levels). This dispute, like its counterparts elsewhere, is destined to last for decades,[40] and, as previously noted, is virtually guaranteed to spawn similar lawsuits throughout the State. Our remedy also signals the demise of local control, a key component to the constitutionalization of New York's public school system. Long before the Education Article's adoption in 1894, New Yorkers were free to require their local schools to provide more than a minimal education. As Levittown instructs, this may be done without offending the Constitution. Nonetheless, by constitutionalizing what we would like our children to learn and making the State solely responsible for ensuring that this standard is met, we have severely undercut local control. We have centralized responsibility for educational competence (not constitutional compliance) in the courts and their anticipated "dialogue" with the Legislature. Conclusion Trial judges and appellate courts are well suited to assess criminal responsibility in accordance with proscribed procedures; to assign liability for breaches of duty; to extrapolate legislative intent; or to interpret commercial agreements. Each dispute is based on fact and law. They are not, however, well suited to make the subtle judgments inherent in education policymaking, or to assess how the State of New York may best allocate its limited resources to meet its citizens' educational and other pressing needs. Of course, the majority sincerely sees itself as interpreting constitutional commands, a proper and solemn judicial function, not as making policy choices and value judgments constitutionally committed to the other branches of government. In my view, however, by this decision, the majority has allowed its deep sympathy for educational excellence to overwhelm its sense of the proper and practical limits of the judicial function. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Appellate Division, and dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. Order modified and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs. Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye. Judges Smith, Ciparick and Rosenblatt concur, Judge Smith in a separate concurring opinion. Judge Read dissents in an opinion. Judge Graffeo took no part. Decided June 26, 2003