Footnotes 1 After the Appellate Division's decision, the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzaga University v Doe (536 US 273 (/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?536+273) [2002]). Though not a Title VI case, Gonzaga reinforces the conclusion the Appellate Division correctly drew from various federal circuit court decisions: that where a statute does not clearly and unambiguously create an implied private right of action, it also does not create rights enforceable under 42 USC § 1983 (/uscode/42/1983.html). Plaintiffs' only argument to distinguish their case from Sandoval was that they brought their disparate impact claim under section 1983, but Gonzaga shows that this distinction is unavailing, as is plaintiffs' further attempt to distinguish Gonzaga. 2 The composition of the Board of Education and its responsibilities and the Chancellor's have changed substantially since trial ( see L 2002, ch 91, §§ 6, 11, 12). We are, of course, bound by the record, which has been subjected to adversarial scrutiny, and do not consider post-trial factual materials. 3 By contrast, the State argues that by showing that the outputs are good enough -- in particular, that City schoolchildren perform satisfactorily on certain standardized tests -- it has obviated inquiry regarding the inputs. The State reasons that many children come to City schools with socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds that put them at risk of academic failure, as the evidence confirms. Therefore, the State continues, while the City schools cannot necessarily be blamed for bad results, they surely should receive full credit for any good results. Indeed they should. But the outputs here do not support a judgment for the State. While the State urges an affirmance based on what it considers good outputs, the dissent -- relying on Paynter -- suggests that there is something "inconsistent" about even discussing them (dissent at 9 n 6). Paynter holds that proof of inadequate inputs is necessary for an Education Article claim, not that such proof is sufficient for such a claim. Thus, our discussion of outputs is consistent with both Paynter and CFE -- which contemplated cautious use of output evidence -- as well as responsive to an argument the State made. 4 Some facts that the trial court classified as purely "physical" facilities inputs are inseparable from overcrowding and excessive class size -- conditions whose measurable effect on students plaintiffs have shown. One symptom of an overcrowded school system is the encroachment of ordinary classroom activities into what would otherwise be specialized spaces: libraries,