 1535 59.71
no 9 IDA 1 2A5 93.06 1 .020 0.538 683 1331 8 21 1131 72 .70
no 9 109 827 98.06 1.020 0 .A62 389 687 507 7 3 A 69.29
11 0 9 no 25 A 93.06 1 .020 0.385 99 373 288 581 A9 .75
no 9 11 A 1870 93.06 1.020 0 . A 6 2 881 868 875 1027 85.28
no 9 126 1653 93.36 1.020 0.308 519 688 586 712 82 .AO
no 9 132 771 98.06 1.020 0.538 A23 623 502 628 80.10
11 0 9 163 1227 93.06 1 .020 0.303 385 5 8 A 666 5 8 A 79.60
no 9 229 685 93.06 1 ..020 0.385 268 710 66 6 755 58.99
220 9 22 3838 93.06 1.020 0,231 9 0 A 7 A A 839 1086 77.35
22 0 9 92 1969 93.06 1.020 0.231 A63 677 563 901 60.9A
.no 9 117 A 6 8 7 93.05 1.920 0.231 1106 8 5 A 1003 1193 8A. 16
220 9 1 A5 3003 93.06 1.020 0.231 707 1125 873 1136 76.96
220 9 1 A 7 A 1 2 8 93.05 1.020 0 .231 972 950 962 1 20 A 80 .02
220 9 1A6 3797 93.06 1.020 0.1 5 A 596 6 2 A 606 8 A3 72.05
220 9 166 3322 98.06 1 .020 0 .308 1 0 A 3 108 0 1057 128 5 82.3A
220 9 22 9 _ 667 98 . 05 1.020 0.308 209 63 9 _... 300 579 5 2.0 A

flTALS ( U OF 5 C H L $ = 31 ) 5 2 2 97 93.06 % 1 ..02 0 1 8 27 A 23500 20366 26978 75.A8

CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME CUTQFF -
Note; P-235 and P-236 Jiave District-Wide Attendance Patterns... Statistics..are Found..on_Page_6.6*_:__________

-41-

A5.12
tui



Revised 2.4.81BOARD tlF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OP NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

- ADMATCH BORDU OH AGE LOW * LOW
TOTAL . SUCCESS FALLOUT .DISTRIBUTION . NORM ....FREE . INCOME.. INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS H A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTDR AF DC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

110 10 7 264 93.06 1.020.. .. . 0.533 . ....... 155 ..457........ 275 794 ... 34.80
110 10 8 473 93.06 1 ..020 0.533 259 515 360 808 44.77
no 10 9 632 93.05 1.020 0.533 346 968 595 1190 50.02
no 10 24 23 93.05 1.020 ...0.462 . _ 10 3 3 , 19 934 2.11
no 10 28 2705 93.06 1 .020 0.303 849 695 782 948 82.68
100 10 32 1672 93.06 1.020 0.231 393 600 475 600 79.39
no 10 33 2647 . 9 3.06 1 . 0 20 ...... 0.452 ..  . 1247..., 1052 ..___ _1169 ...  1339 .... 87.32 .
no 10 46 2646 93.06 1 .02 0 0 .462 1246 1283 1260 1487 84.81
no 10 56 356 93.05 1 .020 0.533 195 239 21 2 450 47.29
100 10 59 421 93.06 1.020 0.538 230 797 456 79 7 57.39
11 0 10 79 1313 93.06 1 .020 0.538 720 1300 951 1496 6 3.65
no 10 80 120 93.06 1 .020 0.536 65 127 89 256 35.27
no . 10.... ... 81 53 . 93.06 ... 1.02 0 0.5 38 _____ .29..... 106...__ __ 60 . 688 8.81
no 10 85 2639 93.06 1.020 0 .538 1447 1355 1409 1355 104.11
no 10 86 1051 93.06 1.020 0.538 576 1205 826 1665 49.73
no 10 . . 91 3053 93.06 1.020 0.538. ... 1675 1707 1687 1935 87.23
no 10 94 580 93.06 1 .020 0.533 318 457 372 762 49.05
no 10 95 275 93.06 1 .020 0.533 150 405 251 1006 25.10
no .. 10 .. ..122 ... 1426 98.06 . 1 .,020 0.533 782 345 __  806 1209 66.78
no 10 205 16 72 93.06 1.020 0.308 525 825 644 828 77.91
no 10 261 2705 98.06 1.020 0.231 637 750 681 781 87.37
220 10 .. 45 ... 345 1 93.06 ... 1.020 0.308 1083 1165 1115 1297 86.07
220 10 80 2211 93.06 1 ..02 0 0.231 520 718 599 1075 55.79
220 10 115 3133 93.06 1.020 0.231 738 742 738 920 80.39
220 . 10 . .... 118 .... 367 ... 9 3.06. . 1.020 __  0.231______. 8 6......622 _____299 713 42.17
22 0 10 137 9798 93.06 1.020 0.154 1381 1233 1322 1322 100.02
220 10 1 41 961 93.06 1 .02 0 0.308 301 464 366 1504 24.38
220 10 143 36 53 9 8.0 6 ..... 1 . 020 0.231 8 6 0_...1056 ____9 3 8...... . 1 5 2 9. 61.39

0 T A L 5 (tt OF S CHLS = 28) 49320 93.06 % 1.020 16823 21713 18780 29688 63.26

CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

-42- tdii- 1NJ



BOARD SF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1990-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

AOMATCH BOROUGH AGE LDW % LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM . FREE . INCOME INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS H A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

n o ... n I t 2 34 9 8*06 1 .020.. 0 .538 _____ ...128 ...2.4 0 . ____L72 _ ... . 575 30,09
n o 11 19 45 93.06 1 .020 0.692 31 77 49 310 16.08
110 11 21 358 98.06 1.020 0 .538 196 350 255 579 44.53
n o 11 41 ... 5 02 98.06 1.020 0.538 275 540 380 739 51.59
n o 11 68 95 93.06 1 .020 0 .533 52 205 112 503 22.52
n o 11 7b 440 93.06 1.020 0.538 241 401 304 786 3 8.83
n  o .... ■ _ 11 ...... . 78 ....... 3 05... 98.06 .... 1.020 0.533 .... . 167 ... 464 ......285 . 737 ... 38.81.
n o 11 93 129 93.06 1.020 0.538 70 209 125 427 29.52
11 0 11 87 215 93.06 1.020 0 .538 117 252 170 502 34.18
11 0 n B 9 91 93.06 1.020 0.533 49 158 92 380 24.51
n o 11 9b 300 98.06 1.02 0 D . 5 3 3 164 343 235 672 35.11
n o n 97 149 93 . 06 1.020 0.462 7 0 168 109 386 28.32
n o  . ... n  . .. .103.. 508 .. .93.06. . . 1 .020 . 0 .533 _ 278 525 376 872 43.26
n o n 105 453 93.06 1.020 0.538 248 508 352 978 36.02
n o n 10b 442 98.06 1 .020 0.538 242 510 348 961 36.37
11 0 n .108. 2 19 9 3.06 1,020 0.462 103 138 116 287 40.80
n o n Ill 812 93.06 1 .020 0.538 445 475 456 670 68.25
n o i i 112 619 93.06 1 . 020 0.538 339 356 345 506 68.14
n o . 11 121 .361 98.06 . . 1,020 0 .462 170 285 215 470 4 5.97
n o n 153 25 93.05 1 .0 2 0 0.385 9 220 92 518 18.13
11 0 i i 160 81 93.06 1.020 0.385 31 88 54 432 12.57
11 0 i i 175 38 93.06 1.020 0.692 26 78 47 20b 22.96
n o n 176 37 98.06 1 .020 0.385 1 4 127 58 529 11.25
2 ? 0 i i 113 173 3 93.06 1 .020 0.231 408 937 618 ' 1312 4 7.24
22Q ... n 127 1755 98.06 1.020 0 .231 413 973 637 1585 40.21
200 n 135 8 b 0 9 8.06 1.020 0.231 202 605 362 934 38.92
220 n 142 1785 93.06 1 .020 0.231 420 978 643 1143 56.30
220 n 144 683 93.06 1.020 0.231 160 654 357 906 39.53
220 n 18 0 132 9 3.06 1.020 0.308 41 421 192 914 21.15
2 2 0 n 18 1 52 93.06 1.020 0.308 16 312 133 930 14.47

OTALS (f» OF S C HL S - 30) 13458 93.06 % 1 .020 5125 11597 7714 20751 37.17

CITYWIDE * LOW LNCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

— wiM(jO-43-



3 □ A, R 3 *JF EDUCATION OF THE. CITY OF NE W YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1993—81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

A D M A T C H B O R O U G H A G E L O W % L O W
T O T A L S J C C E S S F A L L O U T D I S T R I B U T I O N N O R M F R E E I N C O M E I N C O M E

L E V E L D I S T R I C T PS fcf A F D C R A T E F A C T O R F A C T O R A F D C L U N C H C H I L D R E N R E G I S T E R C H I L D R F N
—  ~ ---- ~ — — •------ ----- — -------

n o ..... 12 6 1 1 9 3 9 8 . 0 6 . 1 . 0 2 0  ... 0 . 4 6 2  .... .. 5 G 2 -..6 4 3 ... ___  5 9 4 .......... 72 0 8 2 * 5 6
1 1 0 12 44 7 0 5 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 5 3 3 3 8 6 4 2 0 3 9 9 5 0 7 7 8 . 9 1
1 10 12 47 1 3 6 2 9 8 . 0 6 1 .02 0 0 . 5 3 8 7 4 7 8 8 9 8 0 3 1 2 1 5 6 6 . 1 7
1 10 12 50 ... 3 4 0 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 5 3 3 1 8 6 3 7 7 261 . 3 8 4 6 8 . 4 2
n o 12 57 9 7 5 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 4 6 2 4 5 9 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 7 9 9 2 . 9 5
n o 12 61 3 1 6 . 9 3 . 0 6 1 .02 0 0 . 5 3 3 1 7 3 2 7 4 2 1 3 3 0 9 6 9 . 1 3
no 12 ... 5 6 ... 6 60 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 4 6 2 ...... . ... 310.. ..  3 3 9 ______ 3 2 1 .. ...... 3 8  9 . 8 2 . 8 2
11 0 12 57 9 4 0 9 3 . 0 6  ' 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 5 3 3 5 1 5 5 2 3 5 18 5 4 4 9 5 . 3 4
no 12 77 2 4 6 0 9 3 . 0 6 1 .02 0 0 . 5 3 8 1 3 4 9 1 6 5 3 1 4 7 0 2 1 4 8 68 .4 8
n o 12 92 ... 1.033 9 8 . 0 6 1 . 0 2  0 0 . 4 6 2  . 48 6 . 3 71 4 4 0 3 9 0 1 1 0 . 6 6
n o 12 99 3 8 7 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 5 3 8 2 1 2 2 4 8 2 2 b 2 5 2 8 9 . 9 2
11 0 12 102 1 0 1 3 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 5 3 3 5 5 5 3 0 4 6 5 4 1 1 4 3 5 7 . 3 1
1 00 12 1 2 9 9 2 5 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 3 0 8  . ..... . .290.. .... 4 6 7 ... _... 3 6 0 .... ... ..... 4 6  7 7 7 . 3 3
n o 12 1 3 4 4 4 5 9 8 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 5 3 3 2 4 4 2 5 7 2 48 2 5 7 9 7 . 0 0
n o 12 150 4 98 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 4 6 2 2 3 4 3 7 9 2 91 3 91 7 4 . 7 8
n o 12 198 7 9 3 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 4 6 2 3 7 3 3 0 9  , 3 4 7 3 0 9 1 1 2 . 5 5
n o 12 2 3 4 9 2 5 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 2 3 1 2 1 7 3 0 1 2 5 0 3 01 83 . 44
2 2 0 12 84 5 6 9 9 8 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 .23 1 1 3 4 1 6 5 1 45 1 9 3 75 .87
22 0 12 . 96.. ..1563 9 3 . 06 ... . . 1 .02 0 .. . . 0 . 2 3 1  ....... . 38 8 . ...3 91 . 3 7 6 4 8 9 7 7 . 1 6
2 2 0 12 1 1 6 1 0 6 5 9 8 . 0 6 1 .02 0 0 . 2 3 1 2 5 0 S 4 9 4 0 9 6 8 8 5 9 . 6 1
n o 12 1 36 7 8 6 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 2 3 1 1 85 1 1 5 1 5 6 1 7 3 9 0 . 8 1
2 2 0 12 1 5 8  , 7 6 8 9 8 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 2 3 1 1 8 0 3 6 4 2 5 3 3 7 0 fa 8 . 6 9
2 2 0 12 1 67 2 1 6 6 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 2 3 1 5 1 0 5 0 7 5 08 8 3 9 6 0 . 6 6
2 2 0 12 193 2 3 79 9 3 . 0 6 1 . 0 2 0 0 . 2 3 1 5 6  0 7 4 7 6 3 4 8 2 0 7 7 . 4 5

OTALS OF S C HL S = 24) 2 4 2 6 6 9 3 . 0 6  % 1 . 0 2 0 9 4 8 5 1 1 5 1 6 1 0 3 3 7 1 3 7 8 5 7 4 . 9 9

— ............................................ -  - .......... - C I T Y W I D E  >. L O W I N C O M E C U T O F F  - 4 5 . 1 2

Note: P-211 Has a District-Wide Attendance Pattern. Statistics are Found on Page 66.

