East Greenwich Education Association v. Board of Education of the Township of East Greenwich, Gloucester County, 5/22/19, (#137-19

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
East Greenwich Education Association,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
East Greenwich, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
The petitioner, the East Greenwich Education Association (Association), alleged that the East Greenwich
Board of Education (Board) violated N.J.S.A. 18A:6-119 and N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 when it hired a part-time
(not more than 6 days per month) Interim Coordinator of Special Projects to conduct teacher observations.
The Association contended that the person hired for this position, Terry Van Zoeren (Van Zoeren), is not
eligible to conduct formal observations of the teaching staff members because he is not “employed in the
district in a supervisory role and capacity,” as required in the above statute and regulation. The Board
maintained that Van Zoeren is acting in a supervisory role and capacity because he performs teacher
observations as part of his duties and possesses all of the credentials required to do so. The Board filed a
motion for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that : there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case, and the matter is
ripe for summary decision; the Board hired Van Zoeren as the part-time Interim Coordinator of Special
Projects, commencing in the 2016-2017 school year and continuing to the present; there is no dispute as to
whether Van Zoeren is properly certified; the issue herein is whether Van Zoeren is employed by the Board
in a “supervisory role and capacity”; the Association maintained that Van Zoeren’s job description does not
confer or assign him any supervisory duties and he is only employed on a part-time basis; Van Zoeren should
therefore be prohibited from conducting teacher observations; however, Van Zoeren is in fact acting in the
role and capacity of a supervisor when he performs observations of teaching staff; 	he is not assisting the
Superintendent or the Director of Curriculum, but is rather hired to perform teacher observations, conduct
post-observation meetings with teachers, and prepare the required reports. 	The ALJ concluded that
Van Zoeren is acting in a supervisory role and capacity in his position as Interim Coordinator of Special
Projects. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion for summary decision and dismissed the
Association’s appeal.
Upon comprehensive review, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the OAL for further fact finding to
to determine whether Van Zoeren is serving in a “supervisory role and capacity” that comports with the
definition of “Supervisor” under N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1. In so doing, the Commissioner noted that throughout
the record, the parties and the ALJ have incorrectly cited to N.J.A.C. 6A:9-2.1 for a definition of
“Observation.” The correct citation is N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither
reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
May 22, 2019
137-19

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 14585-18
Agency Dkt. No. 223-8/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
East Greenwich Education Association,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of East
Greenwich, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 by
the petitioner, East Greenwich Education Association (Association), and the East Greenwich
Board of Education’s (Board) reply thereto. 	In this case, the Association claims that the Board
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:6-119 and N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2∗ by hiring Terry Van Zoeren on a part-time
basis to conduct teacher observations under the title of Interim Coordinator of Special Projects.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that there were no material facts in dispute and
granted summary decision in favor of the Board. In so doing, the ALJ determined that the Board
did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:6-119 or N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 because Van Zoeren is acting in a
“supervisory role and capacity” when he performs the duties assigned to his job description.
∗ In the petition and the Initial Decision, this reference to New Jersey Administrative Code was
improperly cited as N.J.A.C. 6A:9-2.1. The proper citation – N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 – will be used herein.

2
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, the Commissioner finds that
additional fact finding is necessary to reach a determination as to whether Van Zoeren is acting
in a “supervisory role and capacity.” 	Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-119, the term “Evaluation” is
defined as:
…a process based on the individual's job description, professional
standards 	and 	Statewide 	evaluation 	criteria 	that 	incorporates
analysis of multiple measures of student progress and multiple data
sources. 	Such evaluation shall include formal observations, as
well 	as 	post 	conferences, 	conducted 	and 	prepared 	by 	an
individual employed in the district in a supervisory role and
capacity 	and 	possessing 	a 	school 	administrator 	certificate,
principal certificate, or supervisor certificate. (emphasis added).
This definition is echoed in the administrative code, as N.J.A.C. 6A:10-1.2 defines “Observation”
as:
…a method of collecting data on the performance of a teaching
staff 	member’s 	assigned 	duties 	and 	responsibilities. 	An
observation for the purpose of evaluation will be included in the
determination of the annual summative evaluation rating and shall
be conducted by an individual employed in the school district
in a supervisory role and capacity and possessing a school
administrator, principal, or supervisor endorsement … (emphasis
added).
Moreover, because “supervisory role” and “supervisory capacity” are not defined in the code, it
is helpful to consider the definition of “Supervisor” found in N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1, i.e.: “any
appropriately certified individual assigned with the responsibility for the direction and guidance
of the work of teaching staff members.”
In this case, it is undisputed that Van Zoeren possesses the requisite certificates to
conduct evaluations; however, it is not clear from the current record if Van Zoeren is, in fact,
acting in a “supervisory role and capacity” while performing the duties of the Interim
Coordinator of Special Projects. 	The job description states that Van Zoeren is responsible for
performing teacher observations, conducting post-observation meetings, and writing reports.

3
Yet, there is no additional information in the record to indicate the nature of the post-observation
meetings, the type of information that is provided in the written reports, or the number of
observations of specific teachers that Van Zoeren performs. 	The record is also silent regarding
whether Van Zoeren provides direction and guidance to the teachers he observes and evaluates.
The extent of Van Zoeren’s role in the district is simply not ascertainable based on the facts
before the Commissioner; thus, a determination as to whether Van Zoeren is acting in a
“supervisory role and capacity” in his position as Interim Coordinator of Special Projects cannot
be made on the current record.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the OAL for the additional fact finding
necessary to determine whether Van Zoeren is acting in a “supervisory role and capacity”
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-119 that also comports with the definition of “supervisor” contained
in N.J.A.C. 6A:32-2.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 22, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	May 24, 2019