Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COMPLAINT UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND THE
EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1974
I.
INTRODUCTION
The United States Government has recognized that public school education, and
the systems by which it is financed, are critical to our Nations economic security and social
well-being. A necessary corollary of this recognition is that a system of education fails in its
mission where the system provides comparatively fewer educational opportunities for minority
students and students whose native languages create a barrier to meaningful academic progress
in their curricula.
Against this backdrop, the United States has developed a complex web of grant
funding mechanisms and statutory protections to ensure that minority students and English
Language Learners are not deprived of equal access to and participation in public education.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated below, New York State has violated these statutory proscriptions
by promulgating a school funding scheme that facially and disparately discriminates against
students based on their race and language barriers.
This Complaint is brought against New York State, the New York State
Legislature, the Governor of the State of New York, and the New York State Education
Department (NYSED) by the Enlarged City School District of Middletown (Middletown or
the District) by and through its duly elected Board of Education and its duly appointed
Superintendent of Schools Kenneth Eastwood, on behalf of its students, as well as by individual
parents, on behalf of their minor children who attend Middletowns schools. The Respondents
are recipients of federal financial assistance and are named as Respondents because: (1) they
have discriminated against students on the basis of race in a publicly funded educational system
in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (2) their discriminatory funding
structure has severely compromised Middletowns ability to provide for the needs of non-English
speaking students, and thus violates the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA).
Six years ago, New York State enacted legislation to reform the States method of
allocating resources to school districts in order to address the 2006 New York Court of Appeals
order in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, 100 N.Y.2d 893, 801 N.E.2d 326, 769
N.Y.S.2d 106 (2003) (hereafter the CFE Case). In the CFE Case, CFE successfully challenged
New York States school finance system on the grounds that the system underfunded New York
City public schools and denied students the right to a sound basic education guaranteed by the
New York State Constitution.
Repeated budget freezes, combined with NYSEDs inequitable allocation of
resources in connection with a 2008-2009 Deficit Reduction Assessment (DRA), have resulted
in an inequitable distribution of State aid that has had a disparate and inequitable impact on New
Yorks African American, Hispanic, and other non-white students, as well as on non-Englishspeaking students. Under the current funding scheme, the more white a school districts
population, the more likely it is that the district receives all, or close to all, of the public aid it
was promised in 2007. The effects of this disparity are palpable. New York consistently lags
behind every other state in the nation in bridging the achievement gap, with only 37% of its
black and Latino males graduating from high school, compared to 78 percent of its white male
students.1 Moreover, under the current funding scheme, school districts like the Complainant
receive insufficient state aid to ensure that non-English-speaking students overcome language
barriers. State assessments administered at the end of the 2012-2013 school year revealed that
The Urgency of Now: The Schott 50 State Report on Public Education and Black Males, Schott Foundation for
Public Education, 2012.
only 3.2 percent of New Yorks ELL students are proficient in English Language Arts (ELA)
and only 9.8 are proficient in math.2
The Complainant is a school district in New York, the students of which have
suffered egregiously from the Respondents inequitable funding practices, and received less
public funding for their education than students in predominantly white school districts due to
the Respondents arbitrary and inequitable practices. The States allocation of Foundation Aid
has created a dual system of education and impeded the academic progress of New Yorks
neediest children. The States Foundation Aid formula violates Title VI, 34 C.F.R. 100.3(b)
and the EEOA. Complainant therefore asks the Department of Education to:
declare that the States current formulas for distributing educational aid
disparately impact New Yorks minority and non-English-speaking
students and thus violate Title VI and the EEOA;
II.
See Waldman, Scott, Bar lifts, scores fall, Timesunion.com, http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Bar-liftsscores-fall-4714067.php#page-2 (Aug. 8, 2013); Maxwell, Leslie, A Look at ELL Performance So Far on
Common-Core-Aligned Tests, Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-thelanguage/2013/08/ell_performance_sinks_on_commo.html?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_cacampai=Feed%3A+LearningTheLanguage+
%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Learning+the+Language%29 (Aug. 9, 2013).
were eligible for free or reduced price lunch.3 Middletowns Instructional Expenditure Per Pupil
is more than $1000 below similar districts.4 Due to the Respondents systematic failure to
provide an adequate level of state aid, Middletown has been forced to eliminate over 145 staff
positions over the past four years.
