Something is wrong here. They cover 36 years and replacement reproduction is 2 kids, so 2/36 = 5.6% women having kids per year. Your hood zip is below that, which I find hard to believe.
On that site you can enter the whole USA as a local and it is listed as having a birthrate of 5.2%. Given that the USA is known to have a fertility rate of 1.66, it does seem that the hood's birthrate of 5.0% would be below replacement.
In case that zip code is an outlier, I am trying to find other hoods with high birthrates. Gary, IN is a hood whose birthrate is a little high, at 8%, but it is not extraordinary. There are white majority towns near where I live that have similar birthrates and they are not the hood. And Gary's birthrate does not come close to Kiryas Joel's birthrate of 22%. I think if society is really dysgenic it should be easier to find hoods with really high birthrates.
Great example of lying with statistics. I mean I assume they count 1-year-old female as a "less than high school graduate" which explains the low rate there. Basically this is an age chart.
Under "more details" it says only women 15-50 are counted. Although to some extent there would still be the issue of women who in the future will get a PhD are counted today as "Less then High School", and this would skew things. If they had simply reported the raw number of births for each education group (instead of births per woman), this would correspond to something real, which is the distribution of education of the mothers of the next generation.