Petitioners contend that this formula violates the Education Law and disadvantages poor and minority students. Each community school district's base allocation equals its average teacher salary multiplied by the number of teachers it requires. Both parties agree that forces out of the control of the community school district dictate the amount of teacher salaries which are incurred, such as class size requirements and contract provisions which enable more experienced, more highly paid teachers to select more desirable schools. Upon the final adoption of the appropriation for the city district in each year, the city board through the chancellor shall allocate among the community boards the funds appropriated in the units of appropriation for the programs or activities of such boards on the basis of objective formulae established annually by the city board . They contend that the less desirable schools have greater educational needs, requiring more support staff, not less.
Petitioners provide analyses and expert statements in support of their position.
Respondents argue that the system of formulas should be viewed as a whole. They argue that the supporting percent allocation is only one formula, that other formulas specifically recognize special needs students, and that the system of formulas meets the relative needs of the children to the maximum extent feasible. Respondent's finally argue that petitioners have not demonstrated that their actions were arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion and that the Commissioner's intervention would impinge on the control and discretion granted by statute to the board to devise the formulas. Respondents also argue that the appeal is untimely. I must dismiss the appeal because it is untimely.