Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe, Gay Brown, Robert Atwell, Jerry Brown, Leon Mashore, Hope Edwards Perry v. State-Operated School District of the City of Camden, Camden County, 12/17/19, (#340-19)

340-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe, Gay Brown,
Robert Atwell, Jerry Brown, Leon
Mashore, and Hope Edwards-Perry,
Petitioners,
v.
State-Operated School District of the
City of Camden,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioners were tenured vice principals employed by the State-Operated School District of Camden when
their positions were eliminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF) in July 2016; they were subsequently
reassigned as classroom teachers. 	Petitioners appealed their reassignment based on the contention that
their status as tenured vice principals entitled them to the lead educator positions that were created by the
District to replace the vice principal role. 	Respondent asserted that petitioners are not entitled to the
positions by virtue of tenure rights, contending that the positions were not substantially similar.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioners claim in this matter arises from the tenure rights that accrued
to their abolished positions as vice principals; a district-wide reorganization and RIF in 2016 resulted in
the abolishment of all vice principal positions and the creation of new leadership roles, including the
position of lead educator; none of the within petitioners were hired for this new role, but non-tenured staff
were hired as lead educators; the security of tenure and the ensuing rights of teaching staff members
resulting from the abolishment of positions is set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 et seq.; regulations set forth
categories of prior employment to which a tenured employee may assert an entitlement if faced with a
RIF, and case law recognizes that a tenured staff member is entitled to retention over non-tenured staff;
in this case, the lead educator and vice principal roles are substantially similar, both dealing with
instruction that endeavors to improve students’ academic success; and the majority of the witnesses at
hearing testified that there is no difference between the role of the vice principal and the role of the lead
educator, as both are utilized in the same way. As such, the ALJ concluded that petitioners’ tenure rights
extend to the newly-created position of lead educator.
Upon review, the Commissioner agreed with the ALJ’s conclusion that, given the facts in this matter, the
roles of vice principal and lead educator are substantially similar. 	Accordingly, the Commissioner
determined, inter alia, that the petitioners are entitled to appointment as “lead educators” retroactive to
July 1, 2016, with all salary, benefits, and emoluments of that position, subject to mitigation. Further,
the Commissioner directed the Board to review the tenure and seniority rights, if applicable, of
petitioners and all individuals appointed as lead educators in the district as of the beginning of the
2016-17 school year and noted that if a dispute arises following the Board’s review, a new petition
should be filed.
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.
December 17, 2019

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13906-16
Agency Dkt. No. 180-6/16
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe, Gay Brown,
Robert Atwell, Jerry Brown, Leon
Mashore, and Hope Edwards-Perry,
Petitioners,
v.
State-Operated School District of the
City of Camden,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), the exceptions filed by petitioners, respondent, and intervenors, and the replies thereto by
respondent and petitioners, have been reviewed and considered.
This matter involves six tenured vice principals whose positions were abolished,
and now claim tenure entitlement to “lead educator” titles. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
found that the lead educator and vice principal roles are substantially similar, both dealing with
instruction that endeavors to improve students’ academic success. The majority of the witnesses
testified that there is no difference between the role of the vice principal and the role of the lead
educator, as both are utilized in the same way. 	As such, the ALJ concluded that petitioners’
tenure rights extend to the newly-created position of lead educator.
Petitioners filed exceptions to the Initial Decision, arguing that their reassignment
to the lead educator title should be retroactive to July 1, 2016, when the vice principal title was
abolished, and that the award should include a retroactive adjustment in salary.

