concurring.
The longstanding inability of urban public schools throughout the nation to provide an adequate education to minority students from low-income families represents the most enduring public policy failure of my generation. For much of the past fifty years state governments generally were unwilling to focus on the ills of urban schools. Over the past two decades, however, the issue has attracted both state and national attention. Throughout the country reforms in urban education have been implemented and found wanting. In major cities, new superintendents are hired and fired with regularity. Candidates for public office promise to repair urban education, but the promises are seldom kept and, when implemented, rarely succeed.
In New Jersey, as in other states, failures in urban education have led education advocates to turn to our courts for relief. For the twenty-five years following this Court’s first disposition in school funding litigation, see Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A.2d 273 (1973), the focus has been on fiscal parity. Recently, the emphasis has shifted from funding equity to educational adequacy, see Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 693 A.2d 417 (1997) (Abbott IV) and Abbott v. Burke, 153 N.J. 480, 710 A.2d 450 (1998) (Abbott V). That shift in focus from funding to educational adequacy is replicated in other states. See James E. Ryan, Schools, Race and Money, 109 Yale L.J. 249, 268-69 (1999).
In Abbott V, on the basis of testimony presented by the Commissioner of Education and other educational experts, this Court accepted the State’s commitment to implement one of the most ambitious urban school initiatives in the country, combining man*122datory preschool for three- and four-year olds, full-day kindergarten, whole school reform including an unprecedented emphasis on reading and language skills in grades K-3, availability of necessary social services in school facilities or through outside providers, and a major facilities repair and renovation program for the aging physical plants of urban school districts. The motion to enforce litigants’ rights that the Court resolves today involves issues concerning only the preschool portion of the initiatives ordered in Abbott V. However, an inextricable connection exists between those issues and the potential for success of the totality of the urban school reforms set in motion by the Commissioner’s presentation and this Court’s opinion in Abbott V I write separately primarily to make crystal clear the significance of that connection.
I
I join in the Court’s disposition of this motion. I am somewhat less sanguine than the Court concerning the underlying explanation for the Department of Education’s (DOE) initially flawed implementation of preschool in Abbott districts. Nevertheless, I fully agree with the Court’s basic holding: the DOE’s insistence that the Abbott districts implement preschool by using local community care providers staffed by uncertified teachers and governed by Department of Human Services (DHS) standards and regulations, without any substantive educational standards, violated Abbott U’s requirement that high quality preschool programs be implemented in all the Abbott districts. Simply stated, a vast and fundamental difference exists between the day-care type programs mandated by the DOE, and the education-based preschool program contemplated by the Court. The educational focus of the preschool program envisioned by the Court was underscored in Abbott V:
This Court is convinced that pre-school for three- and four-year olds will have a significant and substantial positive impact on academic achievement in both early and later school years ... [T]he evidence strongly supports the conclusion that, in *123the poor urban school districts, the earlier children start pre-school, the better prepared they are to face the challenges of kindergarten and first grade.
[Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 506-07, 710 A.2d 450.]
I also am in substantial agreement with the corrective measures ordered by the Court. The need for the prompt adoption by the DOE of clear substantive standards is incontestable. I fully agree that the Court contemplated that preschool teachers would be fully qualified and certified, consistent with the testimony of Commissioner Klagholz and Dr. Anderson at the remand hearing prior to Abbott V Unlike the Court, I am unpersuaded that this record reliably suggests that a shortage of certified teachers exists, nor is there any reliable indication that a belief in the existence of a teacher shortage explains the DOE’s authorization to staff preschool classes with uncertified teachers. Nevertheless, although the four-year period the Court allows for qualified existing teachers to obtain certification, ante at 111-12, 748 A.2d at 91, results in a significant delay in achieving the standard of uniform certification of preschool teachers, a compromise between the DOE’s longer timetable and the ideal of an immediate certification requirement is appropriate to avoid the discharge of experienced but uncertified teachers. In my view, however, districts would be well advised to assess currently the skills of all uncertified classroom teachers in community-based child care centers to determine whether they should be retained and afforded four years to obtain certification. The Court’s adherence to a preschool class size of fifteen students with one teacher and one aide is both educationally sound and accurately reflects the representations made by the DOE’s witnesses at the remand hearing.
