In the Matter of the Certificates of Raymond G. Morison, State Board of Examiners, 1/9/25 (#13-26)

13-26
State Board of Examiners Dkt. No. 2122-102
Agency Dkt. No. 1-1/25A
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
In the Matter of the Certificates of Raymond G.
Morison, State Board of Examiners, New Jersey
Department of Education
Order of Revocation by the State Board of Examiners, issued January 16, 2025
For the Respondent-Appellant, Dean R. Wittman, Esq., Zeller & Wieliczko, LLP
For the Petitioner-Respondent State Board of Examiners, Sadia Ahsanuddin,
Deputy Attorney General (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey)
The Commissioner has reviewed the record and papers filed in connection with Raymond
G. Morison’s appeal of the Order of the State Board of Examiners (Board) revoking his Teacher
of Health and Physical Education Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, Teacher of
Health and Physical Education Certificate, and Teacher of Driver Education Certificate.
In this matter, the Board issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) regarding the revocation
of appellant’s certificates following adjudication of tenure charges concerning his unbecoming
conduct toward two former female students. 	Specifically, the arbitrator found that appellant
engaged in unbecoming conduct on two occasions: (1) when he initiated contact with former
student K.P. via Facebook and wrote to her “I want to fuck u,” on April 30, 2016, and (2) when he
initiated an inappropriate online conversation with former student C.H. via Facebook on August
22, 2020, during which he asked what her summer plans were, wrote “I should’ve gotten u

2
earlier,” and later admitted that he had intended to meet up with C.H. at the shore. 	The
arbitrator further found that appellant inappropriately used his professional position as their
former teacher to initiate a personal relationship with K.P. and C.H. which he hoped would
become intimate. The arbitrator also found that appellant had no understanding or empathy
regarding why reaching out to former students is unprofessional and inappropriate and could be
viewed as disturbing.
Appellant filed an answer to the OSC in which he denied that his conduct provided just
cause for suspension or revocation of his certificates. The Board determined that none of the
material facts were in dispute and summary decision was appropriate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.6(h). At appellant’s request, the Board held the matter in abeyance pending the litigation of
related matters in the Superior Court of New Jersey. In July 2024, the Board matter resumed
following issuance of decisions by the Appellate Division and the Supreme Court in Morison v.
Willingboro Board of Education, 478 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 258 N.J. 143
(2024).1 	Via submission of written arguments and testimony before the Board, appellant
maintained that the Board should not act against his certificates since he already served two
suspensions for the communications with K.P. and C.H. He characterized his vulgar message to
1 	There, the Appellate Division held that “[t]he statewide teacher certification revocation process
authorized in N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38 and -39 operates separately from the teacher tenure arbitration process
under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-17.1. 	The manifest legislative intent is for the two statutes to be administered
independently of one another.” Morison, 478 N.J. Super. at 235. The court further held that appellant
“present[ed] no valid constitutional or other legal grounds to enjoin the Board of Examiners’ proceeding
to revoke or suspend his certificate.” Id. at 251. In December 2025, the Supreme Court in an analogous
matter captioned In the Matter of the Certificates of Nicholas Cilento, State Board of Examiners, New
Jersey Department of Education, ___ N.J. ___ (2025), found “no basis to deviate from” the Appellate
Division’s opinion in Morison.