-44- - •-— W i



BOARD 9F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

a d m a t : H B O R O U G H A G E L O W

T O T A L s u c c e s s F A L L O U T D I S T R I B U T I O N N O R M F R E E I N C O M E

L E V E L D I S T R I C T PS It A F D C R A T E F A C T O R F A C T O R AF D C L U N C H C H I L D R E N R E G I S T E R

11 0 13 3 6 6 0 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 3 . 5 3 8 3 7 6 3 7 3 3 7 4 4 7 1

11 0 13 6 3 30 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 3 2 9 0 . 5 3 8 1 6 2 1 4 1 1 6 5 4 92

n o 13 9 1 7 3 8 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 9 6 1 1 1 4 6 1 0 3 4 1 4 1 5

1 0 0 13 11 5 1 2 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 3 2 6 3 6 5 2 4 2 9 6 7 3

n o 13 20 7 5 0 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 4 1 4 6 0 7 4 9 0 7 7 4

n o 13 44 8 4 9 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 3 2 8 3 . 5 3 8 4 6 9 7 7 5 5 9 0 9 7 4

n o 13 ^ 4 6 6 5 3 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 3 6 1 6 1 4 4 61 7 2 0
n o 13 54 8 5 7 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 4 7 3 43 8 4 5 9 4 7 5

11 0 13 56 9 1 3 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 5 0 4 5 6 7 5 2 8 6 4 0
n o 13 67 1 5 6 5 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 3 2 8 . 3 . 5 3 3 8 6 5 7 9 5 8 3 6 8 0 5
n o 13 9 3 4 3 3 9 7 . 2 9 1 .,02 8 0 . 5 3 6 2 3 9 4 8 8 3 3 8 5 4 2
n o 13 1 3 3 4 4 6 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 3 2 8 3 . 5 3 8 2 4 6 3 8 3 3 0 0 4 6  4
n o 13 2 5 6 6 9 7 9 7 .  2B 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 3 6 5 6 9 8 5 1 0 7 9 0
11 0 13 2 7 0 6 1 5 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 3 2 8 3 . 5 3 8 3 4 0 4 7 4 3 9 3 5 6 5
n o 13 2 8 2 1 0 5 5 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2  8 0 . 5 3 B 5 6 3 7 1 2 6 3 4 8 7 4

n o 13 2 8 7 1 9 8 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 3 2 8 3 . 5 3 8 1 0 9 4 0 6 2 2 7 4 8 1
n o 13 3 0 5 1 0 B 3 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 5 9 8 6 9 0 7 1 4 8 9 4
n o 13 3 0 7 4 6 5 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 3 . 5 3 8 2 6 8 6 0 0 3 9 9 6 2 3
2 2 0 13 1 1 7 3 0 1 0 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 1 5 4 4 7 6 8 5 2 6 2 5 8 5 2
2 2 0 13 2 5 6 32 58 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 3 2 3 3 . 1 5 4 5 1 5 705 591 1 1 5 6
2 0 0 13 2 65 2 9 6 7 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 3 2 8 3 . 2 3 1 7 0 9 1 2 3 7 9 1 9 1 2 3 7
2 2 0 13 2 9 4 3 4 1 1 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 2 3 1 8 0 9 6 4 4 7 4 2 1 0 6 0

O T A L S  (ft OF SCHLS = 22) 2 6 5 25 9 7 . 2 8 % 1 . 0 2 8 1 0 1 6 5 14197 11779 1 6 9 7 7

C I T Y W I D E  * L D W I N C O M E  C U T Q F F  -

-45-

% LDW 
INCOME ! 

CHILDREN ;

79.5b |
3 3.72 i
73.15 
6 4.00
63.52
60.75 
64.21
96.75 
82.77

104.01
62.52 
64.91 
64.62 
6 9.6 6 
72.64 
47.42 
80.02 
64.36 
73.56
51.16 
74 .40
70.15 

69.38

45.12

roit—1 Ui



30ARD 3F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF MEW YORK
METROPOLITAN. EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1330-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

AOMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW
TOTAL SJCCFSS . FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM ..FREE INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS it A FDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER
~------— — — --- — ------------ —— --- - — — --- — — — —

n o  -.... 14 ...... 16 1231 ....... 9 7.29 1.028 ... 0 . 5 3 8 ...... 680 ___ 660 .. .... 671 .. ....  70 2
100 14 17 658 97.29 1.028 0.53B 363 513 423 586
n o 14 16 470 97.28 1.028 0.462 223 245 230 263
n o 14 19 1033 97.29 1.029 0.538 .... 571 .....9 55 . .... . 723 961
n o 14 23 1173 97.29 1.D23 0.538 648 513 594 645
n o 14 31. 745 97.29 1.028 0 .538 412 724 536 738
11 0 14 34 343 97.23 1..023 . 0 . 4 6 2 ... 162 . ...278 . ...  208. . ____ 370...
n o 14 59 726 97.29 1 .02 8 0.462 34 4 549 465 689
n o 14 84 967 97.29 1 .328 0.533 534 730 611 835
n o 14 .110. 640 97.28 1 .028 .0 .538...... ..353 . ..... 476 402 631
n o 14 120 396 97.28 1.028 0.462 188 300 231 400
11 0 14 122 632 9 7.28 1 .028 0.385 250 312 274 357
11 0 14 132 496 97.29 1.02 8 0.538 ... 274 .... 484 . 357 633
n o 14 147 606 97.28 1 .028 0.536 335 383 354 401
n o 14 157 902 97.29 1.023 0.462 428 562 481 572
100 14 166 890 97.29 1.028 0.462 422 433 426 433
n o 14 196 975 97.23 1.028 0.538 539 670 590 670
11 0 14 250 747 97.23 1.028 0.462 354 825 541 895
n o 14 . 257 8 5 6. .97*29 ....... 1 . 02 8.. 0.462 . ____... 406 ____8 00___ 496 608
n o 14 297 580 97.28 1.028 0.462 2 75 588 400 649
220 14 33 3218 97.29 1.028 0.231 764 917 824 917
220 14 49 4182 97,29 1 . 028 0.231 993 889 950 941
220 14 50 24 23 97.23 1.320 0.231 575 785 658 785
220 14 71 1836 97.23 1.028 0.308 561 717 634 755
.22 0 .. . 14 126 2131 9 7 . 2B ._ 1.028 ...  0 . 2 3 1... _ __506 __1 28 3 — _____  816 1438
220 14 316 557 97.29 1.028 0.231 132 771 387 925

DTALS (« OF S CHL S — 26) 2 94 1 3 97.23 * 1.023 11312 16 27Q 13295 17799

. CIT.YWiPt %  LOW ...INCOME,. cutoff -

-46-

% LOW 
INCOMF 

CHILDREN
95.79 1
72.28 
88.18 
75.42 
9 2.16 
72.74

... 56.47 ...
67.70 
73.40 
63.83 
58.21
77.00 
56.59 
68.35 
64.24 
98.57
88.29 
60.65 
80.12 
61 .71
90.00

1 0 1 . 1 1
83.98
84.18
56.80 
41.92

74.70

45.12

tui
CTi



BOARD IDF EDUCATION DF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1930-81 P O V E R T Y C O M P O N E N T S  L I S T I N G

A O M A T C H B U R U U 3 H AGE LOW % LOW
T O T A L. SUCCESS . F A LLOUT D I S T R I B U T I O N NORM FREE INCOME INCOME

LEVEL D I S T R I C T PS w AFDC RATE F A C T D R FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILOREiN R E G I S T E R C H I L D R E N

110 ... ...15 ... -. .. .. 1. ...12 38 .. 97.23 ..... 1 .02 3. .0.533 684 918 777 1154 67,42
n o 15 10 1040 97.28 1.028 0.533 575 707 627 644 74.40
n o 15 15 792 97.23 1 .026 0.538 438 645 519 681 76.48
n o 15 2 7 876 97.23 1.028 0.533 ...484 ... 504 . .....491 615 80.05
n o 15 29 294 97.23 1 .02 3 0.538 162 417 263 549 48.15
n o 15 32 675 97.28 1 .02 8 0,533 373 683 496 703 70.72
n o _________15_______ —  3 8 ....788 .. 97.28 . . 1.023 . .0.538 435 567 48 7 629 77.63
1 1 0 15 39 363 97.23 1.028 0.462 172 246 201 427 47.27
n o 15 5b 434 97.23 1 .023 0.533 240 556 366 792 46.2 6
11 0 15 94 .. 13 66..__ 97.23 1.02 8... 0.538 .... 755 1325 982 1529 64.31
n o 15 107 776 97.23 1.028 0.462 368 550 440 774 56.99
n o 15 124 744 97.23 1.028 0 .462 353 580 443 678 65.49

. n o .. ..  15 .... . . .. 130 ____ 2 7.5.. 97.28 . _ 1.028. ... 0.538 152 336 225 568 ' 39.73
n o 15 131 793 97.28 1 .02 8 0.538 438 762 567 839 6 7 .69
n o 15 154 221 97.23 1.02 8 0.538 122 282 185 331 56.23
1 1 0 15 . 1 5 9 1670 .97.28 . 1.028 0.538 923 1397 1112 1571 70.84
11 0 15 172 458 97.23 1.028 0.538 253 507 353 603 58.84
11 0 1 5 230 327 97.28 1 .028 0.538 180 327 238 574 41 .69

.110 ....15 .... 2 61 ...  678 97.23 ..1 .02 8 ... .. 0.533 37 4 411 388 586 66.22
n o 15 321 917 97.28 1 .02 8 0 .462 435 635 514 967 53.29
220 15 51 2121 97.23 1.023 0.303 671 687 676 1070 63.34
220 15 88. 3048 97.23 1.028 0.308 965 1460 1 162 1611 72.19
2 2 0 15 136 334 1 97.23 1.028 0.231 793 861 820 1124 72 .99
2 2 0 15 142 2 345 97.23 1.028 0.231 556 532 546 602 90.85
2 2 0  .... . 1 5 ...... ... 2 93 .. 2612___ 97.2 3 ..._1 .02 8 0.154 413 661 512 932 54.99

DIALS (ft OF S C H L S = 2b ) 28192 97.28 % 1 .328 11314 16556 13411 20755 6 4.62

CITYWIDE * LOW LNCOMF CUTOFF - 45.12

iM'“>1-47-



8OARD 3F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
19 B D — 81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE ' LOW h LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE. INCOME INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS I f AFDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
mm mm<m —---nr- ■■____n- —  — - ------- ------- ------------- — —  — — —  — —  —  —  — —  —

103 IS .... 5 855 97.28 1.028 ... 0 .5 38 . ... A 7 2 __ 6 49..............-542 649 83.71
11 0 16 21 A A 7 97.28 1 . 023 0.538 247 540 363 592 61.54
11 3 1 6 25 863 9 7.23 1 ..028 0.538 477 A04 447 515 86.98
113 16 26. 6 5 A 97.23 1.02 3 ... 0.533 ..... .361 ....A89. ... 412 565 ..73.0 3
11 0 16 28 3 7 A 97.23 1.028 0.538 206 253 225 255 8 8.35
n o 16 AO 529 97.23 1.02 3 0.533 292 A 6 8 362 A75 7 6.3/
\ n fi ft 1 1 p & R 9 7.28 1 .028 0.538 „ 699 . 600.____ 658 ..... 681 96.88 .....1UU
n o 16 2 A3 849 97.28 1.028 0.538 469 733 574 995 57.78
n o 16 262 719 97.28 1.028 0.538 397 6A7 496 768 6 4 . / 6
n o 16 3 0 A 72 A 97.23 1.028 ,0.538 .. 400 .. A92 436 749 58.35
n o 16 30 8 866 9 7.23 1.028 0.538 489 793 610 822 7 4.35
11 0 16 309 7 8 B 9 7.23 1.028 0.538 43 5 659 5 2 A 659 79.68
103 15 ........3 3 5 6 58 ....97.23 .. 1 .02 8 . . 0.538 .... ..._36 3 .... ..6 76..... _________ ABB _________  676 72.30
32 3 16 35 15 6 2 97.23 1.028 0.231 370 691 A98 1011 49.35
223 16 57 3327 97.23 1.023 0.231 790 678 7 A 5 818 91.10
22 0 15 3 2 A 2925 97.28 . 1 .02 8 . .. 0.231 694 327 5 A 6 995 55.03

