difference given evidence that City schools are beset by truancy. Further, the figures do not reflect STAR tax relief, a $2.7 billion program in the year on which the dissent has focused ( see New York State Division of the Budget, Education Unit, Description of 2002-03 New York State School Aid Programs, at 30, Table II-B). STAR enables homeowners to pay lower property taxes to fund the school system, and enables districts to make up the difference with State funds ( see Education Law § 3609-e (/nyctap-cgi/ez-nylaw?EDN+3609-e); Real Property Tax Law § 425). As the trial court said, "New York City receives less STAR aid than localities in the rest of the State" (187 Misc 2d at 86). Finally, of course, the record reflects that a dollar does not go so far in New York City as it goes elsewhere in the State. Thus, even if interdistrict equality were the issue, the 2002-2003 figure cited by the dissent would be far from decisive. We do not explore this point to discredit any choices the Legislature may have made in recent budgets to increase the City's relative allocation of State aid, but simply to emphasize why we focus on record facts whose significance has been properly tested in litigation. Given all of the jurisprudential constraints discussed above, we begin our review of the trial court's directives by rejecting the provision that the remedy be Statewide, and that variations in local costs be taken into account. Courts deal with actual cases and controversies, not abstract global issues, and fashion their directives based on the proof before them. Here the case presented to us, and consequently the remedy, is limited to the adequacy of education financing for the New York City public schools, though the State may of course address Statewide issues if it chooses. Second, we recognize that mechanisms in place, including No Child Left Behind and the SURR process, may already to some extent function as a system of accountability. They are not foolproof, and neither is tied to the definition of a sound basic education. Nevertheless, the State should be able to build on existing criteria to identify the schools in greatest need and set measurable goals for their improvement. Third, we are not prepared to say as a constitutional matter that a new system must ensure the City "sustained and stable funding." The language of this directive may appear unobjectionable, but in the context of the trial court's decision it implies a need for fundamental change in the relationship between New York City schools and their local tax base. The school districts in New York City, Buffalo, Yonkers, Syracuse and Rochester -- unlike every other district in the State -- are "fiscally dependent": they lack the authority to levy property taxes to