3
K.P. as careless and claimed that his messages to C.H. were misconstrued. He denied that he
acted inappropriately.
On December 6, 2024, the Board found that appellant engaged in conduct unbecoming
of an educator and voted to revoke his certificates, and on January 16, 2025, the Board issued an
Order 	of 	Revocation. 	The 	Board 	explained 	that 	the 	basis 	of 	its 	finding 	was 	“[t]he
inappropriateness of unprovoked and unwarranted messages to former students for whom he
was formerly charged with the care and custody.” Order of Revocation at 7. It concluded that
“[u]sing a previous teacher-student and coach-student player relationship to initiate a new
personal relationship is highly inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in that it crosses the
line from friendly, professional and supportive of former students to extremely poor judgment
and potentially predatory behavior.” Ibid. The Board further found that when appellant “used
his prior relationships with these former students to begin new adult relationships, he took
advantage of his position as a teacher, failed to exhibit the mature self-control required of an
educator, and violated the public trust.” Ibid.
Regarding the appropriate penalty, the Board concluded that appellant’s certificates
should be revoked because his unbecoming conduct showed that he failed “to understand and
appreciate the ethical and professional boundaries of his role as a teacher, mentor and coach”
and reasoned that “[a]n educator’s position of authority that develops during the relationship
between a student and teacher, mentor, and/or coach does not end when the student leaves the
school.” Ibid. “The educator should be able to appreciate that authority and act appropriately
when interacting with former students.” Id. at 7-8. The Board also cited the fact that both former
students felt compelled to report the messages to their former school.

4
On appeal, appellant contends that the Board’s decision to revoke his certificates is
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because he was already punished for his communications
to both K.P. and C.H. via a thirty-day suspension followed by a one-year suspension. He argues
that the Commissioner should refrain from issuing his decision until the Supreme Court decides
Cilento because the collateral estoppel argument made in that case also applies here. 	He
maintains that the Board should be bound by the penalty imposed by the arbitrator in the tenure
proceedings and therefore barred from penalizing him a second time for the same unbecoming
conduct.
Regarding his vulgar message to K.P., appellant maintains that he intended to send it to
his girlfriend and instead sent it to K.P. in error. As for the messages to C.H., appellant denies
that he intended to extend any invitation to spend time with her but simply wanted to inquire
about what was going on in her life. He emphasizes that he has been an effective teacher in
Willingboro since 2004, has coached various sports, and volunteered to referee games. Appellant
asserts that any action against his certificates would be too harsh given the circumstances and is
unsupported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.
Additionally, appellant takes issue with the Board’s reliance upon In the Matter of the
Certificates of Richard Segars, Dkt. No. 0506-243, State Board of Examiners (June 7, 2007) and In
the Matter of the Certificate of Manuel N. Marrero, Dkt. No. 494-01/99-216, State Board of
Examiners (April 6, 2000) to support the premise that the Board has consistently acted against
the certificates of educators who made inappropriate or lewd remarks towards students. 	He
attempts to distinguish those matters on the basis that K.P. and C.H. were adults and not students

5
in 2016 and 2020 when the communications at issue were made. Thus, he claims that the Board’s
revocation of his certificates is unprecedented and should be overturned.
In reviewing appeals from decisions of the State Board of Examiners, the Commissioner
may not substitute his judgment for that of the Board so long as the appellant received due
process and the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The
Commissioner’s role in reviewing appeals is constrained by N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), which specifies
that “the Commissioner shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated
that the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary
to law.”
The Commissioner finds that the Board’s decision to revoke appellant’s certificates is
supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and consistent with precedent given the
serious nature of the underlying unbecoming conduct at issue. “[T]eachers . . . are professional
employees to whom the people have entrusted the care and custody of . . . school children . . . .
This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and controlled behavior rarely requisite to
other types of employment.” In re Sammons, 1972 S.L.D. 302, 321. Teachers “hold positions
demanding public trust, and in such positions they teach, inform, and mold habits and attitudes,
and influence the opinion of their pupils.” In re Tordo, 1974 S.L.D. 97, 98-99.
The Board may revoke or suspend the certification of any certificate holder for
demonstrated inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming a teacher, or other just cause.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4. “Conduct unbecoming” is an “elastic” concept that includes “conduct which
adversely affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to

