Sands v Horenstein Petition

    O  . J

STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
BEFORE : THE COMMISSIONER

x
In the Matter 

of
the Appeal of ERIC SANDS and MARGOT SANDS, 
minors, by EVELYN SANDS and HERMAN SANDS, 
their parents; ELISABETH LIEBERMAN and 
ANDREW LIEBERMAN, minors, by MARGERY 
LIEBERMAN and MARTIN L. LIEBERMAN, their 
parents; MARC BREWSTER, a minor, by 
ALFREDA BREWSTER, his parent; MATTHEW 
JASKOWIAK and JULIE JASKOWIAK, minors, by 
JOAN JASKOWIAK and EDMUND C. JASKOWIAK, 
their parents; and MARA ELMAN, a minor, 
by ANNA ELMAN and ARTHUR ELMAN, her 
parents; Individually and on Behalf of All 
Similarly Situated Persons Within Rockville 
Centre Union Free School District No. 21,

Petitioners,
From the Actions of the Rockville Centre 
Union Free School District No. 21, Town 
of Hempstead, County of Nassau,

-against-
PETER HORENSTEIN, PAUL J. SULLIVAN, CHRISTINE 
G. HEIBERG, DOROTHY McGARVEY and MORTON M. 
POLLAK, individually and as Members of the 
Board of Education of Rockville Centre Union 
Free School District No. 21, RICHARD S. BYERS, 
individually and as Superintendent of Schools 
of Rockville Centre Union Free School Dis­
trict No. 21 and Rockville Centre Union Free 
School District No. 21,

Respondents.

PETITION

x

TO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION:

The petition of Eric Sands, Margot Sands, Elisabeth 
Lieberman, Andrew Lieberman, Marc Brewster, Matthew Jaskowiak,



-2-

Julie Jaskowiak and Mara Elman, of Rockville Centre Union 
Free School District No. 21, Nassau County, New York, re­
spectfully shows:

1. This Appeal is commenced pursuant to New 
York Education Law Section 310.

Is
2. The Petitioners are minors attending the 

Floyd B. Watson Elementary School ("Watson School"), Rockville 
Centre, New York. The Petitioners' Parents reside within 
Rockville Centre Union Free School District No. 21, ("Rockville 
Centre") are eligible to vote in school district elections
and are either landowners within and direct taxpayers of 
said School District or are apartment dwellers therein.

3. The named Petitioners bringing this appeal 
are persons individually aggrieved by Respondents' conduct 
complained of herein and further bring this appeal on behalf 
of all persons who attend, desire to attend or will attend 
Watson School and on behalf of the parents or guardians of 
said persons.

4. The class sought to be represented by Petitioners 
consists of over 180 individuals and is so numerous that joinder 
of all members is impracticable.



• ' • o

5. Common questions of fact and law affect the 
rights of the entire class. The practices and policies of the 
Respondents complained of herein have been, are and will be 
directed against all members of the class and have deprived 
each member of the class of an equal education.

6. The individual Respondents include the members 
of the Board of Education of Rockville Centre Union Free 
School District No. 21 and the Superintendent of Schools.

7. The individual Respondents and their per- 
decessors in office, despite numerous and frequent requests, 
pleas and demands, have arbitrarily and capriciously re­
fused to equalize the educational standards at Watson School 
with the remainder of the elementary schools within Respondents' 
school district, have refused to correct an inequitable and 
inadequate method of education and, on the contrary, have 
perpetuated and maintained an education system which is 
illegal, immoral and educationally deficient.

8. Respondents' willful acts and failures to act 
partially consist of, are evidenced by, or have resulted in 
the following, which are merely illustrative and are not all 
inclusive.

-3-



-4-

9. Racial imbalance exists at the Watson School.

10. Rockville Centre Union Free School District 
No. 21 is racially segregated.

11. Upon information and belief, the average 
Intelligence Quotient at Watson School, as recorded in

I'

tests regularly given by Respondents, is substantially below 
that of the remaining elementary schools in Respondents' 
school district.

12. Upon information and belief, the average 
achievement level for students at the Watson School, as re­
corded in tests regularly given by Respondents, is substantially 
below than that recorded at every other elementary school 
within Respondents' school district.

13. Upon information and belief, the average 
score recorded under the New York State Pupil Evaluation 
Program by students at the Watson School is substantially 
below the average score recorded at each and every elementary 
school within Respondents' school district.

14. Upon information and belief, the average 
achievement level, as recorded in tests regularly given by



3

Respondents at their Junion High School, for recent "graduates" 
of the Watson School is substantially below that recorded for 
"graduates" of each and every elementary school within Re­
spondents' school district.

15. Upon information and belief, the percentage 
of psychological referrals at the Watson School exceeds the 
percentage at each and every elementary school within 
Respondents' school district.

