The DOE regulations provide, inter alia, that recipients of Federal funding may not utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin. (34 CFR 100.3 [b] [2].) Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the issue, the vast majority of courts have agreed that the parties' respective burdens in a title VI disparate impact case should follow those used in title VII employment discrimination cases (see Powell v Ridge, 189 F.3d 387, 393-394, cert denied 528 U.S. 1046 [1999]; New York Urban League v State of New York, 71 F.3d 1031, 1036 [1995]; Sharif v New York State Educ. Dept., 709 F.Supp. 345, 361-362 [1989] [title VII burden-shifting analysis applied in title XI case]). Thus, a plaintiff in a title VI regulation disparate impact case bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that a facially neutral practice has had an adverse and disparate impact upon a protected class of people (see New York City Envtl. Justice Alliance v Giuliani, 214 F.3d 65, 69 [2000]). If the plaintiff meets that burden then the defendant must demonstrate [187 [187 Misc.2d Misc.2d 101] 101] a "substantial legitimate justification" for the practice. In the education context, the defendant must demonstrate that the challenged practice is justified by "educational necessity" (see Board of Educ. v Harris, 444 U.S. 130, 151 [1979]; Georgia State Conference v Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1418 [1985]; Sharif, supra, 709 F Supp, at 361-362). If the defendant meets its rebuttal burden, then the plaintiff must establish either that the defendant overlooked an equally effective alternative with less discriminatory effects or that the proffered justification is no more than a pretext for racial discrimination (see Powell v Ridge, supra, 189 F3d, at 394). In analyzing this claim, the court relies on much of the fact finding set forth above. In order to avoid needless repetition, the following findings of fact refer wherever possible to previous relevant findings. A . P l a i n t i ffs ' P r i m a F a c i e C a s e Plaintiffs argue that they have made out a prima facie case of disparate impact by per capita funding comparisons and by regression analyses performed by their expert, Dr. Robert Berne, a professor of Public Administration at New York University. They also rely upon certain findings of defendants' expert Dr. Wolkoff. The court agrees with an implicit premise of plaintiffs' analyses: that money is a crucial determinant of educational quality, and that receipt of less educational funding by minority students is an adverse disparate impact within the purview of DOE's title VI regulations. Stating this premise in the abstract is easier than applying it to the facts of this case. Plaintiffs must first prove the existence of a disparate adverse impact felt by minority students. Tracking the educational funding spent on minority and nonminority students in New York State is not a straightforward exercise. The State's school funding system provides money to districts, not to individual students, and it does so for the most part according to "weighted pupil units," not by a simple nose count of pupils. 43 Under title VI and DOE's regulations, the disparate impact complained of must fall on individuals, not upon governmental entities such as school districts. [187 [187 Misc.2d Misc.2d 102] 102] The filtering of school funding through localities also requires that some attention be paid to causation. Plaintiffs must prove that the State's school funding mechanism caused the alleged disparate impact. 1 . Pe r C a p i t a F u n d i n g C o m p a r i s o n s Plaintiffs' per capita funding comparisons are based on the following facts: (1) 73% of the State's minority public school students are enrolled in New York City's public schools, (2) minority students make up approximately 84% of New York City's public school enrollment, and (3) New York City receives less funding per capita, on average, than districts in the rest of the State. From these facts plaintiffs ask the court to conclude that the State's funding mechanism has a disparate adverse impact upon a super majority of the State's minority student population. 44 Plaintiffs are correct that not all of the State's minority students need to be adversely affected before this court may hold that the State's funding mechanism has a disparate impact (see Powell v Ridge, supra, 189 F3d, at 396). The court finds that where, as is the case here, 73% of a State's minority students are concentrated into a single district, then comparisons of that district's funding with average district funding in the rest of the State can be an accurate indicator of the presence (or absence) of a disparate impact based on race. This is particularly true here where approximately 84% of the City's public school children are members of minority groups. The size of this percentage obviates the need to break the huge New York City school district into its constituent community school districts in order to investigate disparate funding of minorities and nonminorities within New York City. An analysis that relies on comparisons of district funding for purposes of determining the presence or absence of a disparate impact is endorsed in the Court of Appeals 1995 decision (86 N.Y.2d 307, 324, supra). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has endorsed a similar analysis in an action challenging Pennsylvania's school funding system. In that action, in which plaintiffs rely on the same DOE regulations invoked here, the Third Circuit held that plaintiffs stated a viable claim by alleging that Pennsylvania's educational funding system `gives school districts with high proportions of white students on average more Commonwealth treasury revenues than school districts with high proportions of non-white students, where the levels of student poverty are the same.' (Powell v Ridge, supra, 189 F3d, at 398.) A similar analysis comparing funding of geographic units was used to find liability under a disparate impact theory in Meek v Martinez (724 F.Supp. 888 [1987]), a case involving a challenge to funding under the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 USC § 3021). In Meek, plaintiffs claimed that Florida's formula for allocating funds to senior citizens pursuant to the Act discriminated against minority seniors. The court compared the effects of the State's allocation formula with a stripped down version of the State's formula that excluded certain elements that plaintiffs claimed favored White seniors.