3TALS (V OF $ C H L $ = 16) 174 2 5 9 7.20 *2 1 .028 7161 9099 7936 11225 70.70

CITYWIDE 2 LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

-48-
1
00



3CHRD “OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW * LOW
TOTAL SUCCFSS F ALL DOT DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE INCOME INCOME

LFVEL DISTRICT PS ti AFDC RATE FACTOR F ACTOR a f d c LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
----------- —— —--- --— *-

11 Q 1 7 91 991 97.28 1.028 _ 0.538 .. _ 5A8 1078 759 1A AO 52.78
110 17 92 1 8 5 A 97.28 1 .028 0 . A 6 2 8 8 0 1183 1001 1516 66.06
110 17 138 1216 97.28 1 .028 0.538 672 665 668 1 1A2 58.63
11 0 17 161 872 97.28 1.028 0.A62 A1 A 962 632 12 A3 5 0.95
n o 17 167 1 AAA 97.29 1 .029 0.539 798 967 865 1217 71 .15
110 17 181 1 A 0 1 97.29 1 .028 0 . A 62 665 1096 837 1 9A A A3 .09
110 17 191 8 31 97.28 1 .028 0.533 A 5 9 606 517 658 78.75
no 17 221 8 18 9 7.28 1 .02 8 0.538 A 5 2 837 605 1125 53.89
n o 17 2 A 1 8 A 8 97.28 1 .0 2 9 0.A62 AO 2 8 A 1 577 1130 51.15
100 17 2 A 9 1189 97.29 1.028 :0.538 657 1120 8 A1 1196 70.A5
no 17 289 1038 9 7.23 1 .023 0 . A 6 2 A92 850 63 A 9A7 67.1 A
n o 17 Sib 1667 97.28 1 .028 0.538 916 11A 7 1007 1285 78.A9
11 0 17 397 5 A 9 97.28 1 .92 9 D.A62 260 365 301 561 53.91
~110 17 398 1199 97.29 1.028 0.536 663 880 7A3 1206 62.18
220 17 61 2 6 6 9 97.29 1 .028 0.231 633 8 A 3 717 1098 65.3A
220 17 210 A 3 7 A 97.29 1.028 0.231 1038 800 9A2 1318 71 .56
220 17 2 A 6 A 8 6 A 97.28 1 .02 8 0.231 1152 1010 1 09 A 1757 62.35
22 0 17 320 2955 97.28 1 .02 8 0.231 701 1 0 5 A 8A2 1732 A8 .65
22 0 17 391 2796 9 7.23 1.029. 0.231 66 3 1275 907 1528 59 .A5

OTALS !U QF S C H L $ = 19) 33555 97.28 % 1 .029 1 2 A 6 5 17579 1 A 511 2A0A3 60.35

CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CUTOFF - A 5.1 2

Note: P-189 Has a District-Wide Attendance Pattern. Statisticsare Found on Page 6 6.

-49-
wIh~J



3QAR3 flF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1930-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE • LOW % LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOJT DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE INCOME INCOME

LF VEL DISTRICT PS n A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

11 0 18 114 144 .97.28 ..... 1  .02 B .... 0.538 7 9 340 186 916 20.41
113 19 115 96 97.23 1.02 8 0.538 53 212 115 869 13.42
113 18 135 3 6 4 97.23 1 .02 8 0.533 201 481 312 738 42.44
113 18 ......... ....238 ... __1 03 9 7 . 2 3 .... 1 .02 3 ...... .0.538 56 412 198 862 23.08
110 13 219 1241 97.23 1 .023 0.533 686 1348 950 1816 52.37
1 13 13 2 3 3 332 97.23 1 .028 0.538 163 392 265 722 36.98
1 13 ____ 18........... __2 3 5 ... _ 237 .. 9 7.28 . ... 1.028 0.538 ........... 131 ...... 464 ...... ..26 3 ... 754 ..35,0 5 . .
110 18 242 2 04 97.28 1.028 0.538 112 0 67 0 0.0
no 18 244 339 97.28 1 .023 0.533 187 576 382 1089 35. 16
113 18 258 389 97.28 1.028 ; 0.538 215 .... ...46 0 . 312 751 41.69
n o 18 272 117 9 7.28 1.028 0.533 64 285 151 643 23.77
no IS 276 73 97.28 1.028 0.538 40 100 63 930 6.91
no 18... ... ......2 79... .... 260 97.20 1 . 02 8 .. 0.5 38........... .. 143 . 295.. 203 680 30.04
223 18 58 403 97.23 1 .028 0.231 95 408 220 1336 16.51
22.0 18 211 934 97.28 1 .028 0.231 221 488 328 1078 30.45
22 3 18 . 232 1147 .97.23 1,029 0.231 272 849 502 1035 48.60
220 18 252 1343 97.28 1.028 0.231 318 732 483 943 51.34
220 18 295 8 4 9: 97.23 1.028 0.231 201 976 510 1331 38.42

OTALS IH OF 5CHLS* 18 ) 8575 97.23 % 1.028 3257 8926 5525 16493 3 3.50

■ .-... ■ - -— -. -.... .............- CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME :UTOFF - 4 5.12

-50-
roiKJ
o



3 0 ft R D DF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

AOMftTCH BOROUGH AGE LOW * LOW
TOTAL .. SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION NORM . FREE INCOME INCOME

LF VFL DISTRICT PS tt ft FDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
113 1 9 1 3 1211 97.29 1.023 . .. 0.5 33... ..6 69 .. 671 .._ . .669 807 83.05
no 19 63 289 97.29 1.028 0.533 159 19 5 172 195 8 9.18
no 19 6 5 615 9 7.29 1.028 0.4 62 292 389 330 518 63.87
no 19 72 . .1458 . 97.29 1.028 ...... 0 .5 3 3 ... 806 799 798 948 84.32
no 1 9 108 1216 97.23 1 .029 0.538 672 664 748 1125 66 .59
no . 19 149 1144 97.23 1.028 0.538 632 832 711 832 85.63
no __ 19 - -  ... . 15b 6 7 f t 9 7.28 .. . . .1.028 ........ 0.5 38 ..... ___372... 4 93 ___ ___ 420 ..  536 . 78.52
no 19 159 905 97.28 1.028 0.538 500 943 677 1049 64.59
no 19 171 479 97.29 1.029 0.462 227 474 325 710 45.93
no 19 174 . . 1034 9 7.29 1.02 3 . 0.538 ............. 571 461 527 467 - 112.96
no 19 190 510 97.23 1.028 0.533 282 282 281 418 67.47
no 19 202 883 97.28 1 .028 0.538 488 961 677 961 70.49
no 19 ________ _...213. ..... . 657 . 97.29 1.029 0.533 ___ ...36 3.......764 . .  __ 523.. 764 68.54
n o 19 214 1235 97.29 1.028 0.538 683 772 717 859 83.66
no 19 224 1283 97.29 1.028 0.462 609 639 620 723 85.92
11 0 19 ..260 5 34 ... 9 7 . 29 .. 1.028 ... 0.538. . 295 520 384 636 60.57
11 0 19 273 274 97.29 1.029 0.538 151 562 314 969 32.58
n o 19 290 597 97.28 1.028 D .462 283 660 433 703 61 .75
n o___ 19 . ._. . 306.. .....3 63 .....97,23 .. .1.329 . 0.538 200 _ . 627. 370 1083 34.28
11 0 19 328 520 97.23 1 .028 0.538 287 554 393 554 71.15
11 0 19 345 1143 97.29 1 .,028 0.533 632 790 694 9 52 73.03
no 19 3 4 6.. 31 97.29 1 .028 0.533 17 317 136 1329 10.32
220 19 166 18 32. 9 7.29 1.028 0.231 435 BOO 580 1149 50.57
220 ' 19 171 1214 97.23 1.028 0.231 28 8 450 351 886 39.84
220 ... 19 _. . 218 ... 3913... .9 7,2 9 .. 1 .,0 2 8 0.231 929 948 936 1312 71.40
220 19 292 ft 8 4 2 97.29 1.028 0.154 766 1044 876 1044 84.05
220 19 302 4093 97.29 I .028 0.231 971 552 803 1153 69.73
220 19 364 60 9 7.28 1.028 0.154 9 293 122 688 17.8b

DIALS (ft OF S CHL S - 2b) 33009 97.29 % 1.028 1 2588 17646 14611 23370 6 2.52

CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 4-5.12

-Si­
tuitoM



3 □ A R D *3 F EDUCATION DF THE CITY OF MEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1990-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BORQUOH AGE LOW 5; LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT.. DISTRIBUTION . NORM_FREE .... INCOME INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS H AFDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

.. .110 - .. ...20 ....... .... A 8. 1 A 2. 97.23 __ .1 ..028 ... 0 . A 6 2 . . „ . . 67 193 117 603 19.51
110 20 102 387 97.23 1.028 0.538 2 1 A 39A 285 909 31 .46
no 20 1 0 A 165 97.29 1.028 0.692 117 256 172 969 17.8A
110 20 . 105. . A 9 6 9 7.23 1.02 8 ... 0.538 . 27A__ 570 .391 937 41.90
no 20 112 1 3A 9 7.23 1 .028 3 . A 6 2 6 3 135 91 3 AO 27.11
no 20 127 1 A2 97.29 1 .028 0.533 78 159 no 565 19.60
n o ..... . 20 ..... . . 1 AO .1890 . .97.23 1.028 0.53 8 ...... 10 A 5....1116 -L™.10 73 1 A 9 8 71.67
no 20 160 A 5 8 97.29 1.028 0.533 253 2 8 A 2 6 A 512 51 .87
no 20 163 269 97.29 1.028 0.538 1A 8 191 165 A 8 6 33.95
no 20 1 6 A A 8 2 97.28 1.028 . D.A62 . ...... 228 __A 38 312 A95 63.1A
no 20 170 1 7 A 97.23 1 .028 0.538 96 368 2 0 A 813 25 .21
no 20 176 261 9 7.23 1.028 0.538 1A A 325 215 699 30.99
no 20 _____ ...179. _ .798 ..97.29 1 .028 ......... 0.538 ...... ....441 .... . 5A3... ___ A81 923 52.22
no 20 180 208 97.23 1.028 0 . A62 98 ISA 120 223 5 A . 2 0
no 20 195 177 9 7.28 1 .02 8 0.538 97 176 128 353 36.58
no .. 20....... _ . 186 261 ... 97.28 1.028 0 * A 6 2 133 313 205 813 25.25
no 20 192 323 97.23 1.028 0.533 178 205 188 275 68.79
no 20 200 A 71 97.29 1.028 0.533 260 A A5 333 920 36.3A
no . 20 2 0 A 167 . ... 9 7 . 2 9 . 1 , 02 8. ... 0.538 ... 92 255 156 558 28.21
no 20 205 230 97.23 1.028 0 . A 6 2 109 283 178 63A 28.19
no 20 229 77 9 7.28 1.028 0.538 A2 73 5 A 307 17.83
no 20 2 A 7 232 97.28 1.028 D . A62 no 181 133 589 23.52
2? 0 20 62 23 3 A 97.29 1.029 0.231 5 5 A 1098 771 1 7 3 A 44.51
220 20 201 1389 97.29 1.028 0.231 329 581 A29 988 43.55

. 220 _ 20 220 26 07 97.28 1.028 0.231 619 915 736 1229 bO .00
220 20 223 26 85 97.28 1 .028 0.231 637 676 652 7 7 A 84.36
220 20 227 1510 97.29 1.028 0.308 A7 8 802 606 1288 47.18
220 20 259 .. 1097 97.29 1 .028 0.231 260 682 A2 8 1225 35.03

OTALS hi UF S C H L. S = 28 ) 19586 97.28 % 1 .028 7 1 6 A 11811 9023 21661 41 .66

CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME CUTOFF - <*5.12

-52-
DaifoNJ



BOARD 10F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ...............Revised
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY 6/2/80
1583-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

TOTAL
ADMATCH
SUCCESS

BOROUGH
FALLOUT

AGE
DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE

LOW
INCOME

% LOW 
INCOME

L F v' F L DISTRICT PS it AFDC- RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

1 1 0  . 
1 1 0

... 21
21

_  90 
95

9 5 7. . 
369

97 . ? g 1 . 023 ..
1.028

0.533 . 252„_ 998 330 537 61 .61
97.28 0.533 2 0 1 395 257 526 99.20

1 1 0 cl 97 266 97.23 1 .028 0.533 1A 7 393 295 783 31.35
1 1 0 21 99 3 35 97.29 1.028 0.692 238 395 279 581 98.36
1 1  0 21 IDO 72 97.23 1.029 0.533 39 293 1 2 0 670 18.07
1 1  0 21 1 0 1 I 69 97.28 1.028 0.538 90 299 173 739 23.55
1 1 n 21 1 2 1 _ . 176 

