In addition to Federal and State measures directed at identifying and improving bad schools, significant legislation reorganizing City school governance has been passed since the trial ( see L 2002, ch 91; cf. L 2003, chs 6, 15). The legislation enhances the powers and duties of the Mayor of New York City and persons accountable to the Mayor -- notably the Chancellor -- to manage school finances and the School Construction Authority, and select and supervise district superintendents and other staff ( see Mem of Legis Rep of City of NY, 2002 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1718-1719). Further, through an ongoing process of reform, the Regents have sought to reduce the employment of uncertified teachers and fortify the requirements for certification ( see e.g. 8 NYCRR 803.4; 80-5.10[j]). Likewise, regulations adopted with the Learning Standards and intended to improve the rigor of instruction Statewide are close to being fully phased-in; for instance, students who entered ninth grade in the 2001-2002 school year no longer had the option to take a "local diploma" ( see 8 NYCRR 100.5). All of these initiatives promise, but await, demonstrable outcomes. We are, of course, bound to decide this case on the record before us and cannot conjecture about the possible effect of pending reforms, at least when determining whether, on the evidence gathered over four years and presented during the seven-month trial, a constitutional violation exists. To the extent that recent reforms enable more students to receive a sound basic education, the State will have the opportunity on remittal to present evidence of such developments. For similar reasons, we cannot join the dissent in attaching significance to State budget figures showing that in 2002-2003, "the City enrolled 37 percent of the State's public school population and was allocated 37 percent of the combined major aid enacted" (dissent at 14). Presumably the dissent cites this figure as proof that any inequalities in the funding system have been remedied since trial. But under Levittown and CFE, plaintiffs have a right not to equal State funding but to schools that provide the opportunity for a sound basic education. Aside from this, even assuming the 2002-2003 figures -- which were not part of the record -- were properly before us, the dissent misstates their significance. They are based on total aidable pupil units ("TAPU," Education Law § 3602 (/nyctapcgi/ez-nylaw?EDN+3602)[8][ii]) and thus would demonstrate not that the City's funding share equaled its enrollment share, but that its funding share equaled its attendance share -- a significant