The Court’s determination to sustain the DOE’s requirement that the Abbott districts use the facilities of local day care providers “whenever practical” attempts to deal pragmatically with a complex problem. Some districts were operating preschool programs within their own facilities prior to Abbott V and the DOE’s regulation does not disturb those existing arrangements. To require all the Abbott districts to house preschool programs *124within district-owned facilities would be expensive and, to the extent local day care facilities are structurally adequate and safe and their programs are upgraded to comply with the standards included in the Court’s opinion, unnecessary. Daycare facilities that are structurally unsuitable or whose administrators are unwilling or unable to meet the standards prescribed by the Court need not be used. I trust that the DOE will not refiexively reject district determinations that specific daycare facilities are inadequate or inappropriate for preschool programs.
Moreover, the Court makes clear, ante at 115-16, 748 A.2d at 93, that the DOE’s regulations must authorize the districts to regularly assess and evaluate district preschool programs conducted in community care facilities, require modifications and improvements in such programs, provide supervision, professional development, access to district staff (especially with kindergarten and first-grade teachers), and — ultimately—to terminate the contract of a local facility that fails to adhere to quality standards. The Court’s recognition of the Abbott districts’ non-delegable responsibility for the success or failure of all preschool programs— whether run in district facilities or in local provider facilities — will avoid the concern that preschool programs within a single Abbott district will be of unequal quality.
The Court appropriately insists that children currently served by Head Start programs cannot be excluded from district preschool programs unless the specific Head Start facility provides high quality programs that meet DOE standards. That determination is consistent with the observation of Dr. Allen Odden, the consultant to the remand court, that “Head Start usually provides only a partial day program and funding has been insufficient to provide a program that meets standards for a high quality, effective program.” Abbott V, supra, (Appendix II) 153 N.J. at 648, 710 A.2d 450.
The Court elects not to intervene in or require modifications of the DOE’s procedures concerning funding requests for preschool programs, other than to “urge the Commissioner to work with the *125districts to resolve funding issues expeditiously,” ante at 118, 748 A.2d at 95. However, I find most disturbing the context in which that issue arose.
The record indicates that in regulations adopted in July 1998, the DOE directed the Abbott districts to submit preschool plans for the 1999-2000 school year by November 2, 1998, but the written instructions governing the preparation of those plans were not issued by the Commissioner until September 30, 1998. According to the affidavit of the Education Law Center’s Abbott Initiative Research Director, the district plans included a diverse range of health, social services, educational staff requests and other programs to meet specific needs of preschool pupils. Among the specific staff and service requests included in the district plans were provision for child study teams, speech therapists, bilingual teachers, art and music programs, nurses, social workers, nutrition programs, and parent involvement programs. Those proposals for preschool programs and funding were consistent with the Commissioner’s written submission to the remand court in which he promised “[w]ell-planned, high quality half-day preschool programs that encompass these services (e.g., instructional, medical, dental, parent involvement and training, etc.).” A Study of Supplemental Programs and Recommendations for the Abbott Districts, New Jersey Department of Education, (Nov. 1997) at 8.
The DOE did not respond to the District’s program submissions until February 11, 1999, more than three months after they were received. Its response essentially consisted of a “form” letter that rejected categorically all program submissions and requests that required additional funding on the ground that those requests were required to be submitted as part of a separate and distinct funding approval process. Moreover, the districts were informed that their program submissions could not be considered until they had demonstrated collaboration to the extent practical with existing DHS licensed child care providers.
*126Significantly, the districts were required to submit their budget requests for the next school year by February 28, 1999 (extended by DOE to March 5, 1999), approximately three weeks after the DOE’s form letters were received, and no budget request could be approved for preschool costs or programs not previously authorized by the DOE. As a result, the districts were virtually compelled to revise their Abbott preschool plans to comply with the DOE restrictions, using DHS child care standards for program quality and eliminating all services, staff, and supplemental programs not approved by the DOE.