6
destroy public respect for [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public]
services.” In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960). Accord Bound Brook Bd. of
Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 13 (2017). A finding of unbecoming conduct “may be based merely
upon the violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands
in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct.” Bound Brook Bd. of
Educ., 228 N.J. at 14 (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)). Unfitness
to hold a position in a school system may be demonstrated through just one incident, “if
sufficiently flagrant.” Redcay v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d, 131 N.J.L. 326
(E & A 1944).
The Commissioner finds that appellant has not demonstrated that the Board acted in a
manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law by revoking his certificates. His claim that
the Board should be estopped from acting against his certificates because he was already
disciplined for the unbecoming conduct at issue following the tenure arbitration proceedings was
rejected by the Supreme Court in Cilento on December 9, 2025. There, the Court agreed with the
Appellate Division in Morison that the Board’s certification revocation process is separate and
distinct from the teacher tenure arbitration process and does not trigger a due process violation.
Cilento, ___ N.J. ___ (slip op. at 5-7). 	Thus, the Board is not enjoined from acting against
appellant’s certificates.
Moreover, appellant’s attempt to distinguish Segars and Marrero on the basis that those
revocation matters involved inappropriate or lewd comments directed at current students as
opposed to former students is unpersuasive. 	It is well-established that unbecoming conduct
which takes place outside the classroom may serve as a basis for revocation of a teacher’s

7
certificates. See In re Grossman, 127 N.J. Super. 13, 30-32 (App. Div.) (explaining that “fitness to
teach is not based exclusively on a teacher’s classroom proficiency”), certif. denied, 65 N.J. 292
(1974); N.J. State Bd. of Exam’rs v. Krupp, 3 N.J.A.R. 285, 288 (1981) (“In the determination of
issues affecting the security of tenured teachers in their positions and their holding of teaching
certificates, the private lives of teachers, separate from their school duties, have frequently been
considered legitimate concerns.”). “Being a teacher requires, inter alia, a consistently intense
dedication to civility and respect for people as human beings.” In re Beam, 1973 S.L.D. 157, 163.
Relevant factors to consider when determining whether revocation or suspension of
certificates is warranted “include the nature and gravity of the offense, any evidence as to
provocation, 	extenuation 	or 	aggravation, 	and 	any 	harm 	or 	injurious 	effect 	that 	the
[administrator’s] conduct may have had on the maintenance of discipline and the proper
administration of the school system.” In re Certificates of Maffucci, OAL Dkt. No. EDE 06423-
2021, Initial Decision at 29 (June 29, 2023) (citing In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. Super. 404, 422 (App.
Div. 1967)), adopted, St. Bd. of Exam’rs Dkt. No. 2021-163 (Oct. 27, 2023), affirmed,
Commissioner Decision No. 179-24 (May 6, 2024).
Having 	considered 	the 	above 	factors, 	the 	Commissioner 	finds 	that 	the 	Board’s
recommended penalty of revocation is reasonable given the nature and extent of the
unbecoming conduct at issue. Appellant’s inappropriate communications with K.P. and C.H. were
disrespectful and offensive. His unbecoming conduct evidences a troubling lack of self-control,
violates the public’s trust in educators, and demonstrates that he is ill-suited to be a role model
for students. He continues to deny that he acted inappropriately and lacks insight into why his
actions were completely inappropriate, unprofessional, and disturbing. 	His effectiveness as a

8
teacher and willingness to coach and referee sports do not mitigate the highly concerning
circumstances described herein which warrant revocation of his certificates.
Because the Board’s decision is supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and appellant
has failed to establish that it was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, the Commissioner has
no grounds to disturb it. N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). Accordingly, the decision of the State Board of
Examiners revoking appellant’s certificates is affirmed.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 9, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	January 12, 2026
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

