common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be
educated" (NY Const, art XI, § 1). Plaintiffs claim that the State
has violated this mandate by establishing an education financing
system that fails to afford New York City's public schoolchildren
the opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution. Plaintiffs
additionally claim that the State's method of school funding in
New York City violates their rights under United States
Department of Education regulations pursuant to Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000d
(/uscode/42/2000d.html) et seq.; 34 CFR [2]).
This case does not arrive before us on a blank slate. On June 15,
1995 -- precisely eight years ago -- we denied the State's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, thereby resolving three issues of law
that now become the starting point for our decision ( Campaign
for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v State of New York, , 86 NY2d 307
(/nyctap-cgi/nyctap.cgi?86+307) [" CFE"]).
First, echoing Board of Education, Levittown Union Free School
District v Nyquist (, 57 NY2d 27 (/nyctap-cgi/nyctap.cgi?57+27)
[1982] [" Levittown"]), in CFE we recognized that by mandating a
school system "wherein all the children of this state may be
educated," the State has obligated itself constitutionally to ensure
the availability of a "sound basic education" to all its children.
Second, we made clear that this Court is responsible for
adjudicating the nature of that duty, and we provided a template,
or outline, of what is encompassed within a sound basic
education. And third, we concluded from the pleadings that
plaintiffs had alleged facts that, if proved, would constitute a
violation of the State's constitutional duty as well as the federal
regulations. The actual quality of the educational opportunity in
New York City, the correlation between the State's funding
system and any failure to fulfill the constitutional mandate, and
any justification for claimed discriminatory practices involve fact
questions. For that reason, we remitted the matter to the trial
court for development of the record. Extensive discovery ensued.
Trial commenced on October 12, 1999 and the last witness left
the stand seven months later, on May 15, 2000.
Based on the testimony of 72 witnesses and on 4300 exhibits, the
trial court on January 9, 2001 determined that the State over
many years had consistently violated the Education Article of the
Constitution. In keeping with our directive, the trial court first
fleshed out the template for a sound basic education that we had
outlined in our earlier consideration of the issue. To determine
whether the State actually satisfied that standard the court then
reviewed the various necessary instructional "inputs" we had
identified, and concluded that in most of these the New York City