New York

Opportunity to Learn Index Score: 25% (50th)
Percentage of Students at National Proficient Level or Above: 32% (22nd)



Disadvantaged Student Group (1) Opportunity to Learn
(compared to White, non-Latino students
Native American 45%        
Black 25%        
Latino 25%        
Poverty (FARL) (2) 54%        

New York ranks 24th among the states when the Opportunity to Learn of the state’s historically disadvantaged students is combined with a measure of educational quality (3). New York’s Black, Latino and Native American students, taken together, have a quarter of the opportunity to learn in the state’s best-supported, best-performing schools than the state’s White, non-Latino students. A low-income student has just over half of the opportunity to learn of the average White, non-Latino student.

Opportunity to Learn Core Resource Resource Access Rank
Access to High Quality Early Childhood Education (4) 8th      
Access to Highly Qualified Teachers (5) 43rd      
Access to Instructional Materials (6) 1st      
Access to College Preparatory Curriculum (7) 41st      

The key Opportunity to Learn resources used in this report are high quality early childhood education, highly effective teachers, well-funded instructional materials and a college preparatory curriculum. All students must have equitable access to key educational resources if they are to have equitable opportunities for success.

Key Research Findings: New York is one of a group of states with comparatively average graduation rates, a comparatively low percentage of students from disadvantaged groups and comparatively high funding for instruction.

Opportunity for Success

Native American, Black, Latino and low-income students are more likely than White, non-Latino students in New York to be disadvantaged by attending schools where they have little chance of becoming proficient in basic skills and graduating on time. Black and Latino students are five times as likely to find themselves in such schools than are White, non-Latino students.

Dividing the percentages of Native American, Black and Latino students in these “drop-out factories” by the percentage of White, non-Latino students in those schools gives us the comparative disadvantage of each group: (Higher numbers are worse: more of a disadvantage)

Group Comparative Disadvantage
Native American students 320%         
Asian American students* 400%         
Black, non-Latino students 530%         
Latino students 550%         
Low income students 220%        
Comparison is to all White, non-Latino students 100%         

Taking steps to improve access to key resources, improving the teacher-to-student ratio and increasing the percentage of highly effective teachers in the state’s less effective schools will improve the Opportunity to Learn of the state’s minority and low-income students.

Economic Consequences(8)

Total Annual Economic Burden to Taxpayers Because of Inequity: $9 billion(9)

Potential Return on School Improvement Investment:
(Differences attributable to high school graduation per annual cohort)
State Annual Total Lifetime Health Loss
$1.8 billion
State Annual Crime-Related Loss

$1.2 billion

State Tax Losses (Lifetime)
$6.1 billion
Annual Lost Lifetime Earnings
(Difference attributable to high school graduation per annual cohort)
$12.5 billion
Net Annual Potential Revenue Increase from Equity
(After deducting estimated cost of improving schools)
$5.5 billion


Social and Civic Consequences

Changes attributable to educational equalization with highest performing large group:

College Graduation (25 years of age+)(10)
Increase Expected Attributable to Equitable Access
  Black, Latino, Native American (total) 98%
Employment (11)
Increase Expected Attributable to Equitable Access
  With High School Diploma 4%
  Further Increase with Bachelor's Degree 3%
Increase Expected Attributable to Equitable Access
  With High School Diploma 42%
  Further Increase with Bachelor's Degree 78%
Increase Expected Attributable to Equitable Access
  Black, non-Latino 16%
  Latino 37%
Civic Engagement(14) (National Election Participation)
  Increase Expected Attributable to Equitable Access 10%
Decrease Expected Attributable to Equitable Access to Education
  Black, non-Latino -81%
  Latino -45%

 ^ back to top

* Performance for sub-groups of the Asian American populations (Hmong, Cambodian, etc.) varies drastically. Further federal and state disaggregation of data is needed to more accurately speak to performance results of Asian Americans.

(1) Enrollments (2005/6): Native American (13,968), Asian American (195,425), Black, non-Latino (557,253), Latino (566,273), White, non-Latino (1,482,662), FARL (1,260,933).
(2) Students eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch. This measure is similar to the children living in poverty: Native American (32%), Asian American (20%), Black, non-Latino (32%), Latino (34%), White, non-Latino (13%).
(3) The NAEP percentage of all public school students scoring at or above proficiency for Grade 8 Reading is used as a proxy for system quality.
(4) Access for 4-year-olds: NIEER Yearbook.
(5) Ratio of disadvantaged to advantaged student access: State Consolidated Performance Reports for School Year 2004/5 in Peske, Heather G. and Kati Haycock: Teaching Inequality: How Poor and Minority Students are Shortchanged on Teacher Quality. The Education Trust, June 2006.
(6) NCES.
(7) Access to AP Math; USED/OCR.
(8) Earnings and Revenue: Levin, Henry. The Costs and Benefits of an Excellent Education for All of America’s Students. Columbia University, January 2007.
(9) Numbers are rounded.
(10) U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2006.
(11) ACS.
(12) ACS.
(13) National Survey of Children’s Health, Indicator 6.1.
(14) Potential Civic Engagement is represented by national voting rates by educational attainment applied to adult educational attainment of the state. U.S. Census Bureau. Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2004; American Community Survey, Educational Attainment Adult Population. 2004 Voting Turnout Rate from United States Election Project:
(15) Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report: Education and Correctional Populations, January 2003.