IN THE MATTER OF 	: 	NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE CERTIFICATES OF 	: 	STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS
RAYMOND G. MORISON 	: 	ORDER OF REVOCATION
: 	DOCKET NO: 2122-102
Raymond G. Morison is the holder of a Teacher of Health and Physical Education
Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing, issued July 2001, a Teacher of Health and
Physical Education standard certificate, issued July 2003, and a Teacher of Driver Education
certificate, issued January 2004.
At its meeting of September 17, 2021, the State Board of Examiners (Board) reviewed the
Arbitration decision in In the Matter of the Tenure Charges Against Raymond G. Morison that it
received from the Commissioner of Education regarding Morison.
On or about December 15, 2020, the Willingboro Board of Education (Willingboro)
certified tenure charges against Morison for unbecoming conduct and other just cause for allegedly
engaging 	in 	inappropriate 	communications/conduct 	with 	former 	student(s); 	violation 	of
Willingboro staff conduct and social media policies, and code of ethics; as well as insubordination.
On April 29, 2021, the Arbitrator in the tenure matter, Ruth Moscovitch, found that Willingboro
demonstrated Morison engaged in unbecoming conduct.
Specifically, the Arbitrator found that in April 2016, Morison initiated contact with former
student K.P, who had graduated from Morison’s district in June 2014, that was unprovoked and
unwanted. See Arbitration Decision at pp. 12, 35. Morison had been K.P.’s teacher and softball
coach. Ibid. Morison had messaged K.P. “Hey” and “What u doing” and K.P. responded “I was
sleeping, Lol[.]” 	Ibid. 	Morison then messaged K.P. “I want to fuck u” and “I saw u were
sleeping[.]” K.P. reported the messages to the district. Id. at 13-14.

2
Further, the Arbitrator found that in August 2020, Morison initiated contact with former
student C.H., who had graduated from the district in 2013, that was unprovoked and unwanted.
Id. at 15-16, 35. Morison had been C.H.’s teacher and soccer coach and C.H. had not seen Morison
since she graduated. Ibid. The dialogue between Morison and C.H. was as follows:
Morison: 	How u been
C.H.: 	Hey mr. Morison! I’ve been good! How are you?
Morsion: 	I’m good. Down the shore laying here! Lol.
My parents have a house down here so I spend my summers down here
Morison: 	U have any plans
C.H.: 	Just relaxing I go back to grad school tomorrow.
Morison: 	Where’s that at
C.H. 	[] University
Morison: 	I should’ve gotten u earlier.
Relaxing is always good!!
I’ve bee relaxing on the beach all summer! Lol
[Ibid.]
Based on the testimony provided, the Arbitrator found Morison intended to invite C.H. to
meet up with him at the shore and it was reasonable for C.H. to interpret his messaging as an
overture for that purpose. Id. at 32. Further, Morison did reach out to other former students. Id.
at 33.
The Arbitrator also found that Morison “simply has no understanding of why his conduct
was unwanted, unprofessional and inappropriate.” Id. at 35. She further found that Morison found
“nothing wrong” with reaching out to former students or how that overture could be perceived or
that they could be disturbing. Ibid. He was “insensitive – even oblivious – to how his conduct as
a white man of middle years would be perceived by the young black women he approached, whom
he knew only because he was their teacher.” Ibid.
The Arbitrator found that Morison engaged in unbecoming conduct when he engaged in
inappropriate online conversations with two former students, K.P. and C.H. 	Id. at 38-40.
Additionally, the Arbitrator found that Morison violated Willingboro’s staff conduct and social

3
media policies and the code of ethics. Ibid. As a result of her findings of unbecoming conduct,
the Arbitrator suspended Morison without pay for the 2020-21 school year and restricted his online
activities with current or former students of the district. See Arbitration Decision, pp. 40-41.
Upon review of the above information, the Board voted at its October 28, 2021 meeting to
issue Morison an Order to Show Cause as to why his certificates should not be revoked. The Board
sent Morison the Order to Show Cause by regular and certified mail on November 3, 2021. 	The
Order provided that Morison had 30 days to respond pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(b).
On December 28, 2021, Morison submitted an Answer to the Order to Show Cause. In his
answer, Morison states that the Arbitration Award speaks for itself. (Answer, ¶¶ 2-6). He denies
that his conduct provides just cause for consideration of the suspension or revocation of his
certificates. Id. at ¶ 7. In his separate defenses, Morison argues the Order to Show Cause is barred
by the doctrines of res judicata, equitable estoppel, collateral estoppel, and industrial double
jeopardy, and because a binding arbitration award has already been entered regarding the same
controversy. (First through Fifth Affirmative Defenses).
On January 12, 2022, the Board sent Morison a hearing notice. The notice explained that
there appeared to be no material facts in dispute. 	Thus, Morison was offered an opportunity to
submit written arguments on the issue of whether the conduct addressed in the Order to Show
Cause constituted conduct unbecoming a certificate holder, as well as arguments with regard to
the appropriate sanction in the event that the Board found just cause to take action against his
certificates. It also explained that, upon review of the charges against him and the legal arguments
tendered in his defense, the Board would determine if his offense warranted action against his
certificates. Thereupon, the Board would also determine the appropriate sanction, if any. Morison
was also offered the opportunity to appear before the Board to provide testimony on the sanction

