disturbing evidence that thousands of City schoolteachers do not teach; others teach under contracts that limit their classroom time to under four hours a day; and all are paid according to the same salary schedule, regardless of whether a more flexible system of incentives might be needed, for instance, to induce senior teachers to remain in troubled schools. The Appellate Division characterized such evidence as "the product of collective bargaining agreements, not the manner in which the State funds the City schools" (295 2 at 18). But as the trial court found, "the allegedly shorter workday of New York City's public school teachers has not provided the City an advantage in competition for qualified teachers" (187 Misc 2d at 36). Such considerations, as well as the simple constitutional principle that the State has ultimate responsibility for the schools, counsel us against the State's rebuttal arguments on causation. Local Funding. Of the State's rebuttal arguments, one more requires special attention. The State argues that the City actually has a greater capacity to fund education from local revenues than many local governments Statewide, yet fails to make anything like the same "tax effort" that other localities make. Indeed, the State marshals evidence that when the State injects funds pursuant to formulas intended to compensate for inequalities in local school funding, the City deducts proportionately from its own contribution, leaving the school budget unimproved. The trial court found evidence to support this assertion; noted unique pressures on the City budget and other factors that account for some of the difference in tax effort; and concluded that the ultimate responsibility to address this problem still lay with the State (187 Misc 2d at 97-99). The Appellate Division expressly rejected the State's contention that "any inadequacy in funding is the fault of the City," noting that "the State exerts extensive control over the City, including taxes that may be levied and debts that may be incurred," but reflecting that the remedy, rather than "requiring the State to write out a check every time the City underfunds education" may be for the State to "require the City to maintain a certain level of education funding" (295 2 at 18-19). Here, therefore, there is next to no dispute. If the State believes that deficient City tax effort is a significant contributing cause to the underfunding of City schools, it is for the State -- through a combination of enforcing existing laws such as the StaviskyGoodman Law (Education Law § 2576 (/nyctap-cgi/ez-nylaw? EDN+2576)[5-a]) and new legislation -- to consider corrective measures. This possibility pertains to the remedy, not to the