199
97.23 
9 7.23

1 . ,02 8 0 .p33 97 259 161 937 37 .0 l
1 1 0 21 128 1.028 0.538 79 187 121 378 32.93
1 1 0 21 153 159 9 7.29 1 . 0 2 8 0.533 87 213 137 609 22 .65
1 1  J 21 177 239 97.28 1.028 10.538 132 327 209 855 29.57
1 1  0 21 188 761 97.28 1.028 0.533 920 705 533 919 58.98
113 21 199 187 97.23 1.028 0.538 103 2 2 2 150 373 9 0.99
1 1  0 21 209 125 97.23 1.023 0.538 69 158 109 556 18.83
1 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 390 97.23 1.028 0.538 1 8 B 375 261 715 3 6.76
1 1 0 21 215 130 97.23 1.029 0.533 71 191 119 573 2 0 . 8 6

1 1 0 21 2 1 b 113 97.29 1 .029 0.539 62 293 139 630 21 .38
1 1 0 2 1 2 2 5 112 97.29 1.028 0.538 61 223 126 328 38.5 3
1 1  0 21 226 165 97.23 1.028 0.538 91 229 193 615 23.97
1 1  0 21 238 2 0 1 97.28 1 . 02 8 0.592 192 276 195 629 31.99
1 1 0  " 21 2 9 8 519 97.29 ■ 1.028 0.538 287 311 296 965 63.79
1 1 0 21 253 928 97.23 1 . 0 2 8 0.538 236 399 302 662 45. 56
113 21 280 1536 97.23 1.028 0.538 899 791 805 786 102.56
1 1 0 21 329 713 97.28 1.028 ,3.538 39 9 995 933 581 79.80
22 3 21 9 3 903 97.29 1.023 0.231 219 637 382 869 99.38
220 21 9 6 2356 97.28 1 .028 0.231 559 813 660 1969 95.19
220 21 2 2.8 1298 97.23 1.028 0.231 308 607 926 1080 39.60
22 0 21 281 1775 97.28 1 .028 0.231 921 702 532 1566 39.06
220 21 303 8 20 97.23 1.023 0.231 199 966 302 893 35.97

OTALS ( » OF S CHLSs 2b) 1 9858 97.29 % 1.028 6031 .10897' 7959 19759 40 .29

CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 95.12

Note: J-239 Has a District-Wide Attendance Pattern. Statistics are Found on Page 6 6.

-53- wJroU)



BOARD «QF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF MEW .YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1590-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

A D M A T C H B O R O U G H A G E L O W * L O W
t o t a l S U C C E S S  .... F A L L O U T d i s t r i b u t i o n N O R M  _ F R E E . I N C O M E  ..... * I N C O M E

L E V E L D I S T R I C T PS ft A F DC R A T E F A C T O R F A C T O R A F D C L U N C H C H I L D R E N . R E G I S T E R C H I L D R E N
— _ _  —• — —  — — — — — ------- — — ------- _ _ _ _ _ _ — _ _ _ — .— ----------- _ — _ _ _ _ _
2 ? 52 1 9 0 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 . A 6 2 . 9 0 1 9 5 . .. ______ 131. 5 7 3 2 3 . 0 6

n o
Cm- Mm • • 
22 1 19 1 A5 9 7 . 2 9 1 .02 8 0 * 5 3 8 80 3 0 2 1 6 8 7 3 3 2 3 . O A

11 0 22 1 3 9 6 A 9 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 3 5 8 9 0 3 5 7 6 1 3 7 3 A 1 .99
11 0 2? 1 5 2 1 1 0 6 9 7 . 2 9 1 .02 8 0 . 5 3 3  ....... 6 11 . ...3 90 ........ 7 2 1 1 3 7 5 5 2 . 5 8
110 2? 1 9 3 2 1 2 9 7 . 2 3 1 .02 8 0 . 5 3 8 1 1 7 3 5 3 2 11 8 2 2 2 5 . 7A
110 22 19 A 1 7 0 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 . 0 . 5 3 8 9 A 1 3 0 1 07 5 2 9 2 0.  A 9
110 22 195 20 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2 8  .. . .... 0 ,538... .. 11 ... . 86 .. .. _ .... A O  ... ____  3 5 9 11 .A3
110 22 1 9 7 BA 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2  8 0 . 5 3 3 A 6 1 6 6 93 A 6 6 2 0 . 2 3
110 2.2 198 1 1 9 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 6 5 2 7 8 1 50 6 3 9 2 3 . 5 8
11 0 22 2 0 3 1 3 6 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 3 J . Q . A 6 2 .. _  _ . 6 A .._ . 169. .........105. 8 1 0 1 3 . 1 3
n o 22 2 0 b 1 0 9 9 7 . 2 3 1 .02 8 0 . 5 3 8 6 0 2 7 8 1 A 7 7 8 2 1 8 . 8 5
n o 22 2 0 7 63 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2 9 0 . 5 3 8 3 A 2 1 5 1 0 5 9 A3 11 . 3 A
11 0 22 2 1 7 A 5 9 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 8  ... 0 . 5 3 3  ........ 2 5 3 ____ 3 8 A 3 0 5 8 3 7 3 6 . 5 5
11 0 22 2 22 I S A 9 7 . 2 8 1 .02 3 0 . 5 3 3 101 2 7 0 168 8 5 5 1 9 . 7 7
n o 22 2 3b 20 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2 8 0 . A 6 2 9 1 0 0 AA 5 2 6 8 .69
n o 22 251 U 6 . 9 7 . 2 9 1 .02 8 0 . 5 3 3  .... .. . ........ 6 A . 1 6 8 1 0 5 6 2 7 1 6 . 8 6
n o 22 2 5 A 1 7 A 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 .A 6 2 82 1 5 A no 3 3 0 33 .69
n o 22 2 5 5 2 0 7 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 . 5 3 8 1 1 A 2 8 8 1 8 3 6 2 9 2 9 . 2 3
n o 22 2 69 .. . 802. 9 7 . 2 9  _. 1 . 0 2 8 _ 0 . 5  38. . ... A A 3 _  1 1 4 3 7 2 3 1 5 0 3 A 8 . 1 3
n o 22 2 7 7 6 9 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 3 2  8 0 . 5 3 8 A 9 1 5 5 9 0 A A 2 2 0 . 7 1
n o 22 3 12 99 9 7 . 2 3 1 . 0 2 8 0 . A 6 2 A 7 1 8 2 1 0 0 5 8 0 1 7 . A2
2 2 0 22 ...... 1A ... 5 3 8 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 9 0 . 2 3 1 1 2 7 2 5 2 1 7 6 9 3 2 1 9 . O A
4 2 0 22 78 6 2 2 9 7 . 2 9 1 . 0 2 3 0 . 2 3 1 1 A 7 5 3 3 301 1 5 6 3 1 9 . 3 1
2 2 0 22 2 3 A 6 3 3 9 7 . 2 9 1 .3 2 8 0 . 2 3 1 1 5 0 A 7 7 2 8 0 11 A3 2 A . 5 8
2 2 0 22 2 AO 1 2 A A 9 7 . 2 9  . 1 . 0 2 8 . 0 . 2 3 1 ........ 2 9 5 65 8. A AO 1 5 7 5 2 7 . 9 6
220 22 2 7 8 A 07 9 7 . 2 8 1 . 0 2 8 0 .23 1 96 2 A 5 1 5 A 1 0 7 5 1 A . 5 1

O T A L S  (1? OF S C H L 5 =-. 26) 8 5 9 7 9 7 . 2 3  % 1 . 0 2 8 3 6 0 7 8 9 7 A 5 7 5 A 2 2 0 2 1 2 6 . 1 3

CITYWIDE it LOW INCOME CUTOFF - ____ A 5 . 1  2

-54-
03

K)



3QARD *JF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

A 0 M A T CH BOROUGH AGE LOW % LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION  ̂NORM _ FREE „ INCOME .. ........ . INCOME

LEVEL DISTRICT PS » AFDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

L  1 1 1 1 1 97.2 B 1 . .02 8 0.538 619 __. 693 .....695 793 86.931 i J .. ..
n o

.—  C  J  ------
23 73 952 97.23 1.028 0.385 376 959 907 968 87.11

1 1 0 23 137 907 97.28 1 .028 0.962 193 576 395 576 60.13
1 1 0 23 150. . 899 97.28 1 .029 ....0.536 . . ..99 9 ___ 990 ... 971 991 107.13
1 1 0 23 155 1163 97.28 1 . 0 2  8 0.962 552 676 601 880 68.39
1 1 0 23 156 367 97.23 1.028 ,0.539 2 0 2 330 252 330 76.90
1 1 1 23 165 952 97.23. 1 . 0 2  9 ...... 0.538 .. _ ..... 2 9 9 __339 . n  - 2 8 2 ... . .527 __53.81
1 1 0 23 175 293 97.28 1 .028 0.538 - 139 396 218 360 60.89
1 1  0 23 17 8 985 97.23 1 .028 0.962 967 ' 995 957 559 82.79
n o 23 183 . .. 999 . 97.29 . . 1 .028 0.539 ... 552 ___5 72 559 690 81.20
1 1 0 23 1 8 A 575 97. 28 1.028 0 .962 273 298 282 308 91.90
n o 23 289 1376 97.28 1 .028 0.538 760 739 799 739 1 0 2 . 2 1

1 1 0 23 298 986 97.29 1.029 . . 0.538 ...... 268... 515 . _ 366 598 61 .92
n o 23 32 7 951 97.28 1.028 0.533 299 791 995 791 6 0 . 2 0

1 0 0 23 332 362 97.29 1.028 0.538 2 0 0 337 259 369 69.08
1 1 0 23 396 951 97.2B 1.028 3.538 299 0 199 0 0 . 0

2 2 0 23 55 20 5 3 97.29 1.028 0.231 987 517 998 596 91 .95
2 2 0 23 263 5012 97.29 1.028 0.159 793 990 651 826 78.99
22 0 23 2 71 9161 9 7,28 1,028 __..0,231___ ___ 988 389 995 1612 58.71
2 2 0 23 275 2209 97.28 1.028 0.231 5 29 529 523 836 62.72

otals u OF SCHLS* 2 0 1 29709 97.28 % 1.028 8 62 9 ' 9356 9117 12139 75.11

CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CUTQFF - 95.12

-55-
ts
K)U1



SOAR a ’OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1 980-81 POV ERT Y C O M P O N E N T S  LIS T IN G

A D M AT CH BOR O UG H AGE LOW * LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FAL LOJ T D I S T R I B U T I O N NORM FREE INCOME INCOME

LE VEL DISTRICT PS u AFDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNC H C HI L D R EN R E GI S T E R C H I L D R E N
------- — —  » — — ~ ~ ------ --------— • -

100 32 A5 986 97.29 1.028 . 0 . 5 3 8 _______ 5 A 5 .. 1118 77A 1119 69. 2 0
n o 32 75 865 97.23 1.028 0.533 A78 650 5 A 6 739 7 A . 0 2
n o 32 8 fa 102A 97.29 1 .02 8 0 .538 566 556 561 7 2 A 77.65
n o 32 106 1A 6 9 97.29 1 ..028 0.533 812 853 823 921 89.97
n o 32 116 713 97.28 1 .02 8 0.538 39 A 613 A B 1 673 71 .59
n o 32 123 1609 97.28 1.028 .0.538 889 1073 962 1375 7 0 . OA
11 0 32 1A 5 _ .1539 9 7.29 1,028 ... 0 . A 6 2 ____  ..._ __730..... 9 67.... 82 A 1208 68 .AA
n o 32 151 8 A 8 97.29 1 .02 8 0.533 A68 581 513 619 83.00
11 0 32 2 7 A 1316 97.23 1.02 8 0.A62 62 A 751 67A 1005 6 7 .20
n o 3 2 299 831 97.28 1.028 0.533 A59 6 A 0 530 655 81.18
n o 32 i l l 596 97.29 1 .02 9 0.533 329 529 AOB 529 77.39
100 32 3 8 A 1501 97.29 1 .028 0.533 830 912 862 917 9 A . 10
2 2 0 32 111 30 A 9 97.29 1 .028 0.231 72A 815 759 1 0A3 72.91
.220 32 162 2A91 9 7.29 1 .028 0.231 591 789 669 878 7 6 . 3 7
220 3 2 291 3707 97.28 1.028 0.1 5 A 586 570 579 686 8 A .56
220 32 29b 3381 97.28 1 .028 0 .231 802 7 8 A 79 A 1125 70.69

OTALS { I t OF S C H L S * 16) 25925 97.28 * 1.028 9827 12201 10777 1A21A 75.82

C I T Y W I D E  % LOW INCOME CU TO FF  - A5.12

Note: 1-383 Has a District-Wide' Attendance Pattern. ' 'Statistics'are Foundin' Page~6 6~.