4
issue.
On February 2, 2022, Morison requested that the briefing schedule and hearing be stayed
pending the resolution of a related Superior Court matter, wherein he was appealing the arbitration
award and seeking to enjoin the Board from proceeding with the Order to Show Cause against
him. On February 8, 2022, the Board agreed to hold this matter in abeyance.
On November 18, 2022, Burlington County Superior Court confirmed the Arbitration
Award and refused to enjoin the Board from proceeding with the Order to Show Cause against
him. Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ. and New Jersey Dep’t. of Educ., State Bd. of Exam’rs.,
BUR-L-92-22 (Order, Nov. 18, 2022). On December 19, 2022, the Board notified Morison that
this matter was removed from the abeyance list and set a briefing schedule for the hearing.
On December 29, 2022, Morison again requested an abeyance while he appealed the
Burlington County Superior Court’s decision to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. 	On
January 31, 2023, the Board agreed to hold this matter in abeyance again.
On March 28, 2024, the Superior Court, Appellate Division issued a decision confirming
the arbitration award and the dismissal of the claims against the Board. Morison v. Willingboro
Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div. 2024). 	The court also found that the tenure
arbitrator’s determination of discipline does not prevent the Board and Commissioner from
imposing a more severe sanction of suspending or revoking a licensee’s certificate and thus,
Morison could not enjoin the Board’s Order to Show Cause. Id. at 251.
Thereafter, on April 22, 2024, the Board sent Morison another hearing notice. On April
19, 2024, Morison requested a third abeyance while his petition for certification to the New Jersey
Supreme Court was pending. On April 22, 2024, the Board agreed to hold the matter in abeyance
for the third time.

5
On July 18, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court denied Morison’s petition for
certification, concluding his appeal. Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of Educ., 317 A.3d 941 (2024).
On July 26, 2024, the Board notified Morison that this matter was removed from the abeyance list
and provided him the opportunity to provide a written submission and appear before the Board.
On August 26, 2024, Morison filed a written hearing submission and requested to appear before
the Board.
In his hearing submission, Morison argued that he already served a thirty-day suspension
for communications in 2016 with former student K.P. that were sent in error and that action on his
teaching certificates was not warranted for his “careless act.” (Morison Hearing Submission, pp.
3-4). 	He also argued that the communications in 2020 with former student C.H. were
misinterpreted and do not warrant action against his certificates because he already served a one-
year suspension for the same offense. Id. at 4-6.
Further, Morison argued that his conduct does not warrant action on his certificates due to
his lengthy, effective career, his coaching and volunteer efforts in the district, and that he provides
homebound instruction for students who were out of school due to disciplinary reasons. Id. at 9.
With regard to his actions, he argued that his communication in 2016 was careless and his 2020
words were misconstrued. Ibid. He also pointed out that he has complied with the Arbitrator’s
restrictions on his online activities. 	Id. at 10. 	As a result, Morison argues any suspension or
revocation of his certificates “would simply be too harsh a penalty.” Ibid.
On November 1, 2024, Morison and his attorney, Dean R. Wittman, Esq., appeared before
the Board on this matter. Morison provided testimony on the sanction issue. In his testimony,
Morison spoke of mitigation as to his actions. Specifically, his continuing support for the students
and how he goes above and beyond for them. 	He continued to dispute the testimony from the