2
In reply, respondent argued that the ALJ did not address the issue of monetary
relief or whether it should be retroactive to the date when the vice principal positions were
abolished. 	Respondent further asserts that, even if affirmed, the Initial Decision provides
insufficient information as to a potential remedy because the district has several types of lead
educator positions, including positions that are district-wide rather than specific to a single
school and positions that require additional qualifications and certifications. 	Furthermore,
respondent contends that there has been no evidence presented as to the application of tenure and
seniority rights of petitioners to any of the specific lead educator titles, and requests that if the
Initial Decision is affirmed, the order be limited and determined after further hearing or
submissions.
Respondent also filed exceptions, arguing that the ALJ neglected to consider the
testimony of respondent’s witnesses or documentary evidence demonstrating that the roles of
vice principal and lead educator are not substantially similar. Respondent maintains that the lead
educator position has a more expansive role in instructional coaching and data analysis while
eliminating the duties related to school climate and building operations, making the two positions
dissimilar. 	According to respondent, the Initial Decision erroneously relied on the generic and
hearsay testimony of petitioners, none of whom have served as lead educators and thus cannot
speak to the similarities and differences of the positions; the only other witness to speak to this
issue was a single principal who interchanged the roles of lead educator and vice principal in her
building despite district directives. Furthermore, respondent contends that tenure accrued as vice
principal does not extend to any other administrative or supervisory position, and the fact that
petitioners hold the appropriate certification for the lead educator position is not dispositive

3
when the actual duties of the jobs are distinguishable, since a mere overlap in duties is not
sufficient to deem them equivalent for tenure purposes.
Exceptions 	were 	also 	filed 	by 	intervenors, 	who 	are 	individuals 	currently
employed in lead educator positions.1 They argue that vice principal is a position enumerated in
the tenure statute and that tenure acquired as a vice principal does not extend to any other
administrative or supervisory position. According to intervenors, because petitioners were never
employed as lead educators, they have no tenure entitlement to that position.
Petitioners replied to the exceptions filed by respondent, substantially reiterating
arguments made in their briefs below. 	Petitioners contend that respondent did not have the
approval of the executive county superintendent to use the unrecognized title of lead educator.
They point to case law holding, generally, that tenure is to be liberally construed and,
specifically, that tenured staff members should be given preference over non-tenured staff
members in unenumerated titles requiring the same certificate. Petitioners further argue that they
are not required to show that the two titles are substantially similar as they would need to in a
seniority case; rather, they are only required to show that the certification of vice principals and
lead educators are the same, and that the functions of both titles “boil down to the fact that each
contains duties that are instructional, that encompass supervising and evaluating staff and that
each are intended to assist the principal in the management of the instructional component of the
school.” (Petitioners’ Reply Exceptions at 8). After recounting the testimony of the witnesses at
length, petitioners note that they all testified from their personal knowledge, not hearsay as
alleged by the respondent in its exceptions. Further, both respondent’s and petitioners’ witnesses
testified that both titles were involved in supervising teachers and the instructional component of
1 Intervenors and respondents also joined in each other’s exceptions. 	Respondent further replied to intervenors’
exceptions by making substantially the same arguments made by intervenors and in respondent’s own exceptions
and briefs below.

4
the school; ultimately, the duties given to the lead educators were duties previously performed by
vice principals.
Initially, the Commissioner notes that “lead educator” is an unrecognized position
title and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9-5.5. 	That regulation
provides that the district must submit to the county superintendent a written request for
permission to use the proposed title, together with a detailed job description, prior to appointing
a candidate. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9-5.5(b)1. 	The county superintendent is then required to approve or
disapprove the use of the title and, if approved, to specify the appropriate certification and
identify the actual title under which the teaching staff member will accrue tenure and seniority
rights. Here, there was a gap in the county superintendent’s approval of the lead educator title
for the 2016-2017 school year and, even in the years before and after the title was approved, the
approval 	lacked 	specifics 	regarding 	the 	appropriate 	certification. 	However, 	the 	ultimate
authority to determine the appropriate certification and title rests with the Commissioner. 	See
Nicholas Duva v. State-operated School District of the City of Jersey City, Hudson County, State Board
Decision No. 56-99, decided March 6, 2002 , and Jack A. Perna v. State-Operated School District of
the City of Paterson, Passaic County, Commissioner’s Decision No. 2-12, decided January 4,
2012. The Commissioner hereby approves the district’s request to use the unrecognized title of
“lead educator,” requiring an administrative certificate with a principal endorsement.2
This matter presents the question of whether tenure accrued through service in
one of the positions specifically enumerated in the tenure statute can extend to an unenumerated
position. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5(c) provides that tenure in any of the administrative or supervisory
positions enumerated in the statute – principal, other than administrative principal, assistant
2 The county superintendent shall continue to review annually the use of the lead educator title and determine
whether it will be continued for the next school year, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.5(c).