•56-

tuiro
err



5 □ A. R D *3 F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1983-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW s; LOW
TOTAL _ SUCCESS .... FALLOUT DISTRIBUTION... NORM._. FREE ........ INCOME .. INCOME

level DISTRICT PS tf AF DC: RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN

110 2A 12 .. 136 . 96.97 . 1 .031 — 0.538______ 7 5 __ 314.. „ ___ 170 .....796 __.21.47.
11 0 2A 13 AO 3 96.97 1.031 0.A62 192 540 330 1086 30.50
110 24 1 A 631 96.97 1 .031 0.462 300 627 A30 1292 33.37
110 2 A 19 1571: 9 6.97 1.031 ..0.A62 ...... 74 9 _1179 920 1 6A6 55.93
11 0 2 A A 9 52 96.97 1.031 0 .538 29 ill 61 A 8 3 12.78
11 0 2 A 68 3 A 95.97 1.031 0.538 18 A 0 1 171 755 2 2. 7 A
11 n ?  u 71 5 9 96.97 1.031._....0 .538 ... - . _ ..3 2. __A 95 _i____ 216 ..._____971 __22 .A 1
11 Q 2 A 81 135 95.97 1.031 0.538 7 A 758 3A7 1193 29.18
11 0 2 A 8 7 71 96.97 1 .031 0.536 39 83 56 357 15.92
11 0 2 A 88 88 . 95.97 . 1.031 ._.1). 0.538 .... __48 .__ A 3 3 . ... 202 1002 20.21
11 0 2 A 89 5A6 96.97 1.031 0 .A62 260 1000 555 17A3 31.90
11 0 2 A 91 0 96.97 1 .031 0.538 0 1 AO 55 A69 11.9A
i 1 n Z b 102 A7 96.97 1.031 .. 0 .538._ . .. ._ .26.___196 93 _____538. ...17.46
113 2 A 113 A 95.97 1.031 0.538 2 A 8 20 376 5 . A 6
11 0 2 A 128 13 95.97 1.031 0.538 7 37 18 2 AA 7.8A
1 1 0 2 A 1 A3 7 1A 95.97 1 .031 , . 0.A62_____ .340 .6 26 .... 53A . 937 57. OA
11 0 2 A 153 105 95.97 1 .031 3.538 58 186 108 507 21.57
110 2 A 19,9 3 A A 95.97 1.031 0. A62 163 A 71 286 909 31.5A
1 1 n 2A 229 123 95.97 1.031 . . 0.5 38. ... .6 8 188 ____  115... 1026 11.32
L ? 0 2 A 61 3A20 95.97 1.031 0.231 814 1572 1116 1 9 A 5 57.46
22 0 2 A 73 691 96.97 1.031 0 .308 219 1091 567 2059 27.59
2 2 0 2 A 93 2 7 A 96.97 1.031 0.231 65 1028 A 50 1698 26.52
220 2 A 119 127 9 6.97 1 .031 0.231 30 3A8 157 919 17.12
220 2 A 125 1539 96.9? 1.031 0.308 488 11 1 A 738 1792 41.23

OTALS (« OF S CHLS - 2A) 11127 95.97 % 1 .031 4094 131.8 6 7731 2A7A3 31.25

CITYWIDE' !5 LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

”-57-

Cdl
tvj



a O A R D ’QF EDUCATION DP THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1 3 3 0 - 8 1 P O V E R T Y C O M P O N E N T S  L I S T I N G

L E V E L D I S T R I C T p s  n
T O T A L  
A F D C

A Q M A T C H
S U C C E S S
R A T E

B O R O U G H
F A L L O U T
F A C T O R

A G E
D I S T R I B U T I O N

F A C T O R
.. N O R M  ... 

A F D C
F R E E
L U N C H

L O W
I N C O M E

C H I L D R E N R E G I S T E R

% L O W  
I N C O M E  

C H I L D R E N

11 a 25 20 3 6 2. 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1  ........ 0 . 5 6 2 _________ ___ 1 7 2 _... § 2 5 ___ 3 1 2 1 0 9 8 2 8 . 5 5
n o 25 21 1 5 3 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 85 2 75 1 5 9 9 1 8 1 7 . 5 3
11 0 25 22 1 33 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 7 3 2 5 5 151 8 7 8 1 6 . 2 0
11 a 2 5 25 1 67 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 92 2 8 5 1 6 8 7 6 8 2 2 . 0 8
110 2 5 29 6 5 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 36 1 5 3 78 3 8 5 2 0 . 5 8
n o 25 32 101' 9 5 . 3 7 1 .,031 . 0 . 5 3 3 56 2 0 7 115 8 5 5 1 3 . 7 8
n o 25 79 31. 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1  ._ „ ..0 . 5 3 3 _____________ 1 7 . _______ 55 7 9 0 7 . 1 3
n o 25 1 D 7 51 9 5 . 3 7 1 .03 1 0 . 5 3 3 28 1 2 7 66 7 8 1 8 . 6 8
n o 25 1 20 1 20 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 6 6 2 6 5 1 5 5 8 5 6 1 7 . 0 5
11 0 25 1 29 95 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 !; 0 . 5 3 3 52 70 58 6 1 3 9 . 7 3
n o 2 5 1 5 5 138 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 76 1 1 9 92 5 2 5 2 2 . 0 1
n o 25 1 6 3 15 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 3 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 8 8 7 38 3 2 6 1 2 . 2 1
n o 25 165 93 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 51 1 2 5 79 3 5 9 2 3 . 2 0

. n o 25 1 65 1 8 3 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 3 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 1 01 2 2 3 159 5 2 2 2 8 . 7 6
11 0 25 1 69 16 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 3 8 3 5 18 7 0 6 2 . 6 8
11 0 25 1 85 15 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 3 7 55 21 5 1 7 5 . 5 3
11 0 25 1 9 3 56 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 2 5 7 7 55 5 6 3 8 . 1 9
11 0 25 2 0 0 19 9 5 . 3 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 3 10 79 37 5 0 9 9 . 2 7
11 0 25 201 102 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 5 6 86 67 3 9 5 1 7 . 3 0
11 0 25 2 0 9 10 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 5 5 6 25 5 0 9 5 . 0 5
n o 25 2 1 5 1 53 9 6 . 9 7 1 ..031 , 0 . 5 3 8 79 1 5 8 n o 5 3 2 2 0 . 8 3
11 0 25 2 1 9 65 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 3 36 2 2 0 103 5 9 5 2 2 . 1 9
2 2 0 25 25 2 26 9b. 97 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 53 3 7 0 1 7 9 1 5 5 7 1 1 . 5 8
2 2 0 25 168 3 2 7 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 77 1 9 5 1 23 5 9 9 2 5 . 9 2
2 2 0 25 1 85 161 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 36 2 71 131 7 9 0 1 6 . 6 3
2 2 0 25 1 89 8 1 8 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 3 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 1 9 5 7 5 0 5 1 5 1 2 0 6 3 5 . 5  7
2 2 0 25 1 95 1 60 9 6 . 9 7 1 .031 0 . 2 3 1 38 1 3 5 75 1 0 1 5 7 . 5 3
2 2 0 25 2 1 8 1 8 5 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 55 1 98 1 0 5 5 7 9 2 2 . 0 5
^ 2 0 25 2 3 7 3 6 8 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 3 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 87 5 8 1 2 5 5 1 0 3 3 2 3 . 7 2

Q T A l S ( K OP  S C HL 5 - 29) ___5 3 6 7 .. 9 5 . 3 7  * _ 1 . 0 3 1 ------- ------- *—
1 6 6 9 5 9 6 5 ______ 3 3 8 7 2 0 1 5 8 1 6 . 8 0

C I T Y W I D E  * L O W I N C O M E C U T O F F  - 5 5 . 1 2  !

-58-

wiroco



BOARD «3F EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1 9 3 0-8 1 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

ADMATCH BOROUGH AGE LOW * LDW
TOTAL SUCCESS. FALLOUT. DISTRIBUTION NORM FREE INCOME INCOMELEVEL DISTRICT PS ft AFDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN--- --— — ---—— --- -------- —-— •-- ----- -

n o .... ..26 ...._ -.. 18— ... 2... 96.37 .... 1 ..331 .3.5 3 3 1 31 1 2 130 10.05
1 1 0 26 26 1 1 96.97 1 .031 0.538 6 5A 2 A 631 A.00n o 26 31 71 95.97 1.331 0.533 39 107 65 283 23.A8n o  ... 26 ... ......  A 1 _ ___38.. 96.97 1 .031 ... 3.538 .. 2 1 .... 3 9 27 2 8 A 9.95n o 26 A 6 53 96.97 1.031 0 . A62 25 38 30 1A 5 20.93n o 26 9 A 1 0 9 6.97 1.031 . 0.538 5 51 23 298 7.96. m o ____ .... .26..... ..9 8 ____A...... 96.97.... 1 ..031.. ...-0.5 33.....- - 2 28 1 0 2 2 2 5.10
1 1 0 26 115 A 96.97 1.031 0.533 2 6 A 26 A1 7 6 .A6n o 26 130 57 96.97 1.331 0.533 31 99 57 A09 1A . 3 2n o 26... 13 3........ 1 2 96.97... 1.031 . , 0.533 . ..  6 . 62 27 A 5 5 6.33n o 26 159 35 96.37 1 .031 0.533 19 73 AO 369 11.07
1 1 0 26 162 13 96.97 1 .331 0.533 7 86 38 A 5 0 8 .61
1 1 0 .. . 2 6______..173 ... .. 18 9 6.97 1.331 . 0.533 ... 9 ... 2 6_ 15 369 A .AAn o 26 177 1 2 96.37 1.331 0 .533 6 A3 20 250 . 8 . A 8n o 26 178 0 96.97 1.031 0 .538 0 2A 9 31 A 3 .06n o 26 .... 186 ...20 96.97 1.331 .. 0.533 15 109 52 527 10 .OAn o 26 188 1 A 96.37 1 .031 0 .538 7 A 6 22 369 6.25n o 26 191 0 96.37 1.031 0.538 0 30 1 1 217 5.53n o 26 . . 203 .. . 3 2 ....96.37 . . 1.031 ...0 .538 . 17 _ - . 1 06 . 52 6 A A 8 . 2 An o 26 205 50 96.97 1.031 0 . A 6 2 23 103 55 373 1A.86 in o 26 213 A 8 96.97 1.031 0 .A62 2 2 90 A 8 2A5 20.29n o . 2 6 ... ...2 2 1.. 8 96.9 7 .. 1.031 . 0.533 A 51 2 2 605 3.81
2 2 0 26 67 28 96.37 1.031 0.231 6 1 2 0 51 702 7.41 i
2 2 0 26 7 A 1 6 6 96.97 1 .031 0.231 39 228 1 1 A 710 16.19_ 2 2 0 _ .... 26_____ 1 5 8_... 153 ...96.97 ... 1.031 .. . 0 .231 36 2 A 2 11 7 819 1 A .49
2 2 0 26 172 53 96.97 I .031 0.231 1 2 235 1 0 0 927 10.96 •
2 2 0 26 216 62 96.97 1 .031 0.231 1 A 252 108 989 n.09

OTALS l i f OF S C H L 5 =■ 27 ) 982 96.97 % 1 .031 37 A 2A3A 1198 12153 9.8 6 1

CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

-59-

tdl
to



BOARD -OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY QF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

A DM A TCH BOROUGH AGE LOW * LOW
......... ... TOTAL.. SUCCESS __ FALLOJT DISTRIBUTION ...NORM ... FREE ..INCOME ... 1NCDMF

LF VF L DISTRICT PS f r AFOC RATE FACTOR FACTOR A FDC LUNCH CHILDREN REGISTER CHILDREN
.110... .... 27 .... ___ 42 ...529.. _ 96.97.- _ 1 .031. .0.538 _ .293 645 433 836 51.93
no 27 45 300 96.97 1.031 0.538 166 367 245 428 57.63
no 27 47 42 96.97 1 .031 0.538 23 119 60 171 36.01
110 27 ..51 .. 125 95.97 1.031 .. 0.462 ...... 59 143 92 237 39.21
no 27 60 426 95.97 1.031 0.538 235 356 283 1129 25.17
11 0 27 62 313 9 5.97 1 .031 . 0.538 173 341 240 771 31.21

