on a jury" (86 NY2d at 316). In assessing adequacy of education, this standard is the
constitutional minimum or floor that we had acknowledged earlier, in Board of Educ.,
Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist (57 NY2d 27, 47-48 [1982]). Accordingly, we held
that plaintiffs' cause of action under the Education Article survived a motion to dismiss (86
NY2d at 318-319), reminding plaintiffs that they would "have to establish a causal link between
the present funding system and any proven failure to provide a sound basic education to New
York City school children" (86 NY2d at 318).
Plaintiffs succeeded in establishing that causal link, in a 1999-2000 trial concerning the 19971998 school year. In 2003, we decided that this trial record supports the conclusion that,
because of inadequate funding for their public schools, children in New York City "are not
receiving the constitutionally-mandated opportunity for a sound basic education" (Campaign
for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 100 NY2d 893, 919 [2003] [CFE II]). In CFE I, we had
understood a sound basic education as teaching skills that enable students to undertake civil
responsibilities{**8 NY3d at 21} meaningfully. In CFE II, we defined "sound basic education"
more exactly, as the "opportunity for a meaningful high school education, one which prepares
[children] to function productively as civic participants" (100 NY2d at 908 [emphasis added]).
We determined that New York City public schools provided inadequate teaching, because they
were unable to attract and retain qualified teachers (100 NY2d at 909-911). They were deficient
in at least two instrumentalities of learning: libraries and computers (100 NY2d at [*3]913).
Moreover, although plaintiffs had not proven "a measurable correlation between building
disrepair and student performance, in general" (100 NY2d at 911), they sufficiently
demonstrated "that large class sizes negatively affect student performance in New York City
public schools" (100 NY2d at 912).
Whether measured by "inputs" or by "outputs," i.e. school completion rates and test results (100
NY2d at 914-919), New York City schoolchildren, we determined, were not receiving the
opportunity for a sound basic education. Finally, we concluded that plaintiffs had established
the causation element of their claim by showing that increased funding can provide better
teachers, facilities and instrumentalities of learning, and that such improved inputs in turn yield
better student performance (100 NY2d at 919-925).
Accordingly we directed the State to ensure, by means of "[r]eforms to the current system of
financing school funding and managing schools . . . that every school in New York City would
have the resources necessary for providing the opportunity for a sound basic education" (100
NY2d at 930). Noting that "the political process allocates to City schools a share of state aid that
does not bear a perceptible relation to the needs of City students" (id.), we instructed the State
to ascertain the actual cost of providing a sound basic education in New York City, rather than
the state as a whole (id.). We also held that "the new scheme should ensure a system of
accountability to measure whether the reforms actually provide the opportunity for a sound
basic education" (id.). We gave the State a deadline of July 30, 2004 by which to implement the