Middletown serves on average 800 ELLs per school year for whom it provides
special educational programming. ELLs must remain in Middletowns special programs until
they test as proficient on the New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test
(NYSESLAT). Students who are unable to pass the NYSESLAT for more than 6 years are
designated long term LEPs and must be reported to NYSED.
Pursuant to Part 154 of the Commissioners Regulations, all schools receiving
Foundation Aid funding from NYSED (described in detail in Section III, supra) must provide
English as a Second Language (ESL) classes for their ELLs. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 154.3.
Middletown provides two programs at the elementary level for its ELLs: (1) an ESL program;
and (2) a bilingual program. These programs are supported by 48 certified teachers.
ESL classes are taught solely in English by a teacher certified in teaching English
as a Second Language (TESOL). Based on level of English proficiency, Middletown provides
ELLs with either 1, 2, or 3 periods a day of ESL instruction. Beginner and intermediate ELLs
receive all English Language Arts (ELA) instruction from ESL teachers. Advanced ELLs
receive ELA instruction from their homeroom teachers, and also receive one period of
New York State Report Card, Middletown City School District, March 25, 2013, available at:
https://reportcards.nysed.gov/files/2011-12/RC-2012-441000010000.pdf (hereinafter Middletown Report Card), at
3.
4
New York State School Report Card, Fiscal Accountability Supplement, available at:
https://reportcards.nysed.gov/files/2011-12/FIS-2012-441000010000.pdf.
This provision mandates that each school district that has an enrollment of 20 or more pupils with limited English
proficiency of the same grade level assigned to a building, all of whom have the same native language which is other
than English, shall provide such pupils with bilingual education programs.
6
NYSEDs need/resource capacity indices measure a districts ability to meet the needs of its students with local
resources. See New York State Education Department, Need/Resource Capacity Categories, available at:
http://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/accountability/2011-12/NeedResourceCapacityIndex.pdf.
B.
The Respondents
Respondents are the State of New York by and through the entities chiefly
responsible for the allocation and distribution of moneys to the States school districts, including
Middletown. Those entities include the New York State Legislature, the Governor of the State
of New York, NYSED, New York State Board of Regents and New York State Commissioner of
Education.
The Board of Regents is responsible for the general supervision of all educational
activities within the State, presiding over the University and NYSED. The Board comprises 17
members elected by the State Legislature for 5 year terms: 1 from each of the State's 13 judicial
districts and 4 members who serve at large.7 The Commissioner of Education (currently, Dr.
John B. King, Jr.) oversees more than 7,000 public and independent elementary and secondary
schools (serving 3.1 million students), and hundreds of other educational institutions across New
York State including higher education, libraries, and museums. The Commissioner holds himself
out as a strong voice for education reform and a driving force in New Yorks successful Federal
http://www.regents.nysed.gov/
Race to the Top application.8 The Commissioner is, in effect, New York States superintendent
of schools and reports to the Board of Regents -- effectively the States Board of Education.
NYSED is New York States education agency. NYSED holds itself out to be one of the most
complete, interconnected systems of educational services in the United States.9 Its stated mission
is to raise the knowledge, skill, and opportunity of all the people in New York. NYSED, the
Board of Regents and Commissioner direct where educational funds are distributed in
accordance with education aid formulas established and approved by the New York State
Legislature and Governor.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, New York State and NYSED have been
substantial recipients of federal financial assistance. During the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years, New
York State received 1089 federal grants totaling $5.67 billion.10 During the 2012 and 2013 fiscal
years, NYSED received 5 federal grants totaling approximately $49.94 million.11 Notably, New
York State and NYSED were recipients of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds in
2009, and NYSED, as New Yorks education agency, was responsible for distributing these
funds to school districts in New York.
III.
Support for public education in New York comes from three sources: (1) the
federal government (approximately 5 percent); (2) state formula aids and grants (approximately
40 percent); and (3) revenues raised locally (approximately 55 percent). State aid for public
http://usny.nysed.gov/about/commissioner_king.html
http://usny.nysed.gov/about/
10
11
U.S. Dept of Education, Grant Award Pick-List (Search Report), accessed October 2013.
