The suggestion in Levittown of a possibly justiciable claim became a reality in Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York (86 2 307 [1995][" CFE I"]). Because the case came to us in the procedural posture of a motion to dismiss, all the complaint's averments were deemed true ( see CFE I, 86 NY2d at 318). We did not, however, measure the allegations of gross and glaring inadequacy against the constitutional standard to determine if the complaint stated a cause of action under the Education Article. In fact, we refused to "attempt to definitively specify what the constitutional concept and mandate of a sound basic education entails" ( id. at 317). Instead, we crafted a "template" ("the basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable [children] to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors") for the trial court to utilize to establish the meaning of a "sound basic education" after discovery and trial ( id. at 317-318). Thus was a constitutional standard transformed into the end product of a trial at which experts aired differing views[31] of what is required for minimal educational proficiency and employment success in a competitive urban society. The trial court would be left with policy choices to make, not factual contentions to resolve. The trial court would have to fashion "the constitutional concept and mandate of [what] a sound basic education entails" on the testimony of competing experts ( id. at 317.[32] The risks inherent in this novel approach to constitutional adjudication have now been realized.[33] The trial court modified the “template” to reflect a “dynamic” understanding of the constitutional imperative that must “evolve” with the changing demands of a modern world (187 Misc 2d 1, 16). A sound basic education was expanded to require an “engaged, capable voter” who has the “intellectual tools to evaluate complex issues such as campaign finance reform, tax policy, and global warming” ( id. at 14). Furthermore, the trial court understood our “template” to encompass the opportunity to obtain “productive employment or pursue higher education” ( id. at 14- 15). The template was transmuted from a constitutional minimum into “the aspirational, largely subjective standards expressed by the lower courts and the dissent in Levittown, representing what typically one would desire as the outcome of an entire public education process -- to produce useful, functioning citizens in a modern society” ( CFE I, 86 NY2d at 329 [Levine, J., concurring]).