current system. SED has recommended such a modification. The State has other options to increase attendance, such as directing adequate funding to programs that help assure higher attendance levels, such as arts, physical education, and school-based health services. [187 [187 Misc.2d Misc.2d 113] 113] Defendants argue in passing that the reimbursement principles embodied in building and transportation aid send proportionally more dollars to districts in the rest of the State than to New York City. Defendants do not elaborate on this argument, which is contained in a footnote in their memorandum of law. They do not quantify the effects of building aid and transportation aid, nor set forth how their reimbursement principles bear a demonstrable relationship to classroom education. There was little evidence at trial concerning the distribution of transportation aid. The evidence concerning building aid demonstrates that the State's system for allocation of this aid category actually harms the City. Unlike most types of State aid, building aid does have a multiplier for regional costs. However, this multiplier understates New York City's costs. The capital needs of New York City's public schools have been drastically underfunded. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the court finds unpersuasive defendants' justifications for the adverse disparate racial impact caused by the distribution of State aid. Plaintiffs have established a violation of the relevant title VI implementing regulations. VII. Remedy and Order New York State has over the course of many years consistently violated the Education Article of the NY Constitution by failing to provide the opportunity for a sound basic education to New York City public school students. In addition, the State's public school financing system has also had an unjustified disparate impact on minority students in violation of Federal law. The court will not at this time prescribe a detailed remedy for these violations. Rather it is the Legislature that must, in the first instance, take steps to reform the current system. The Legislature must be given the first opportunity to reform the current system for several related reasons. First, the Court of Appeals held in its 1995 decision that the State Constitution "imposes a duty on the Legislature to ensure the availability of a sound basic education to all the children of the State" (86 N.Y.2d 307, 315, supra). Second, this action has focused principally on how the current system affects New York City, but any remedy will necessarily involve the entire State. The Legislature is in a better position to gauge the effects of reform on the State as a whole. Third, the Legislature is better [187 [187 Misc.2d Misc.2d 114] 114] positioned to work with the Governor and other governmental actors who have a role in reforming the current educational system. In particular, the Regents, SED and BOE have far greater expertise than this court in crafting solutions to the educational problems discussed in this opinion. This expertise should guide the State as it reforms the current system. There is no need, at least at this time, for the court to supersede the Legislature, the Governor, the State Education Department, and the Regents in imposing a remedy. That said, the court's deference to the coordinate branches of State government is contingent on these branches taking effective and timely action to address the problems set forth in this opinion. The parlous state of the City's schools demands no less. The court will not hesitate to intervene if it finds that the legislative and/or executive branches fail to devise and implement necessary reform. Because the State is ultimately responsible for the provision of a sound basic education this court rejects defendants' contention that the City and BOE are necessary parties that must be joined in this litigation before any remedy may issue. The court recognizes that reform of the system of State funding for schools may also require concomitant reorganization of school governance to ensure that funds are spent effectively. However, the State has the statutory power to change districts' management structure to ensure the more effective spending of education funding. The following parameters must guide defendants' reform of the current system. This court has held that a sound basic education mandated by the Education Article consists of the foundational skills that students need to become productive citizens capable of civic engagement and sustaining competitive employment. In order to ensure that public schools offer a sound basic education the State must take steps to ensure at least the following resources, which, as described in the body of this opinion, are for the most part currently not given to New York City's public school students: 1. Sufficient numbers of qualified teachers, principals and other personnel. 2. Appropriate class sizes. 3. Adequate and accessible school buildings with sufficient space to ensure appropriate class size and implementation of a sound curriculum. [187 [187 Misc.2d Misc.2d 115] 115] 4. Sufficient and up-to-date books, supplies, libraries, educational technology and laboratories. 5. Suitable curricula, including an expanded platform of programs to help at-risk students by giving them "more time on task." 6. Adequate resources for students with extraordinary needs. 7. A safe orderly environment. In the course of reforming the school finance system, a threshold task that must be performed by defendants is ascertaining, to the extent possible, the actual costs of providing a sound basic education in districts around the State. Once this is done, reforms to the current system of financing school funding should address the shortcomings of the current system by, inter alia: 1. Ensuring that every school district has the resources necessary for providing the opportunity for a sound basic education. 2. Taking into account variations in local costs.