Id.
schools comes primarily from the State General Fund.12 More than 90 percent of the variability
of local revenue in New York school districts is attributable to property taxes, the burden of
which the State in large part assumes through the School Tax Relief (STAR) program.13
The Laws of 2007 consolidated approximately thirty existing aid programs into a
Foundation Aid formula that was designed to distribute funds to school districts based on the
cost of providing an adequate education, adjusted to reflect regional costs and concentration of
needy pupils.14 One of the aid programs that was eliminated in the 2007 consolidation was the
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) aid program, which was the principal source of funding for
ELL programming. Pursuant to the Foundation Aid formula, needy districts like Middletown
were deemed to require a minimum amount of state funding to provide a sound basic
education to all their students, including ELLs.
The 2007-2008 Enacted Budget included a four-year phase-in of Foundation Aid.
The 2009-2010 Enacted Budget extended the phase-in to 2013-2014 and froze 2009-2010 and
2010-2011 payable Foundation Aid to 2008-2009 Foundation Aid. The 2011-2012 Enacted
Budget extended the phase-in to 2016-2017 and froze 2011-2012 payable Foundation Aid to
2008-2009 Foundation Aid. The 2012-2013 Enacted Budget provided no phase-in of 2013-2014
aid except for the New York City School District at 5.23 percent.15
The effects of these freezes on Foundation Aid were compounded by budget cuts
in 2009. Pursuant to Section 24 of Part A of Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2009, New Yorks
12
New York State Education Department Fiscal Analysis and Research Unit, Primer on State Aid, available at
http://www.oms.nysed.gov/faru/PDFDocuments/Primer13-14B.pdf.
13
Baker, B., Corcoran, S., The Stealth Inequities of School Funding: How State and Local School Finance Systems
Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending, AmericanProgress.com, Sept. 2012.
14
Id.
15
Id.
school districts were assessed a Deficit Reduction Assessment (DRA) of $2.097 billion to
close New Yorks fiscal deficit.16 Middletown was assessed a $3,024,767 DRA.17
In 2009, New York State received a $2.5 billion State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
(SFSF) Education Fund grant pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) and NYSED was responsible for distributing these funds to school districts in New
York to close the gap created by the DRA.18 However, rather than distributing the SFSF funds
according to the Foundation Aid formula, the funds were distributed to return Foundation Aid to
the freeze level across the board, and to fund other school expense-driven aids at higher levels.
Since 2007, New York State has gradually adjusted the Foundation Aid formula
to provide more state funding to low poverty districts and less state funding to high poverty
districts.19 The effects of these adjustments have been exacerbated by the States STAR aid
formula, which has enhanced the state aid provided to affluent districts by a considerable
margin.20 Together, the Foundation Aid freezes, NYSEDs distribution of SFSF funds, persistent
state aid cuts, and the inequitable STAR aid formula have undermined the purpose of the
Foundation Aid formula of prioritizing funding to needy school districts, and instead resulted in
the neediest school districts receiving a much smaller percentage of the Foundation Aid they
16
New York State Education Department, Deficit Reduction Assessment Restoration by District, available at
https://stateaid.nysed.gov/budget/html_docs/dra_restoration.htm
17
Id.
18
New York State Monitoring Plan and Protocols For the State Fiscal Stabilization Education and Other
Government Services Fund, available at http://usny.nysed.gov/arra/monitoringauditing/documents/NewYorkState_SFSF_MonitoringPlan.pdf.
19
Baker, Bruce, School Funding Fairness in New York State, prepared on behalf of the New York State
Association of Small City School Districts, Oct. 1, 2011.
20
Id. at 22.
10
were promised in 2007 than affluent districts.21 Out of more than 600 school districts in New
York, 138 districts are receiving 100 percent or more of the Foundation Aid they were promised,
while 2 percent, including Middletown, are receiving less than 60 percent of the Foundation Aid
they were promised.22
Local School
District
County
Edinburg
Saratoga
Kiryas Joel
Orange
Onteora
Roscoe
Percentage
of Full
Funding
That
District
Currently
Receives
(Rounded)
Amount of
Aid That
District
Should Be
Receiving
1404%
Amount
of Aid
Actually
Received in
2012-2013
Difference
Between
Amount of
Aid District
Should Be
Receiving &
Amount
Received
Combined
Wealth
Ratio
(CWR)
1.0 =
Avg.