The DOE’s process in 1999 for approving preschool programs and funding requests was formalistic, inflexible and inconsistent with the Court’s anticipation in Abbott V that requests for supplemental funding would be fairly and objectively reviewed and would be granted if need is demonstrated:
Underlying the Commissioner’s proposal for whole-school reform, early childhood programs, and supplemental programs, is the clear commitment that if there is a need for additional funds, the needed funds will be provided or secured If a school demonstrates the need for programs beyond those recommended by the Commissioner, including programs in, or facilities for, art, music, and special education, then the Commissioner shall approve such requests and, when necessary, shall seek appropriations to ensure the funding and resources necessary for their implementation.
[153 N.J. at 518, 710 A.2d 450 (emphasis added) (citations omitted).]
Well-planned and appropriate programs, together with sufficient resources to implement them effectively, are fundamental to the long-term success of the Abbott V reforms. The DOE can stifle progress in the Abbott districts if it ties up funding requests in a bureaucratic maze; or it can advance and encourage these vital initiatives by dealing with funding requests swiftly, fairly and effectively.
The Court also addresses and resolves the controversy over the DOE’s insistence that the Abbott districts plan for only seventy-five percent rather than one hundred percent of anticipated preschool enrollment. The Court makes clear that districts may increase their planning estimates if warranted, and that in any event the districts are required to accommodate every child eligi*127ble for admission to preschool. The record suggests that some districts, perhaps out of a sense that their role in providing preschool had been diminished because of the DOE’s insistence on collaboration with local child care providers, did not actively solicit preschool enrollment for the 1999-2000 school year. The Court’s opinion makes clear that the districts ultimately have responsibility for all preschool programs, including those run in child care centers; in addition, the Court imposes on the districts the duty to conduct all necessary outreach efforts to enroll all eligible children in preschool, with supplemental funding from the DOE if required. Ante at 118-19, 748 A.2d at 95.
The Court also concludes that the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), not a Standing Master, shall continue to resolve disputes arising out of disagreements between the districts, the schools and the DOE in the implementation of the Abbott V reforms. I join that disposition at this stage of implementation, in the hope that the DOE’s resolution of program and funding requests after the Court’s disposition of this Motion will not continue to result in the epidemic of appeals now pending before the OAL. Appeals from the denial of program and funding requests were filed by or on behalf of seventeen of the thirty Abbott districts. The education reforms ordered by this Court were meant to be evaluated in the classroom, not in a courtroom. If the process continues to be plagued by a multiplicity of appeals, a Standing Master designated by this Court may in my view be necessary to assure speedy and uniform resolution of disputes consistent with Abbott V. In the meantime, I trust that the OAL will deal expeditiously and effectively with both new and pending appeals in time for final dispositions to be reflected in the classroom during the next school year.
II
The collateral issue implicated but not expressly raised by the motion pending before the Court is whether the approach and procedures that led to the deficiencies in the DOE’s implementa*128tion of mandatory preschool are likely to affect adversely the overall implementation of Whole School Reform and other programs mandated by Abbott V. That question is one of critical importance and warrants comment even in the absence of a more specific record.
The effectuation of the Abbott V requirements involves both a large scale and long-term cooperative effort between the DOE, the Abbott districts and the Abbott schools, much more in the nature of a marathon than a sprint. Good will, flexible rather than rigid procedures, reasonable expectations, and trust among the collaborating entities will be essential. Moreover, vigorous leadership on the part of the Commissioner and sustained support and encouragement from the DOE will be critical if the reforms are to succeed. Of paramount and overriding importance is a comprehensive long-term perspective: the Abbott V reforms are not isolated initiatives, but instead are an inter-dependent and cohesive effort toward permanent urban school educational improvements.
