In Rose v Council for Better Educ. (790 S.W.2d 186, supra) the Supreme Court of Kentucky placed a detailed gloss upon that State's typically vague Education Clause. The court held that the constitutional mandate that the State "`provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the State'" (at 205) meant that it must create a school system that has as its goal "each and every child['s]" development of seven "capacities" (at 212). 6 The goals articulated in Rose, though relatively detailed and ambitious, have been followed by at least three States in defining their own Education Clauses (see Claremont School Dist. v Governor of N. H., 142 N.H. 462, 474, 703 A.2d 1353, 1359 [1997]; McDuffy v Secretary of Executive Off. of Educ., 415 Mass. 545, 617, 615 N.E.2d 516, 554 [1993], supra; Opinion of Justices, 624 So.2d 107 [Ala 1993] [advisory opinion directing State Legislature to follow order of trial court]). Rose (supra) is instructive in this case as it highlights what the New York Court of Appeals did not do in its 1995 decision. Using the template provided by the Court of Appeals in its 1995 decision, this court defines in the next section the meaning [187 [187 Misc.2d Misc.2d 10] 10] of "sound basic education" guaranteed by New York State's Education Article. I I I . T h e L e g a l S t a n d a r d f o r E v a l u at i n g P l a i n t i ffs ' E d u c at i o n A r t i c l e C l a i m The Education Article of the New York Constitution provides simply: 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.) The Court of Appeals has interpreted this Article to require the provision of "a sound basic education." (Levittown, supra, 57 NY2d, at 48.) In its 1995 decision the Court of Appeals directed this court to undertake a three-part inquiry in evaluating plaintiffs' Education Article claim. First, this court must define what constitutes a sound basic education. Second, the court must determine whether New York City school children are provided with the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education in the City's public schools. Third, if New York City public school children do not have the opportunity to obtain a sound basic education, the court must determine whether there is a "causal link" between this failure and the State's system for funding public schools (86 NY2d, supra, at 317-318). In this section the court provides a definition of sound basic education. In section IV the court will determine whether New York City public school students are provided with a sound basic education. In section V, the court will address the causation issue. In its 1995 decision, the Court of Appeals stated: We do not attempt to definitively specify what the constitutional concept and mandate of a sound basic education entails. Given the procedural posture of this case, an exhaustive discussion and consideration of the meaning of a `sound basic education' is premature. Only after discovery and the development of a factual record can this issue be fully evaluated and resolved. Rather, we articulate a template reflecting our judgment of what the trier of fact must consider in determining whether defendants have met their constitutional obligation. The trial court will have to evaluate whether the children in plaintiffs' districts are in fact being provided the opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors. (Id., at 317-318.) The Court of Appeals also made it clear that the State must assure that certain essential inputs are provided to public school students. Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn. Children should have access to minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current textbooks. Children are also entitled to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date basic curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, by sufficient personnel adequately trained to teach those subject areas. (Id., at 317.) A . T h e E d u c at i o n A r t i c l e R e q u i r e s a S o u n d B a s i c E d u c at i o n , N o t O n e T h at i s S t at e o f t h e A r t The defendants are correct when they argue that the Court of Appeals 1995 decision did not call for the provision of a "state of the art" education. The Court clearly intended that a sound basic education should not be defined in a way that incorporates the highest aspirations of educators. The Court repeatedly used the terms "adequate," "basic," and "minimally adequate" to describe the education to be provided to the State's public school students. The Court of Appeals did not, as other States' high courts have done, adopt the ambitious "minimum goals" for an adequate education first set forth by Kentucky's Supreme Court in Rose v Council for Better Educ. (790 S.W.2d 186, 212, supra). Further evidence that the Court of Appeals did not set the constitutional floor by reference to a state of the art education is the Court's statement that because many of the [State Board of Regents' State-wide educational standards] exceed notions of a minimally adequate or sound basic education — some are also aspirational—prudence should govern utilization of the Regents' standards as benchmarks of educational adequacy. Proof of noncompliance with one or more of the Regents' * * * standards may not, standing alone, establish a violation of the Education Article. (86 NY2d, supra, at 317.) After the Court of Appeals 1995 decision the New York State Board of Regents promulgated more rigorous educational standards. Therefore, contrary to plaintiffs' argument, these new standards a fortiori cannot constitute the definition of a sound basic education. The new standards, called the Regents Learning Standards, were adopted in 1996 after more than a decade of development. The standards embrace seven areas of study. 7 In each of these subject areas, four or five basic standards are set forth. Each standard is then applied at three levels (elementary, intermediate and commencement). Examples of student work that demonstrate mastery of the standards accompany the standards. Some of the Regents Learning Standards set forth in general terms basic skills and areas of knowledge that fall well within a sound basic education. 8 However, it is clear when looking at examples of student work that satisfy the standards that some of the standards require work that exceeds a sound basic education. 9 Accordingly, the court must heed the Court of Appeals' direction to use the new standards with "prudence." Even if the new Regents Learning Standards were not more rigorous than the old, this court would reject using the new standards to embody the