39,386
552,780
+513,394
2.833
637%
186,500
1,187,390
+1,000,890
3.721
Ulster
202%
3,254,929
6,567,820
+3,312,891
2.320
Sullivan
151%
1,192,133
1,803,784
+611,651
1.284
Tuxedo
Orange
145%
383,000
554,443
+171,443
4.088
Greenwood Lake
Orange
140%
3,075,448
4,310,753
+1,235,305
1.048
Sullivan West
Sullivan
135%
7,177,855
9,661,015
+2,483,160
1.209
Gilboa Conesvi
Schoharie
128%
1,783,536
2,285,010
+501,474
1.248
Rondout Valley
Ulster
115%
12,997,677
14,931,363
+1,933,686
1.123
Eldred
Sullivan
108%
3,085,148
3,315,980
+230,832
1.214
Bernie Knox
Albany
96%
6,113,814
5,876,382
-237,432
0.875
Livingston
Sullivan
95%
4,992,341
4,760,957
-231,384
1.089
Schalmont
Schnectady
95%
7,389,402
7,027,762
-361,640
1.064
Galway
Saratoga
94%
6,396,242
6,017,028
-379,214
0.993
Ravena Coeyman
Albany
93%
11,609,770
10,482,238
-1,127,532
0.815
New Paltz
Ulster
88%
9,729,194
8,520,141
-1,209,053
1.149
Schuylerville
Saratoga
88%
11,836,965
10,509,581
-1,327,384
0.614
Monticello
Sullivan
86%
25,559,386
21,888,345
-3,671,041
0.934
Stillwater
Saratoga
86%
7,307,409
6,290,713
-1,016,696
0.752
Voorheesville
Albany
86%
3,920,001
3,357,333
-562,668
1.149
Sharon Springs
Schoharie
85%
3,776,010
3,223,466
-552,544
0.586
Scotia Glenville
Schnectady
85%
14,776,838
12,585,746
-2,191,092
0.756
Saratoga
85%
19,419,307
16,522,887
-2,896,420
0.708
Green Island
Albany
84%
2,465,132
2,063,513
-401,619
0.736
Jefferson
Schoharie
84%
2,490,543
2,101,512
-389,031
0.668
21
The effects of this inequitable distribution of state aid on low-wealth school districts have been compounded by
the States tax cap legislation, which has divested school districts of the power to generate local revenue to meet
their growing needs. See L.2011, ch.97.
22
All the funding data on this pages 11 16 was obtained from the Statewide School Finance Consortium, available
at http://www.statewideonline.org/wordpress/data/data-from-september-2013-workshops/.
11
Local School
District
County
Percentage
of Full
Funding
That
District
Currently
Receives
(Rounded)
Amount of
Aid That
District
Should Be
Receiving
Amount
of Aid
Actually
Received in
2012-2013
Difference
Between
Amount of
Aid District
Should Be
Receiving &
Amount
Received
Combined
Wealth
Ratio
(CWR)
1.0 =
Avg.