The mandate for preschool and full-day kindergarten is intended to provide the public schools with earlier access to urban children in order to better prepare them to benefit from the focus on reading and language skills that underlies the Commissioner’s recommendation of whole school reform for elementary schools. As the Court observed in Abbott V: “Empirical evidence strongly supports the essentiality of pre-school education for children in impoverished urban school districts. That evidence demonstrates that the earlier education begins, the greater the likelihood that students will develop language skills and the discipline necessary to succeed in school.” 153 N.J. at 503-04, 710 A.2d 450.
The high-quality specific preschool and kindergarten programs ordered by the Court are part of an overall effort. The educational quality of preschool and full-day kindergarten have a direct impact on the potential for success of whole school reform. Conversely, the effectiveness of whole school reform, and specifically the effectiveness of Success for All (SFA), the presumptive model *129of elementary whole school reform, ultimately will determine whether the investment of money and staff in mandatory preschool and full-day kindergarten will yield significant and measurable results. In that context, I must express some preliminary concerns about the reported implementation of whole school reform, an issue not before us but one that unavoidably affects the results of the preschool course correction the Court mandates in its opinion.
The Commissioner’s recommended version of whole-school reform for elementary schools is Success for All, “a nationally-proven program that addresses the reading deficits of low-income, at-risk public school children.” Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 494, 710 A.2d 450. See also Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips, The Black-White Test Score Gap, 343, 346 (1998) (“Success for All is the only well-documented widely replicated program to improve elementary school instruction that uses comparison groups and covers large numbers of black children across several states and cities. ... Success for All shows that it is possible to produce sustained improvement in students’ achievement test scores when schools and communities make the commitment to do so.”); James Traub, Schools Are Not The Answer, N.Y. Times Magazine, Jan. 16, 2000 at 56 (“The most popular [sehoolwide reform] model among inner-city schools, and the most successful, is a reading program called Success for All, which has expanded into a whole-school reform known as Roots and Wings. The premise of Success for All is that reading is the key to success in school, and-that the best way to teach reading ... is to focus relentlessly on ‘prevention and early intervention’ rather than on remediation”).
Based on its demonstrated record of success, this Court adopted the recommendations of the Commissioner and of Judge King, who presided at the remand hearing, that the Abbott districts be required “to adopt some version of a proven, effective whole school design with SFA — Roots and Wings as the presumptive elementary school model.” Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 501, 710 A.2d 450. We acknowledged the Commissioner’s recommendation that “a *130school could adopt one of the other four [approved] models ... if it could show convincingly that the alternative model it chose would be equally effective and efficient as SFA or that the model was already in place and operating effectively.” Id. at 494, 710 A.2d 450 (emphasis added). Clearly, the Court contemplated that the vast majority of the Abbott schools would select and implement Success for All. We observed in Abbott V:
The Center for Social Organization of Schools, the SFA sponsor organization, estimates that it could implement SFA in fifty Abbott schools in the 1998-1999 school year, in 100 Abbott schools in the following year-, and in the remaining Abbott elementary schools in the third year. It takes three years to implement SFA fully in any given school. Thus, under the Commissioner’s recommendations, SFA could be fully operative in all Abbott elementary schools within five years.
[153 N.J. at 496, 710 A.2d 450.]
See also id. at 501-02, 710 A.2d 450 (directing Commissioner to implement an evaluation program “to verify that SFA is being implemented successfully and is resulting in the anticipated level of improvement in the Abbott elementary schools ”) (emphasis added).
Because of the critical importance this Court attached to the recommendation and designation of SFA as the presumptive whole school reform model for Abbott elementary schools, I find most alarming the recently reported data indicating that of the seventy-two schools in the first cohort of schools to implement whole school reform in 1998, only twenty-seven schools selected SFA and, of those, fourteen schools had implemented SFA prior to Abbott V. See Erlichson, Goertz and Turnbull, Implementing Whole School Reform in New Jersey: Year One in the First Cohort Schools 7 (October 1999) (Erlichson). Early reports indicate that only twenty-three schools in the second cohort selected SFA. That unexpectedly low rate of selection of SFA should influence the DOE more aggressively to encourage selection of SFA and to reconsider its passive regulatory standard. N.J.A.C. 6:19A-4.1(a) provides that “[t]he presumptive model shall be Success for All — Roots and Wings (SFA/R & W). Permission to use other models may be granted by the Department where the choice of such models is justified.” (Emphasis added).