_ 11.0___ ___27______ -.—  6.3. ___ 2 52..._ 9 5 . 9 7 ... 1 .031 ....  0 .5 3 3 . .. . 139 25? 1R3 935 19.75
no 27 64 202 95.97 1.031 - 0.538 112 255 168 65 6 25.80
11 0 27 6 6 118 95.97 1.031 ■ 0.538 65 160 102 366 28.22
no 27 ... 90.. 251 95.97 . 1.031 . U 0.538 ...139 ___ 287 197 666 29.78no 27 96 240 95.97 1.031 0.462 114 263 173 320 54.31no 27 97 117 95.97 1.031 0.538 6 4 133 91 538 17.13
n o .... 27 . .100- 3 4 L _ 96.97 1.031 0.538 189 418 280 1154 24.33
11 0 27 104 379 95.97 1.031 0.462 180 333 241 571 42.30no 27 105 1741 95.97 1.031 0.462 829 908 860 1030 83.58no 27 106 418 95.97 1.031 0.462 199 421 257 423 6 8.06
no 27 106 153 95.97 1 .031 0.533 84 171 113 627 19.03n o 27 114 6 6 95.97 1.031 0.533 36 194 98 794 12.54

.no ... .. 27 . . 123.. 697 96.97 1.031 0 .538 386 452 412 596 69.27no 27 124 300 95.97 1.031 0.538 166 611 343 669 51.46no 27 146 119 95.97 1.031 0 .533 6 6 141 95 523 18.36no 27 155 2 96 95.97 1.031 0.538 164 411 262 528 49.80no 27 183 597 95.97 1.031 0 .538 331 590 433 694 62.64no 27 197 907 95.97 1.031 0.462 432 746 557 877 6 3.59no 27 207 23 9 5.97 1 .031 0.538 12 107 49 569 8.87no 27 215 708 95.97 1.031 0.462 337 661 466 933 50.03'no 27 223 601 95.97 1.031 0.538 333 520 40? 664 61.46
n o 27 225 125 95.97 1.031 0.533 69 445 218 b 2 2 35.31no 27 232 37 96.97 1.031 0.538 20 59 35 622 5.772 2 0 27 53 2.4 0 8 95.97 1.031 0.231 573 1150 803 1256 64.03-220 ... 27 .. ___ _ 180 662 9b . 97 1.031 0.231 157 494 291 925 31 .59220 27 198 2 270 95.97 1.031 0.308 721 860 775 98 0 79.25220 27 202 1707 95.97 1.031 0.231 406 659 505 1443 35.. 18<20 27 ..210 2 3 65 95.97 1.031 0.154 375 921 593 1599 37.13220 27 226 1735 95.97 1.031 0.231 413 944 624 1512 41.37

OTALS (f>.UF S CHL S = _-35)__.2 1 570... 96.97_-5___ 1 .03 1. . 8061 15537 11051 26664 41 .4 5(3
-60-

r i t  w \  i rn r o i n !i ? m r n m r it  n r r

lU)o/ r i



BOARD DF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1380-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

A 0 M A T C H B O R O U G H AGE LOW % LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS FALLOUT D I S T R I B U T I O N N O R M. FREE.....INCOME.._ INCOME

l e v e l D I S T R I C T PS ti AFDC RATE FA C T O R FACTOR AFDC L U N C H C H I L D R E N R E G I S T E R C H I L D R E N

110 28 30 2 A3 95.97 . 1_031 ... 0.5 3 8.. -. - 1 3 A ... .. 5 A 7 . !___ _ 298 ._____  723 A1.A5
110 28 AO 566 95. 9 7 1 ..031 0 .533 369 610 A6 A 7 1A 65.22
110 28 A 8 5 6 8 9 5.97 1.031 0.538 315 296 307 316 97.30
n o  .. 28 . 50. ..  603 95.97 1.031 0.53 8 - ... .... . 3 3 A __ 709 _ .._ .A 8 3 7A0 6 5 . A 5
n o 2 8 5 A A 5 A 95.97 1.031 0.538 251 386 305 621 A 9.20
n o 28 55 3A2 96.97 1 .031 ,0.533 189 AA5 290 891 32.75
11 0 28 8 0 202 95.97 1 .031 0.533 .... ._ 112... 38 5 .... . 220 ____ _ 629 35.17 .
n o 28 82 362 9 6 . 9 7 1 .031 0.533 200 393 277 A60 60.37
n o 28 8 6 8 AA 95.97 1,031 0.533 A68 965 665 1289 5 1 . 7A
n o 28 99 37 9 5.97 1.031 ...2 0 .5 3 3 ....... . 20 „ ___16 0......... 75 633 12.06
n o 28 101 11 95.97 1.031 0.538 6 117 A 9 A6A 10.88
n o 28 117 181 96.97 1 .031 0.533 100 306 182 979 18.66
11 0 20 121 ... . 53 6 9 6.97 .. 1.031 ..  0.5 38......  ... 29 7 . . 7 7 3 . ...A8 7 . 1005 .48.52
n o 28 139 115 96.97 1.031 0.538 63 125 87 A 2 5 20.77
n o 28 1 A 0 6 A 5 9 5 . 9 7 1 .031 0.538 35 7 575 A A3 761 58 .AA
n o 2.8 . 1 A A . 3 A 96.97 1 .031 0.5 3 8 ...... .. 1 8 . 75 ______  AO ...___  332 1 2 . A5
n o 28 160 699 95.97 1.031 0.538 387 609 A 75 680 7 0 . OA
n o 28 17 A 17 96.97 1 .031 0.538 9 AB 2 A 532 A . 67
11 o .. ..2 9____ ........17 5..... . BD. .9 5 . 9 7 ..... 1 .031....._ . 0.533 .... ...A A ,.. 19 5...... _____  103. ....  670. . 15.62
11 0 28 1 9 G 20 96.97 1 .031 0.533 11 85 39 533 7.63
n o 28 2 05 127 95.97 1 .031 0.538 70 208 125 687 18.26
n o 28 .220 ... 106 96.97 1.031 ... . 0 .538 ........ 58 210 113 6 AO 18-64
220 28 6 18 95 95.97 1.031 0.308 601 735 6 5 A 761 66.09
220 28 72 817 96.97 1.031 0.308 259 A 5 A 336 922 36.58
22 0__  ...___ 2 8 .... ... . ... .l_A.iL. ... 1 2 26.. 9 5 . 9 7 ... .... 1 .031 0.231 292 382 327 553 59.32
220 28 157 237 96.97 1.031 0.231 56 3 7A 182 1198 15.32
220 28 190 1 A 6 95.97 1.031 0.231 3 A A 07 182 1110 16.55
220 28 217 1911 95.97 1.031 0.231 .A 5 5__ 950 ______6 52 1 A 71 A A . A 0

OTALS ( I t OF SCHLS= 28 ) 131 2 A 95. 9 7  % 1 .031 5509 11 5 2 A 7915 20739 38.16

- G i ­

roi

CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME CUTOFF A 5.12



- Revised 5/15/80
3DAR0 QF EDUCATION DF THE- CITY OF NEW YORK 

METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1 9 3 0 - 6 1 P O V E R T Y C O M P O N E N T S  L I S T I N G

LF  F L D I S T R I C T P S  i t

T O T A L
A F DC

A D M A T C H

S U C C E S S
R A T E

B O R O U G H

F A L L O U T
F A C T O R

AGE

D I S T R I B U T I O N  
F A C T O R

NORM

A-FDC

F R E E
L U N C H

LOW

I N C O M E

C H I L D R E N R E G I S T E R
— ---- ------------— ----_ _ --------- -- — ------------— -----------------,--------- — ------ ---- —----- — " "  -

11 0 2 9 15 2 5 4 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6  2 .. . .....  1 2 1 2 5 2 1 7 2 3 8 3

n o 2 9 3 3 9 4 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 3 3 1 0 . 5  33 5 2 3 3 1 1 6 3 1 1 8 1

n o 2 9 3 4 3 2 1 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 1 7 8 743 404 8 7 8

n o 29 3 5 3 8 7 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 1 8 4 3 9 0 2 6 5 5 4 6

n o 2 9 3 6 2 0 2 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 1 1 2 2 9 7 1 8 5 4 0 5

n o 29 3 7 4 0 8 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 2 2 6 b 4 Q 3 9 0 7 8 4

11 0 2 9 3 8  . _ ..  2 2 ...... 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 ..._....... ..._.... 1 2 . . ... 124 _ 5 6 3 1 2

n o 2 9 5 2 3 0 0 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 1 6 6 2 9 1 2 1 5 4 4 2

n o 2 9 9 5 6 0 8 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4  6 2 2 8 9 8 9 0 5 2 8 1 1 7 0

n o 29 1 1 6 5 5 0 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 2 6 2 4 5 4 3 3 3 4 7 8

n o 2.9 1 1 8 4 9 3 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 2 3 4 4 5 1 3 2 0 5 6 4

11 0 2 9 1 3 1 24 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 . 05. 5 3 8 1 3 1 3 8 6 2 5 4 5

n o 2 9 1 3 2 2 1 7 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 1 0 3 3 3 2 1 9 4 4 2 4

11 0 2 9 1 3 4 4 0 4 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 1 9 2 3 2 5 2 4 4 5 1 8

11 0 2 9 1 3 5 2 1 3 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 3 1 1 3 4 7 3 2 5 9 1 2 1 0

n o 2 9 1 3 6 7 4 4 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 3 5 4 5 5 7 4 3 4 9 0 5

11 0 2 9 1 3 8 7 3 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 4 0 7 2 52 7 3 2

n o 2 9 1 4 7 2 7 3 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 1 3 0 4 9 7 2 7 6 8 4 1

n o 2 9 1 5 6 1 6 2 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 8 9 3 8 7 2 0 7 9 0 6

n o 2 9 1 7 6 4 8 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 4 6 2 2 2 1 5 6 7 5 4 9 6

n o 2 9 181 71 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 3 3 9 1 8 0 9 4 4 5 2

11 0 2 9 1 9 5 18 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 5 3 8 9 6 5 3 0 5 1 9

2 2 0 2 9 5 9 9 0 3 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 2 1 5 3 5 5 4 7 0 1 0 3 8

2 2 0 29 1 D 9 6 0 6 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 1 4 4 8 1 1 4 1 0 1 5 6 1

2 2 0 2 9 1 9 2 1 7 3 8 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 D . 2 3 1 4 1 4 1 0 7 8 680 1 4 4 3

22  0 2 9 2 3 1 6 0 0 9 5 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 1 5 4 9 5 8 1 4 3 8 2 1 5 3 7

2 2 0 2 9 2 3 6 1 7 3 4 9 6 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 1 0 . 2 3 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 9 2 1 4 0 9

DIALS {# OF S C HL 5 = 2 7 ) 11467 9 6 . 9 7  % 1 . 0 3 1 4 2 2 6 .1 2 7 1 8 i  7 626 2 1 6 8 1

CITYWIDE \  LOW INCOME CUTOFF -

Note: P-251 Has a District-Wide Attendance Pattern. Statistics are Found on Page 66.