16. Upon information and belief, the percentage 
of learning disabled students at the Watson School, as de­
fined by Respondents, exceeds the percentage at each and 
every elementary school within Respondents' school district.

17. Upon information and belief, the percentage of 
pupils eligible for assistance under the Aid For Dependent 
Children Program at the Watson School exceeds the percentage 
at each and every elementary school within Respondents' 
school district.

18. Upon information and belief, the Watson School 
is intentionally underutilized in an unlawful attempt to 
appease the residents of the remaining attendance zones 
within Respondents' school district.

-5-



-6-

19. Upon information and belief, the Watson School 
was willfully and unlawfully erected in its geographic loca­
tion in order to perpetuate a racially imbalanced, segregated 
school district by Respondents and their predecessors. The 
individual Respondents have admitted that the construction
of the Watson School resulted in a racially imbalanced, seg­
regated school district.

20. The individual Respondents, or their pre­
decessors, sold and distributed the proceeds of the sale of 
Watson School's predecessor in violation of New York Educa­
tion Law Section 403.

21. The individual Respondents have deliberately 
created or perpetuated attendance zones in an attempt to 
maintain a racial, ethnic and sociological imbalance and 
segregation.

22. The sociological, psychological and educational 
problems found in segregated, racially imbalanced schools
are present in Watson School.

23. The Watson School is viewed by inhabitants 
of the school district as inferior. This view is evidenced 
and perpetuated by firms in the business of real estate



-7-

transactions, with the knowledge of the individual Respondents. 
The status of the Watson School is further evidenced by 
certain "codewords" which are designed to inform the public 
of the esteem, or lack thereof, in which the Watson School 
is viewed.

24. Respondents' school administrators have ex­
pressed their low expectations for students within the 
Watson School.

25. The individual Respondents have recognized 
and admitted that no learning could take place within at 
least one grade at the Watson School.

26. The individual Respondents, and the Respondents' 
administrators, have, on frequent occasions, admitted that 
attendance zones should be modified, busing should be 
utilized, magnet schools or target schools should be created, 
etc., to equalize the educational opportunities for the 
present Watson School students. However, the individual 
Respondents have, in derogation of their duties, and in an 
abandonment of justice, refused to correct the illegal and 
inequitable conditions which presently exist.

27. The individual Respondents have steadfastly 
refused to correct a blatant and shameful situation, despite



- 8-

repeated requests, have aggravated the problem and show no 
indication of discontinuing their wrongful acts.

28. In summation, the individual Respondents' 
acts are the acts of a morally and educationally bankrupt 
school district intent on depriving Petitioners of their 
rights, generally, and an education, specifically. Further, 
the individual Respondents' willful acts are in abrogation 
of their duties pursuant to the New York Education Law and 
related statutes, rules and regulations.

WHEREFORE, your Petitioners pray that the Commissioner 
of Education make such determination as will result in a 
Directive to eliminate the aforesaid inequality, racial, ethnic, 
and sociological imbalance and the segregation within Respondents' 
school district, and to formulate and effect one or all of the 
following remedies; revision of school attendance zones; 
transportation of pupils; closing of schools; construction of 
new schools; pairing and grouping of schools, "magnet schools" 
or "family choice programs" and for such other and further 
relief as to the Commissioner may seem just and proper.

MARTIN L. LIEBERMAN, ESQ. 
Attorney for Petitioners 
Office & P. 0. Address:
80 Pine Street 
New York, New York 10005 
(212) 944-7400



.)

NOTICE:

You are hereby required to appear in this appeal 
and to answer the allegations contained in the petition.
Your answer must conform with the provisions of the regula­
tions of the Commissioner of Education relating to appeals 
before the Commissioner, copies of which are available from 
the Office of Counsel, New York State Education Department,
State Education Building, Albany, New York 12234.

If an answer is not served and filed in accordance 
with the provisions of such rules, the statements contained 
in the petition will be deemed to be true statements, and a 
decision will be rendered thereon by the Commissioner.

Please take notice that such rules require that an 
answer to the petition must be served upon the petitioner, or 
if he be represented by counsel, upon his counsel, within 20 days 
after the service of the appeal, and that a copy of such answer 
must, within five days after such service be filed with the 
Office of Counsel, New York State Education Department, State 
Education Building, Albany, New York 12234.



)

STATE OF NEW YORK )
, , . : ss.:COUNTY OF UZ+S )

jt(jfA?)'V C being duly sworn,
deposes and says that he is Q  n
in this proceeding; that he has read the annexed

^  and knows the contents thereof;
that the same is true to the knowledge of deponent except 
as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon informa­
tion and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to 
be true.

r

Sworn to before me thisO >/  . » >
jfh day of , 1976

’ V  » '  • \ . ;
\ >. - V

< / c

STELLA MAROTTA 
Notary Public, State of New York 

NO. 24-2544450 
Qualified in Kings County 

Certificate Filed in New York County 
Commission Expires March 30, 1977