*131The Erlichson report stated that the model selection process was characterized by “limited information, a lack of significant teacher involvement, and a timeframe that precluded true deliberation.” Erlichson, supra, at 11-13. It also indicated that the DOE did not participate significantly in the process by which the individual schools selected whole school reform models. In that context, it bears repeating that the Constitution imposes on the State the obligation to provide a thorough and efficient education for all children. N.J. Const. Art. VIII, § 4, ¶ 1.
The prospect that a relatively small percentage of Abbott schools, rather than the vast majority as anticipated by the Court, is selecting SFA as the whole school reform model is disconcerting and inauspicious. Little or no evidence about the success rate of the other models was presented to the remand court by the Commissioner. The Court clearly anticipated that the Commissioner would sharply restrict the ability of schools to select other models absent a strong showing of good cause.
Other significant and troublesome observations in the Erlichson report include a finding that although the DOE awarded $50,000 whole school reform implementation grants to each of the first cohort elementary schools that filed grant applications by August 1998, to be used for training, materials and payment of costs to the model sponsors, none of the schools had received the grant money as of June 1999. Erlichson, supra, at XII. Moreover, the report states that “the school-based budgeting process in the Cohort I schools was an ill-informed, somewhat chaotic, and very frustrating experience,” noting that “schools were left to devise budgets without guidance from the State, districts or developers.” I note that the findings in the Erlichson report were among the subjects considered at a public hearing in December 1999 conducted by the Abbott Subcommittee on the Public Schools, focusing on “Evaluation of the first yeár implementation of Whole School Reform.”
As noted, this Court’s basic assumption concerning whole school reform was that, with few exceptions, SFA would be the model *132implemented in the Abbott elementary schools. The SFA program is rigorous and demanding, and contemplates advance approval by eighty percent of the teachers and staff. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that such approval could readily be obtained if this Court’s findings and SFA’s record of achievement were communicated effectively by the DOE and by administrators in the schools and districts. The Court also was assured by the Commissioner and the DOE that the schools would receive necessary funding and other resources to enable them to bear the burden of whole school reform implementation. As we noted in Abbott V:
The Commissioner voiced the State’s strong commitment to implementing whole-school reform. The DOE will facilitate the implementation process by providing resources to help review budgets, coordinating necessary support, and assisting in the transition from centralized to site-based management. If a district or school is hesitant in its implementation of whole-school reform, the DOE will exercise its “essential and affirmative responsibility” to ensure the necessary changes.
[153 N.J. at 496, 710 A.2d 450.]
Based on the available information, I am deeply concerned that the DOE’s implementation of whole school reform also may be off course. I urge the Commissioner to re-examine the Department’s implementation strategy for whole school reform in the context of this Court’s opinion and assumptions in Abbott V. What this Court clearly contemplated — that SFA would be the whole school reform model used in the vast majority of Abbott schools — simply has not occurred.
Only two years have elapsed since Abbott V was decided. As evidenced by the Court’s disposition of this Motion, significant adjustments in approach and in implementation of the Abbott V reforms periodically may be required in the interest of the children whose education and future prospects are at stake. In an undertaking of this complexity, missteps are virtually certain to occur. However, those missteps and the resulting course corrections will be long forgotten if, over time, the reform efforts now under way succeed. But the clock is ticking, and for each school year in which implementation is delayed or flawed, thousands of urban children will lose the full benefit promised by the Abbott *133initiatives. The time for bold, corrective and decisive action by the DOE is now.
For granting in part; denying in part — Chief Justice PORITZ, and Justices O’HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN and LONG — 6.
Opposed^-None.