significant educational reform effort in the history of the New York City public school system. Rather, this case is about whether the perceived shortcomings of New York City's public schools are constitutional infirmities under the Education Article attributable to inadequate State funding. On a more fundamental level, this case is about whether the courts or the legislature and the executive should set education policy for our public schools. Because the constitutional standard crafted by the majority to define a "sound basic education" is illusory, because the causal connection between the level of State aid and any deficiencies in New York City's public schools is not proven, and because the majority's proposed remedy exceeds the prudential bounds of the judicial function, I respectfully dissent. Sound Basic Education The New York Constitution does not mandate an educational system of a certain quality in express terms. The relevant constitutional text simply reads: "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated" (NY Const, art XI, § 1).[30] The words "sound basic education," which have become the catch-phrase for an inferred constitutional guarantee of an education of a certain quality, first appeared in our decision in Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist (, 57 NY2d 27 (/nyctap-cgi/nyctap.cgi? 57+27), 48 [1982][" Levittown"]). The plaintiffs and intervenors in Levittown sought a declaration that the State's school financing system, then as now comprised of local taxation and State aid, violated the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and US Constitutions and the State Constitution's Education Article because of the funding disparities between wealthier and poorer school districts. We rejected the equal protection claims on the ground that the State had demonstrated a rational basis for its school financing system: "the preservation and promotion of local control of education" ( id. at 44). We further observed that the Education Article focuses on a “State-wide system assuring minimal acceptable facilities and services,” not a system assuring equal educational facilities and services throughout the State ( id. at 47). We recognized that the State undeniably had in place a system of free schools and a statutory framework requiring minimum days of school attendance, specific courses, textbooks and qualifications for teaching and non-teaching staff. Accordingly,