Ballston Spa
Saratoga
82%
21,600,726
17,767,780
-3,832,946
0.772
Kingston
Ulster
80%
49,564,231
39,399,683
-10,164,548
0.882
Duanesburg
Schnectady
79%
5,602,165
4,405,504
-1,196,661
0.720
Wallkill
Ulster
79%
24,362,585
19,266,920
-5,095,665
0.694
Highland
Ulster
77%
10,416,195
8,063,187
-2,343,008
0.881
Warwick Valley
Orange
77%
19,325,764
14,907,072
-4,418,692
0.986
Pine Bush
Orange
77%
46,496,679
35,824,137
-10,672,542
0.635
Fallsburgh
Sullivan
77%
14,797,159
11,400,040
-3,397,119
0.695
Mechanicville
Saratoga
77%
8,320,594
6,436,061
-1,884,533
0.720
Saugerties
Ulster
76%
18,745,102
14,244,594
-4,500,508
.0872
Waterford
Saratoga
76%
5,473,470
4,123,790
-1,349,680
0.715
Liberty
Sullivan
74%
19,096,479
14,112,859
-4,983,620
0.615
ValleyMontgomery
Orange
74%
32,817,997
24,409,506
-8,408,491
0.691
Florida
Orange
74%
4,071,730
2,999,353
-1,072,377
0.929
Menands
Albany
74%
496,097
365,361
-130,736
1.679
Mohonasen
Schnectady
74%
16,981,128
12,561,029
-4,420,099
0.703
Guilderland
Albany
73%
19,118,726
13,963,762
-5,154,964
1.055
Newburgh
Orange
71%
132,630,242
9,459,614
-38,034,093
0.580
Cohoes
Albany
70%
21,032,591
14,577,737
-6,454,854
0.567
Watervliet
Albany
70%
15,749,191
10,979,272
-4,769,919
0.518
Shenendehowa
Saratoga
70%
37,929,933
26,337,312
-11,592,621
0.963
South Colonie
Albany
69%
22,063,985
15,207,706
-6,856,279
1.000
Ellenville
Ulster
66%
19,206,579
12,679,152
-6,527,427
0.724
Niskayuna
Schnectady
66%
14,795,277
9,793,292
-5,001,985
1.043
Marlboro
Ulster
64%
10,254,351
6,577,901
-3,676,450
1.088
Albany
Albany
64%
90,087,476
57,258,202
-32,829,274
0.710
Bethlehem
Albany
63%
18,758,638
11,874,980
-6,883,658
0.975
North Colonie
Albany
62%
17,623,159
10,955,681
-6,667,478
1.265
Chester
Orange
61%
5,558,715
3,393,852
-2,164,863
0.907
Goshen
Orange
61%
13,872,612
8,496,935
-5,375,677
0.974
Cornwall
Orange
58%
17,721,117
10,312,161
-7,408,956
0.803
Middletown
Orange
Schenectad
y
56%
92,292,516
51,354,843
-40,937,673
0.592
54%
135,323,105
72,994,950
-62,328,155
0.384
Schenectady
12
13
In short, the whiter a school districts population, the more likely the district is
receiving full or close to full funding. A minority-as-majority district is three times as likely to
be underfunded as a predominantly white district.
14
15
16
IV.
ARGUMENT
A.
18
19
Cir. 1999) (quoting Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 400 (1986) and Bridgeport Guardians,
Inc. v. City of Bridgeport, 933 F.2d 1140, 1146 (2d Cir. 1991)).
There is no question that the State of New York and its Education Department are
recipients of federal funding for purposes of federal civil rights laws. New York has promised
its school districts a minimum amount of state aid in order to ensure that each district is able to
provide basic instruction to its students. Currently, however, the likelihood that a school district
is receiving the full measure of state educational aid that it has been promised, and consequently,
the likelihood that the district is adequately funded, is heavily impacted by whether the district
serves predominantly white students. The disparity between the percentage of required aid
received by predominantly white districts and the percentage received by minority-as-majority
districts is too significant to be coincidental, and too inequitable to be supported by a legitimate
justification. The States maintenance of this funding structure, which has the effect of
discriminating against students on the basis of race, violates Title VI.
This inequitable distribution of aid has had a foreseeable negative impact on
predominantly minority school districts, like Middletown. The educational opportunities for
Middletowns students have been seriously impaired by the States failure to adequately fund
minority-as-majority districts. The funding disparity has created, inter alia:
reduced curricula;
shortages of technology;
20
insufficient facilities.
The practical and actual effect of the States distribution of Foundation Aid has been to create a
public education system where the whiter a school districts population, the more likely the
district is receiving full or close to the full funding it has been promised. The States failure to
meet its Foundation Aid goals thus disproportionately and unlawfully impacts minority students,
including the minority students enrolled in Middletown. As a public entity and a recipient of
federal assistance, New York State is responsible for ensuring that its methods of distributing aid
do not adversely and disparately impact minorities. It has failed to do so.
B.
that the minimum base level for funding [ELL] programs [was] arbitrary and capricious and
[bore] no relation to the actual funding needed to ensure that [ELL] students are achieving
mastery of [the States] specified essential skills. Flores II, 172 F. Supp. 2d at 1239. The
court held that Arizona had, therefore, failed to follow through with . . . resources . . . necessary
to transform theory into reality. Id. at 1239.