% LOW 
INCOMF 

CHILDREN

45.28 
13 . 8646 , 02
48.83 
45.94 
49.98
18.24 _ 
48.93
4 5.28 
70.88 
56.97 
11 .59 
45 .95 
47.39 
21.50 
48.12 
7.25 

32 .92 
23.04
15.29 I 
21.16 1
6.16 

"45.38 
26.33 ,47. 09 •
24.90
49.24
35 . 17

45.12

tni



1980—81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

BOARD »3F EDUCAT 13M OF THE CITY QF NEW YORK 1
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY REVISED 11/13/80

A D M A T C H ' B O R O U G H AGE LOW \  LOW
TOTAL SUCCESS . F A L L O J T D I S T R I B U T I O N NORM FREE ... . INCOME INCOME

l e v e l D I S T R I C T PS u AFDC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AFDC LUNCH CHIL D R E N R E G I S T E R C H I L D R E N
— --- - — — ------- — ---------- — - ----- -- -------- — — ' —

1 1 0 BO 2. 90 9 5.97 1 .031 0.533 .... A 9 . 80..______  6 0 ____ A 6 2 1 3 .A 1
n o BO 1 1 2A6 95.97 1.031 0 .538 136 387 235 910 26 *01
n o 30 17 A93 95.97 1.031 0 . A 6 2 2 3 A 982 532 1723 30.98
n o 30 69 191 95.97 1 .,031 0.A62 ..... ..... 90 ........ 30 0 ... ..... . 173 9 7 A 17.93
n o 30 70 A A 2 95.97 1.031 0.538 2A5 7 A 1 AA3 1609 2 7 .57
n o 30 7b A 29 95.97 1 .031 0.538 238 531 3 5 A 585 60.72
1 1 0 3 0 8 A 117 9 5.97 1.031 ..... .:. 0.5 38... .... . .. . .. .. 6 A .. . ... .23 5 .... 131 . . 535 ...24.85 .
n o 30 85 1 59 96.97 1 .031 0.538 93 A 08 219 728 30.15
100 30 92 729 95.97 1 .031 0.231 173 3 A 7 242 A 1 8 58.13
11 0 30 111 8 7 A ... 95.97 1 .031 J. 0.335 ...... __ 3 A 7___ A 2 1 ..... 375 5 A 9 68. 6 0
n o 30 112 8 7 A 95.97 1 .03 1 0.231 208 206 205 3A8 59.58
n o 30 122 269 95.97 1.031 0 .538 1A9 A 7 0 275 1015 2 7 . 3A
n o 30 127 638 95.97 1 .031 . 0.3 8 5._____ . . 25 3. _. . A98 . . .35 0........... 721 . 48.71
100 30 148 6 38 95. 9 7 1.-031 0 .231 151 406 254 559 45. 36
n o 30 149 729 95.97 1 . 03 1 0.308 231 531 350 699 50.26
n o .. 30...... . 1 5 0 . . 207 . 95.97 . 1.031 ........ 0.538 ______ 1 1 A.._. . 3 0 5 .. 189 6 A 1 2 9.78
n o 30 151 320 95.9 7 1.031 0.533 177 A30 277 795 35.03
11 0 30 152 197 95.97 1 .031 0 .538 109 A3 9 2 A 0 930 2 5 . 9 3
11 o ... ... 3 0 ... . . 166 A 2 1 .95.97 __... ..1.031 ___ 0.53 3.... .. 23 3 ... ...705..... A 2 2 1 03A 40.87
n o 30 171 1 3 A 0 95.97 1.031 0. A62 638 506 625 66 A 94.19
2 2  J 30 10 918 95.97 1.031 0.231 219 537 385 1 3 9 A 27.69
220 30 12b 1 8 AO 95.97 1.031 .... 0 . 2 3 1 ... .. ABB 7 95 580 1037 56.06
220 30 1 A 1 618 9 5.97 1 .031 0.231 1 A 7 508 331 1166 28.43
220 30 1 A 5 1 7 A 7 95.97 1.031 0.231 A 1 6 998 6 A 8 1 5 AO 42.14
220 30 20 A . 1.220. . 95. 9 7 ...... 1.031 .. .. .0.2 31 ... .. ... 290 ...... 592 ______A 5.0 855 52.77

fOTALS (ft OF S C HL s - 25) 1 5756 9 5.97 *2 1 .,031 5 A A1 12760 _____8370 21891 38. 23

CITYWIDE * LOW INCOME CUTOFF - 45.12

-63-
WiOJ



JEHR3 SF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1980-81 P O V E R T Y C O M P O N E N T S  L I S T I N G

A O K A T C H B O R O U G H AGE LOW * LOW
T QT AL S U CCESS FALLOUT.. D I S T R I B U T I O N  _..NORM......FREE .. ... I N C O M E. INCOME

l e v e l DISTRICT PS ft A F DC RATE FACTOR FACTOR AF DC LUNCH C H I L D R E N R E G I S T E R C H I L D R E N
w  «» -r- t—  1_ ft- - *m.m~ mmmm. — — — - — — ■ - - -

i i n 'A 1 1 90 9 5.95 . 1.0 A 2 ... _.. .. 0 . A 6 2  - . . A3 .... 1 1 3 ________71 _____ A56 ___15,61.......-1.1 -------

110 31 3 18 95.95 1.0A2 0.A62 8 168 72 A 8 0 15.08
110 31 A 5 95.95 1 .0 A2 0.A62 2 38 16 396 A . 20

3 1 5 g 95.95 1_0A2 _____0 . A 6 2 ____  __. ......3........ 51. .. ....... 2 2. 2 AO 9 . A 61 1 J 
110 31 8 2A 95.95 1.0A2 0 . A 6 2 11 82 38 A93 8.06
11 0 31 11 58 95.95 1.0 A 2 0.538 32 129 70 A35 16.35
i i n 1 3 2 A A 9 5,95 i n  a 2.. -..... 0.533 . ..... _ 13 6 . .. 2 8 7 .... ... ..19 6. ... . ...50 8. . 3 8 . 7 6 .

— 1 I y — —  

110 31 1A 635 95.95 1..0A2 0 .538 356 b3 A A66 721 6A.80
11 0 31 lb 5 A 1 95.95 1.0A2 0 .A62 260 A30 327 759 A3.25
l 1 n 3 1 1 8 A89 95.95 1 .DA 2 0 . A 6 2 ........ .235 _ ___.A 2.9.. ______312 509 fa 1 . A /
110 31 19 136 9 5.95 1 .0 A 2 0.A62 65 211 123 379 3 2 .6A
n o 31 20 1 86 95.95 1 .0A2 0 .  A 6 2. 89 201 133 333 A O . 28
1 1 Q 31 21 1 A 1 95.95 n D A 2 0 .A62 ... o 7 .1 AA .... ... 97 .. 267. 36.83
110 31 22 85 9 5 .95 1 ..DA 2 0 .  A 6 2 AO 3 A 3 161 12A0 1 3 . OA
110 31 23 18 95.95 1 .0A2 0.A62 8 76 35 517 6.89
11 0 3 1 26 1 0 95.95 1.0A2 ... D . A 6 2 ........ .... A . ... 50 . 21 282 8.12
n o 31 29 83 95.95 1.0A2 0 .  A 6 2 39 151 83 6 A 1 13.16
n o 31 30 A7 95.95 1.DA2 0 . A62 22 95 50 675 7.6 A
n o 31 31 507 95.95 1 . 3 A 2 ._____0.A62 . ____ 2AA .... . 268... 253 282 89.95
11 0 31 32 3 A 95.95 1.0A2 0 . A 6 2 16 65 3 A 122 3 2.93
11 0 31 35 AA 95.95 1 .0 A 2 0.A62 21 38 27 275 10.15
11 0 31 36 A 5 95.95 1 .0A 2 .. 0.A62 . _ 21 159 76 1 69A A . 52
n o 31 38 A 9 95.95 1 .0 A 2 0.538 27 1 A 0 71 A 2 6 17.02
11 0 31 39 1 A3 95.95 1 . 0 A 2 0.53B 80 187 122 A 2 5 28 .92
11 0 31 AO 101 . 95.95 ...... 1.0 A2 .. 0.A62 ..  _....A 8 ... 1 A 6 87 228 38 .A 1
11 0 31 A 1 n o 95.95 1 .DA 2 0.538 61 216 123 6 A 8 19 .OA
n o 31 A2  ̂6 95.95 1 . 0 A 2 0 .A62 22 85 A 6 969 A .88
n o 31 AA . . 519 . 9?. 95 ... .1 .0A2 _ . .... 0 • A 6 2 . .... 2A9 A 52 _ 329 552 59.92
11 0 31 A 5 60 95.95 1 .0 A 2 0.A62 28 97 55 588 9.55
n o 31 6 1 2 A 9 5.95 1.0A2 0.538 69 v 163 106 300 3 5 ,6A
11 0 31 A 8 39 95.95. 1 .,0A2__ .. 0.538 . .21 6 9 AO 2 A 6 16.55
n o 31 50 A9 95.95 1.0A2 0.A62 23 86 A 8 652 7 . A 5
11 0 31 52 227 95.95 1 .0A2 0.538 127 172 1 A A 638 22.75
11 0 31 53 22 95.95 1 . 0 A 2 ....0 . A 6 2 ________ ... 10 58 -29 6A2 A . 60
11 0 31 5 A 29' 95.95 1 . 0 A 2 0.A62 13 125 57 816 7.15
n o 31 55 20 95.95 1 .DA 2 0 . A 6 2 9 71 33 669 5 . 1 1 co

—  u>
-64-



SOAR D OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
METROPOLITAN EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY
1930-81 POVERTY COMPONENTS LISTING

LL \/F L DISTR ICT PS t t

TOTAL
AFDC

ADKATCH 
SJCCESS . 
RATE

BOROUGH
FALLOJT
FACTOR

AGE
DISTRIBUTION 

FACTOR
.. NORM 
AFDC

.FREE...
LUNCH

LOW
. INCOME ..... 
CHILDREN REGISTER

* LOW 
1 NCOMF 

CHILDREN
— - — —  — — —— ----- - - — •--- — — — — — —

.110
110

31
31

c  7 381
37

9 5.35 1.092 0.538 _213 ...298 .... .. ..297 399 62.79
60 95.95 1.092 0.962 17 97 98 999 5.29

110 31 69 39 9 5.95 1 .,992 0.962 18 78 92 703 6.09
22 0 . . 31 ...2 -.935 95.95 1 .,092 . . 0.231__:.. ..109 __377 ....... .. 212 1113 19.19
220 31 7 82 95.35 1.092 0.231 19 272 119 1531 7.88
220 31 29 153 9 5.95 1 .092 -0.231 36 912 186 2389 7.89
220
220

31 .....
31

27 8 9 9 95.35 1.092 0.231 _____.. 215- 590 __ 3 99......  951. . 36.29..
39 192 95.95 - 1 .092 0.231 39 316 196 1203 12.21

220 31 9 9 1611 95.95 1.092 0.231 387 632 989 909 53.91
220 31 51 . 397 95.9 5 1.092 .0.231.... 83 ___ 758....... 3 5 3.. 1908 25.09
220 31 61 1 1 58 95.35 1.092 0.231 278 798 966 1023 95.60
220 31 72 631’ 95.35 1.092 0.231 151 9 92 287 1669 17.30

DIALS l U OF SLHL S- 9 8 5 1 08 96 9 5.95 v. 1.092 9069 11299 6938 39831 19.92

- -...-. -.. ........— ..... CITYWIDE % LOW INCOME CJTGFF - '95.12



APPENDIX C



C-1
APPENDIX C

TABLE I

Manhattan

Bronx

Brooklyn

Queens

Staten Island

School Percentage Percentage ofDistrict of Low IncomeNumber "Others" Students*
1 3.9% 67.27%
2 32.4 34.793 1 1 . 2 58.564 7.3 72.495 0 . 2 73.48
6 4.5 63.99
7 0.5% 76.05%
8 14.4 60.569 0.5 75.48

10 16.5 63.26
1 1 23.9 37.17
1 2 1 . 0 74.99
13 1.9 69.3814 9.2 74.7015 2 0 . 8 64.6216 0 . 1 70.7017 0.7 60.3518 27.8 33.5019 6 . 6 62.52
20 59.9 41.66
21 58.9 40.29
22 55.0 26.1323 0 . 2 75.1132 4.5 75.82
24 42.7 31.2525 57.4 16.826 6 6 . 6 9.8627 42.2 41.4528 25.8 38.1629 15.1 35.1730 39.9 38.23
31 88.4 19.92

The statistics set forth in Table I pertain to elemen­
tary, intermediate, and junior high school children. Percentages of low income children were obtained by a 
weighted formula combining numbers of free lunch eligible 
students with numbers of students receiving AFDC benefits (with figures adjusted to compensate for age distribution 
and children whose addresses could not be matched with 
school attendance zones) as a proportion of school 
enrollments (exclusive of pre-kindergarten and special education students). App. B at B-2.



APPENDIX D



D —1

English course, and the seminar that went with my student 
teaching.

Q What kind of seminar was that?
A During student teaching we met once a week, 

all of the student teachers met with an adviser who talked 
about our problems and observed us in classes.

Q You testified that you had been at Hughes since 
you started teaching. Can you tell us the location of 
Hughes? Is it Charles Evans Hughes High School?

A That is right, 351 West 18th Street, New York
City.

Q It is 18th Street and where, approximately?
A Between Eighth and Ninth.
Q Can you tell us how many children at Hughes are 

receiving free lunch?
A Almost all of them.
Q Is Hughes a Title I designated school?
A Yes.
Q What is the ethnic composition of Hughes?
A Approximately 60 percent black, 30 percent 

Hispanic, and the rest made up of Orientals and Greeks 
and others, with a few white thrown in.

Q You mean when you say Greek do you mean newly

O'Donnell - for pltff-intervenors - direct 8276



D - Z

have assignments on days when there are no classes and 
that sort of thing.

I also handle ordering of extra materials for the 
reading labs, and I do testing referrals from the guidance 
department.

Q Was it your testimony that you also teach in 
the reading labs?

A That's right, I have three classes.
Q In your opinion as coordinator were you able to

provide services for all of the children who could have 
benefited from the program this year?

A In the school?
Q In the school.
A No, There are approximately 2,000 students in

the school, and I would estimate a good half of them 
need remedial help at one level or another, and as I 
said, we were accommodating 750 of them in this past 
semester.

Q Would you think that all of the students who 
are two years or more below need remedial assistance?