6
tenure hearing and deny that he did anything inappropriate.
The threshold issue before the Board in this matter is whether Morison’s conduct
constitutes conduct unbecoming a certificate holder. 	At its meeting of December 6, 2024, the
Board considered the allegations in the Order to Show Cause, as well as Morison’s Answer,
Hearing Response, and testimony. 	The Board determined that no material facts related to
Morison’s offense were in dispute since the facts were determined at the Arbitration hearing in the
tenure matter and the decision in that matter was affirmed on appeal. See Morison v. Willingboro
Bd. of Educ., 478 N.J. Super. 229 (App. Div. 2024), cert. denied Morison v. Willingboro Bd. of
Educ., 317 A.3d 941 (2024). Thus, the Board determined that summary decision was appropriate
in this matter. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.6(h).
The Board finds that Morison engaged in conduct unbecoming of an educator. Pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.4, the Board may take action against a certificate holder on the basis of conduct
unbecoming a teacher. The “elastic” concept of “conduct unbecoming” includes “conduct which
adversely affects the morale or efficiency” of the public entity or “which has a tendency to destroy
public respect for . . . [public] employees and confidence in the operation of [public] services.”
In re Emmons, 63 N.J. Super. 136, 140 (App. Div. 1960); accord Bound Brook Bd. of Educ., 228
N.J. at 13. “Teachers… are professional employees to whom the people have entrusted the care
and custody of … school children. 	This heavy duty requires a degree of self-restraint and
controlled behavior rarely requisite to other types of employment.” 	Tenure of Sammons, 1972
S.L.D. 302, 321.
A “violation of the implicit standard of good behavior which devolves upon one who stands
in the public eye as an upholder of that which is morally and legally correct” may provide the basis
for a finding of unbecoming conduct. Bound Brook Bd. of Educ. v. Ciripompa, 228 N.J. 4, 14

7
(2017) (quoting Karins v. City of Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 555 (1998)). Moreover, unfitness to
hold a position in a school system may be shown by one incident, if sufficiently flagrant. Redcay
v. State Bd. of Educ., 130 N.J.L. 369, 371 (1943), aff’d, 131 N.J.L. 326 (E & A 1944). 	The
inappropriateness of unprovoked and unwarranted messages to former students for whom he was
formerly charged with the care and custody provides the basis for the Board’s finding. Using a
previous teacher-student and coach-student player relationship to initiate a new personal
relationship is highly inappropriate and unprofessional behavior in that it crosses the line from
friendly, professional, and supportive of former students to extremely poor judgment and
potentially predatory behavior. 	When Morison used his prior relationships with these former
students to begin new adult relationships, he took advantage of his position as a teacher, failed to
exhibit the mature self-control required of an educator, and violated the public trust.
Having found that Morison engaged in unbecoming conduct, the Board must now
determine the appropriate penalty to be applied. The Board may revoke or suspend the certification
of any certificate holder if the certificate holder engages in conduct unbecoming a teacher. N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.4. In this instance, the Board concludes that the appropriate response to Morison’s breach
in conduct of an educator is revocation of his certificates. 	Specifically, Morison’s actions in
sending unprovoked and unwarranted messages to at least two former students for whom he was
formerly charged with the care and custody and his failure to understand and appreciate the ethical
and professional boundaries of his role as a teacher, mentor and coach warrants revocation of his
New Jersey certificates. His messages to both students were inappropriate and both of the former
students felt the need to report the messages to their former school. 	An educator’s position of
authority that develops during the relationship between a student and teacher, mentor, and/or coach
does not end when the student leaves the school. The educator should be able to appreciate that

8
authority and act appropriately when interacting with former students.
Accordingly, on December 6, 2024, the Board voted to revoke Raymond Morison’s
Teacher of English standard certificate and Student Personnel Services certificate. 	On this 16th
day of January 2025, the Board voted to adopt its formal written decision, and it is therefore
ORDERED that Morison’s certificates be REVOKED, effective immediately. 	It is further
ORDERED that Morison return his certificates to the Secretary of the State Board of Examiners,
Office of Certification and Induction, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, NJ 08625-0500 within 30 days of
the mailing date of this decision.
Rani Singh, Secretary
State Board of Examiners
Date of Mailing:
By Certified and Regular mail
Appeals may be made to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A.
18A:6-38.4.