Subsequently, Arizona moved for relief from the district courts judgment. The
district court denied relief. Flores v. Arizona, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1167 (D. Ariz. 2007). The
Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting the States argument that compliance with the standards in No
Child Left Behind satisfied the States obligations vis a vis the EEOA. Flores v. State of
Arizona, 516 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). In affirming the denial of relief, the Ninth Circuit
reiterated that ELL students need extra help and that costs extra money. Id. at 1167.
Determining whether a state has violated the EEOA is a three-step inquiry.
Castaneda v. Pickard, 648 F.2d 989, 1009-10 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Gomez v. Illinois State
Bd. of Educ., 811 F.2d 1030, 1041-42 (7th Cir. 1987) (applying the Castaneda analysis); Flores,
516 F.3d at 1146. First, courts must be satisfied that the school system is purs[uing] a program
informed by an educational theory recognized as sound by some experts in the field or, at least,
deemed a legitimate experimental strategy. Castaneda, 648 F.2d at 1009. Second, the
programs and practices actually used by a school system [must be] reasonably calculated to
implement effectively the educational theory adopted by the school. Id. at 1010. There must, in
other words, be sufficient practices, resources and personnel . . . to transform the theory into
reality. Id. Third, even if theory is sound and resources are adequate, the program must be
borne out by practical results. Id. The Attorney General of the United States, for or in the name
22
of the United States, may institute a civil action on behalf of individuals denied equal educational
opportunities. 20 U.S.C. 1706.
In addition to being racially discriminatory, New York States inequitable
distribution of Foundation Aid discriminates against New Yorks ELL students. New York has
more than 315,000 ELLs in its public schools. Prior to New Yorks implementation of the
common core curriculum in 2012, only 11.7 percent of ELL students in grades 3 -8 were
proficient in ELA, and only 34.4 percent were proficient in math.
The results of New Yorks new common-core-aligned tests, administered at the
end of the 2012-2013 school year, revealed far greater inadequacies in ELL performance: only
3.2 percent of ELL students scored in the proficient range for ELA and only 9.8 scored in the
proficient range for math.23 New Yorks high-need districts simply do not have the resources
they need to give their ELLs even a chance of meeting the States rigorous new standards. For
example:
23
See Waldman, Scott, Bar lifts, scores fall, Timesunion.com, http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Bar-liftsscores-fall-4714067.php#page-2 (Aug. 8, 2013); Maxwell, Leslie, A Look at ELL Performance So Far on
Common-Core-Aligned Tests, Education Week, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-thelanguage/2013/08/ell_performance_sinks_on_commo.html?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_cacampai=Feed%3A+LearningTheLanguage+
%28Education+Week+Blog%3A+Learning+the+Language%29 (Aug. 9, 2013).
23
in the Central Islip Union Free District (92 percent non-white, 26 percent
ELL, and 83 percent eligible for free or reduced price lunch), over 91
percent failed to achieve proficiency in Math and over 88 percent failed to
achieve proficiency in ELA.24
The cost of ELL instruction that complies with constitutional mandates far
exceeds the only financial assistance the State provides school districts for such purposes. New
24
See https://reportcards.nysed.gov/
25
24
York, through its inequitable distribution of Foundation Aid, has failed to devote sufficient
practices, resources and personnel to ensure that ELLs in low-wealth districts like Middletown
make meaningful academic progress, or transform theory into reality. The States recent
assessments demonstrate that low-wealth districts like Middletown simply do not have the
resources to ensure that their programs bear out practical results for their most vulnerable
students. Castaneda, 648 F.2d at 1009. New Yorks inequitable funding structure has severely
compromised Middletowns ability to provide for the needs of its non-English speaking students.
This linguistic discrimination violates the EEOA.
V.
CONCLUSION
25
Respectfully submitted,
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
By:________________________
Howard M. Miller
Kate I. Reid
Attorneys for the Enlarged City School
District of Middletown
1399 Franklin Avenue
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 267-6300
-andOne Lincoln Center
Syracuse, New York 13202-1355
(315) 218-8625
26