A Yes.
Q Would it be your view that students who were 

below grade would need remedial assistance if they were

O ’Donnell - for pltff-intervenors - direct 8284



D-3

O'Donnell - for pltff-intervenors - direct 8285 

one year below?
A It would be a nice luxury. To tell you the truth, 

I haven't even thought about it. At one point about two 
years ago we had a program where students reading above 
eighth grade level were allowed to stay in the labs. We 
haven't had the room so we haven't been doing that this 
past year.

Q Does that mean that when a student is reading 
at eighth grade level he is no longer eligible for the 
lab?

A That's right.
Q Would that be true even if the student were at 

the eleventh grade and three years behind?
A Usually a student leaves after achieving the 

eighth grade reading level. We do have a small number, 
out of the 750, I would say about 25, who are in the labs 
beyond the eighth grade level because they are in twelfth 
grade, for instance, and still three years below grade 
level which would put them at ninth grade level.

Q What in your opinion would be you: ability to 
provide services for the students that in your judgment 
need it next year?

A Our ability will be severely lessened. The



J J - 4:

O'Donnell - for pltff-intervenors - cross 8370

the kids to read the passages, answer those questions, 
learn those skills, and then recombine them into the 
reading process.

Q If you had no tests at the end of your reading 
lab, no objective tests with the underlining and the 
crossing and the choosing right and wrong answer as to 
what the main idea was, would you arrange your curriculum 
differently?

A Yes, there would be less emphasis on the skill 
of answering short-answer tests.

MRS. JUVILER: I have no further questions.
Thank you very much.

MISS SCHNEIDER: No questions, your Honor.
BY THE COURT:

Q Out of that 750 students that you told me were in 
the language lab of your school —  is that approximately 
correct?

A Yes, about.
Q —  what proportion of those 750 students had 

come up through the lower grades as compared to kids that 
came into high school perhaps from other places and 
things like that? Are they mostly —

A I would say the majority of the black kids, and



D—5 i

O'Donnell - for pltff-intervenors 8371

that is the majority of the kids in the school, are 
native New Yorkers. A good number of the Hispanic kids 
are not, and speak another language at home.

Q That is another problem, but with the ones that 
you just talked about, the black children who were native 
New Yorkers, then would the inference be that this has 
been a reading problem that has persisted through grades 
1 through 8 when you get them in the ninth grade?

A I would say that somewhere along the line some­
thing broke down, whether it was a truancy pattern or 
whatever, but yes. They are native New Yorkers, most of 
them, and that is what happens.

Q The other thing I wanted to ask you is that on 
these various tests that you spoke about, I think you 
mentioned a Stamford Test, the Iowa Silent Reading Test, 
and we have had several references to the Metropolitan 
Achievement Test, and I think you also mentioned one you 
referred to as an old California Achievement Test, are 
these tests all tests which take into account the 
comparatively low socio-economic level of the students with 
whom you are dealing in your reading laboratories at 
Charles Evans Hughes High School?

A No, all of these tests are national norms which



D-6

Wilner - for pltfs - direct 8930

As grades go, the black number in grade nine, 
there are approximately 28 percent; grade ten, 27 percent —  

of the total enrollment that is. In grade 11, 22 percent; 
in grade 12, 29 percent.

Q And "others"?
A For "others", the percentage goes from 56

percent in grade nine,to 58 percent in grade ten, 65 percent 
in grade 11, and 70 percent in grade 12.

Q And Puerto Rican?
A Puerto Rican, 8*7 percent —  I use the fraction

because it's a very substantial fraction. It's almost 
nine percent in grade nine and ten. In grade 11, six and 
a half percent; grade 12, five percent.

Other Spanish -- that As, Hispanic other than 
Puerto Rican, there are almost four percent, in grade nine, 

j three and a half percent in grade ten, three percent in
i

grade 11, and two plus percent in grade 12.
j Q And I believe you refer to the category
i ;

"Oriental".
A  Yes. Orientals, just short of two percent j 

in grade nine, two percent in grade ten, two and a fraction 
percent in grades 11 and 12. tc i _ cr.e- r .
c■-■ • _ So that as I understand your figures, the



Wilner - for pltfs - direct 8931

portions in the high school as they move through the 
grades of ’'others'1, presumably mostly Caucasian, are 56 
percent in grade nine, ranging up to 70 percent in grade 12?

A That’s correct.
Q And for black, 28 percent in grade nine, 

ranging down to 19 percent in grade 12?
A That is correct.
Q Other Hispanic, four in grade nine, ranging 

down to two plus in 12th grade?
A That is right.
Q And Oriental, approximately two, going up to 

two plus in 12th grade?
A Yes. i
Q To what do you attribute these differences?
A Most substantially, the difference in percent­

ages, the different ethnic groups, is explainable by the 
heavy dropout in the black and Puerto Rican groups. If 
you look at the figures, you see that the figure is a 
declining one percentage considered from grade nine through 
grade 12 for black and Puerto Rican. It is a less sub­
stantial declining one for Hispanics other than Puerto 
Rican. It is an increasing percentage for the others in 
our population, and approximately even for Orientals.



Wilner - for pltfs - direct 8932

The most substantial dropoff is in the black proportion, 
which, of course, also indicates that the number is 
decreased most substantially on that side, therefore, the 
percentage of others will tend to go up.

Q Turning to the number of children on free 
lunch in the High School Division, do you have information 
on the percentages within the schools in the High School 
Division of the number of children on free lunch?

A Well, the figures that we maintain will run 
from —  in schools by ranges. For example, there are 27 
high schools with less than 20 percent of their enrollment 
eligible for free lunch; there are 12 high schools with 
20 to 39 percent of their enrollment eligible for free 
lunch; 16 high schools with 40 to 59 percent of their 
enrollment eligible for free lunch, and three high schools - 

THE COURT: What was that last one?
THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Forty to 59 percent.

That would be 16 by schools.
* There would be three high schools where 60 

to 79 percent of the enrollment is eligible for 
free lunch, and two high schools over 80 percent 
of the enrollment is eligible for free lunch.
Q Twenty-seven, twelve, sixteen, three and two?



Landers - for plfs - direct 5189
eg

1
T-9BJC

jj, MS. SCHNEIDER: Perhaps this would be the
I ' 1it best time to ask the clerk to introduce in!! ' I

evidence the document entitled "Racial-Ethnic 
Distribution of Public School Students and 
Staff in New York State, 1974-75*" published 
by the State Education Department.

THE COURT: Have you seen this, Miss Fink?
MISS FINK: I have no objection.
THE COURT: It may be marked.
(Received In evidence and marked Plaintiffs- 

Intervenor*s Exhibit 147.)
A Changes in the ethnic composition of the schools 

have been very great, even greater than the ethnic changes 
that have taken place in the population of the city as a 
whole. For example, when the first ethnic census wa3 
taken In 1957, approximately 18 percent of the total 
population of the school was black. Approximately 14 
percent of the total population of the city was Hispanic -- 
I am sorry, of the schools, not of the city. It was 
approximately 18 percent of the population of the schools 

If. of New York City, public schools, was black, and 14 
|| percent was Hispanic and 68 percent fell into the



D-l 0

Landers - for plfs - direct 5190

category that we call others, that is other than black
ijor Hispanic, The document that was just introduced —

'  .  . -V t

indicates that in 197^ 36 percent of the school popula­
tion of New York City, public school population, was 
black; 28 percent was Hispanic; and 36 percent fell into 
the category of others, which would Include not only 
Caucasians but also American Indians and Orientals.
That would mean, then, that Is the first time in 197^ 
that the black population had outstripped all other 
ethnic categories as used by the state.

During the same period of time, between 1950 
and 1970, there were tremendous changes taking place not 
only in the nature of the population but also in the way 
which the population was distributed. When I was a young 
man living in Brooklyn, there were isolated pockets of 
minority group population living at various points, some 
in the area of Lavonia Avenue, some in the area of Park 
Avenue In the southern section of Bedford Stuyvesant and 
Ocean Hill and various spots in Brooklyn, but they tended 
to be enclaves in a large white population.

As one views the school population in New York
City, one finds a hugh almost continuous belt of minority 
group population in Brooklyn extending from the last River



D—11

Landers - for plfs - direct 5191

on the west, going eastward in a hugh arc across Bedford 
Stuyvesant and up to the Queens border. Then with small 
breaks of white population, there continues that curve 
into Queens going southward, so that a good part of 
southern Queens now is composed of children who attend 
public schools and who are of minority group status. As 
a matter of fact, again referring to the state document 
that was introduced in evidence, I point out that in 1974, 
which is the latest year for which we have statistics, 
there were six districts —

Q Do you mean 1974-75?
A 1974-75.

MISS PINK: I would like to know the pages
of the document that you are referring to.

THE WITNESS: If I may have a copy of it --
THE COURT: I will give it to you.
MISS FINK: If you could refer me to

specific pages, it would help me.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Beginning on page 21

with the word "Manhattan" and underneath 
Manhattan, "district 1," that goes on to give

county totals.



APPENDIX E



E-1

APPENDIX E

TABLE II
Black Hispanic White

% % of total % % of total % %of total
classified enroll- classified enroll- classified enroll-

Category* deficient ment deficient ment deficient ment
educable mentally 49 39 34 30 16 29
retarded

trainable mentally retarded 39 30 29
retarded

seriously emotionally 27 55 17
disturbed

learning disabled 36 42 20

socially maladjusted 56 25 19

* II Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Dep't of Education, 
Directory of Elementary and Secondary School Districts,
955 (1979) (hereinafter "OCR Directory"). The Office 
of Civil Rights asked school districts responding to its 
survey to define "educable mentally retarded" children as 
having "a condition of mental retardation which includes 
pupils who are educable in the academic, social and 
occupational areas even though moderate supervision may be 
necessary." The "trainable mentally retarded" category 
includes "pupils who are capable of only very limited 
meaningful achievement in the traditional basic academic 
skills but who are capable of profiting from programs of 
training in self-care and simple job or vocational skills." 
"Seriously emotionally disturbed" children include those 
exhibiting one or more of several specified learning 
disabilities or behavioral problems, including schizo­
phrenia and autism, "over a long period of time and to a 
marked degree." "Speech impaired" children include those 
suffering from communications disorders adversely affecting 
educational performance. OCR Directory, Appendix, Form 
OS/CR-102 ("General Instructions and Definitions"). The 
"socially maladjusted" group includes those "determined 
to have unusual difficulty or unacceptable behavior in 
interpersonal relationships to an extent so as to require 
special services." OCR Directory, Appendix, Form OS/CR-102, 
("Individual School Report").



APPENDIX F



/>.

RACIAL/ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION

OF

PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS

AND STAFF 

IN NEW YORK STATE

1974-75

The University of the State of New York 

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Information Center on FA  im tinn  

Albany, New York 12234



TABLE 4
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND NUMBER AND PERCENT OF MINORITY* STUDENTS 

IN SCHOOLS OF DIFFERING RACIAL COMPOSITION
NEW YORK STATE

1974-75

Racial Composition 
of Schools 

(Percent Minority)
Number of 
Schools

Number of 
Minority Students

Percent of 
Minority Students 

in State
None 511 0 0.07.

0 . 1 - 9.97. 2,305 37,948 4.2
10 .0 - 19.9 327 37,270 4.1'
20.0 - 29.9 238 53,666 5.9
30.0 - 39.9 158 52,244 5.7
40.0 - 49.9 95 42,211 4.6
50.0 - 59.9 85 39,934 4.4
60.0 - 69.9 77 47,743 5.2
70.0 - 79.9 74 50,640 5.6
80.0 - 89.9 96 81,992 9.1
90.0 - 99.9 431 435,721 47.9

100.0 52 30,040 3*. 3

TOTAL 4,449 909*409 100.0

^Minority includes black and Spanish-surnamed American.



F-3

TABLE 5
NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND NUMBER AND PERCENT OF BLACK STUDENTS 

IN SCHOOLS OF DIFFERING RACIAL COMPOSITION
NEW YORK STATE

1974-75

Racial Composition 
of School 

(Percent Black)
Number of 
Schools

Number of 
Black Students

Percent of 
Black Students 

in State

None 787 0 0.0%
0.1 - 9.9% 2,249 35,708 6.3
10.0 - 19.9 375 49,332 3.7
20.0 - 29.9 296 71,252 1 2 . 6

30.0 - 39.9 177 60,334 10.7
40.0 - 49.9 133 61,108 1 0 . 8

50.0 - 59.9 35 53,015 9.4

60.0 - 69,9 82 44,946 8.0

70.0 - 79.9 67 41,133 7.3
80.0 - 89 .P 66 54,942 9.7
90.0 - 99.9 124 91,220 16.1

100.0 8 2,303 0.4

TOTAL 4,449 565,293 100.0