| The ELC's
first contention is that the DOE has failed to provide timely and
concrete guidance to both enable
and assure that districts plan and implement Abbott
VI quality-preschool-for-all-children
standards. In Abbott VI , the Supreme Court
directed that uniform standards be established emphasizing articulation
with the whole school reform programs
and the Core Curriculum Content Standards. It emphasized
then that staff assistance, which the DOE now offers and has been
provided post- Abbott VI in
many workshops, seminars, and meetings, is not a substitute for
"substantive standards" issued by the Commissioner. The Court did
not believe that the DOE would be
able to evaluate preschool programs and prevent a two-tiered system
from forming, with one tier consisting
of those programs offering well-planned, high-
quality early childhood education and the other tier consisting of
those programs offering nothing
more than daycare, unless such substantive standards were promulgated.
Abbott
VI, supra , 163 N.J. at
106-07. Indeed, in his concurrence, Justice Stein
termed the need for "prompt adoption.
. . of clear substantive standards"
"incontestable."163 N.J. at
123. The Court noted that at the time of the decision the
DOE had a set of "draft standards" on its website and ordered that
"substantive educational guidance,"
termed an "essential component of DOE's commitment," must
be adopted by April 17, 2000. 163 N.J. at
107. The
Court's concerns regarding the need for substantive standards can
only be understood in light of its
previous comments regarding standards and the adoption of |