5
principal, vice principal, and assistant superintendent – shall accrue only by employment in that
position. Here, petitioners are not seeking to transfer their tenure from the enumerated position
of vice principal to any other enumerated position, but rather to the unenumerated position of
lead educator. For this reason, respondent’s and intervenors’ reliance on Nelson v. Bd. of Educ.
of the Twp. of Old Bridge, Middlesex County, 148 N.J. 358 (Mar. 1997) is misplaced. 	Nelson
involved an individual seeking to transfer tenure accrued in an unenumerated position to an
enumerated one. The Supreme Court, consistent with the then-recently amended tenure statute,
held that enumerated positions are separately tenurable and require service in that specific
position in order for tenure to accrue.3 	The Court’s decision did not address the reverse
situation, such as that presented by petitioners herein, although it did note that tenure rights
decisions have recognized the distinction between separately-tenurable enumerated positions
and unenumerated ones. Id. at 365.
The tenure statute further states, “Tenure so accrued shall not extend to any other
administrative or supervisory position. . .”. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5(c). Respondent and intervenors
suggest that this language precludes petitioners from transferring their tenure from vice principal
to any other position of an administrative or supervisory nature, such as lead educator. 	This
language is located in a subsection of the statute that specifically addresses the accrual of tenure
in enumerated positions, enacted to rectify case law holding that tenure could be transferred into
3 Similarly, respondent and intervenors rely on Taylor v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Hardyston, Sussex County,
Commissioner Decision 36-98 (Jan. 30, 1998) for the proposition that employment in a position with broad duties
does not confer tenure rights in a position with some of the same, but narrower, duties. In Taylor, a principal
whose position had been eliminated claimed that he was entitled to a position as vice principal because he had
performed all of the duties of that position. His claim was rejected, but the basis for the decision was that both the
principal and vice principal positions were separately enumerated in the tenure statute. Accordingly, the analysis
does not apply to petitioners’ circumstances.

6
an enumerated position in which an individual had not served.4 Accordingly, the Commissioner
concludes that this language applies only to prevent the assertion of tenure in an enumerated
position in which an individual had not served for the requisite period of time. 	This portion of
the statute does not override the long-standing principle that a district may not abolish a title –
even an unenumerated one – and rename it in order to circumvent tenure rights. 	Viemeister v.
Board of Ed. of the Borough of Prospect Park, 5 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1949).
Because petitioners are seeking to transfer their tenure to an unenumerated
position, the analysis is governed by Duva, supra. The starting point for determining the scope
of tenure protection is the certification that was required to serve in the employee’s former
position. 	Id. at 11. 	Here, an administrative certificate with a principal endorsement was
required to serve as vice principal, N.J.A.C. 9B-12.3(b), which is also required for the lead
educator position.
Next, the Commissioner must examine the duties and responsibilities of both
positions. 	As the ALJ indicated in a thorough summary of the testimony, three individuals
currently employed by the district as principals, who currently supervise lead educators and
have served as or supervised vice principals in the past, testified that there is no difference
between the duties performed in the two roles. 	An individual who had served as both a vice
principal and a lead educator testified that the core duties she performed as a vice principal were
the same as the core duties she performed as a lead educator. 	The petitioners also testified to
their job duties when they served as vice principals, which the ALJ found are substantially
similar to the job duties required of lead educators. For respondent, one principal testified that
4 In a statement to the amendment, the Legislature found and declared that “due to the interpretation of N.J.S.A.
18A:28-5 by the Appellate Division in the case of Nelson v. Board of Education of the Township of Old Bridge, a
clarification of that statute is necessary in order to continue the traditional practice of providing that tenure is
acquired in one of the specifically enumerated positions only if the individual has served for the requisite period of
time in that position.” L. 1996, c. 58, § 1.

7
her vice principal focused on school culture, behavior and discipline, lunch duty, and building
operations, 	while 	the 	lead 	educator 	focused 	on 	coaching, 	instruction, 	and 	professional
development. 	However, she also testified that her vice principal sometimes evaluated and
observed staff members and provide recommendations on improvements. One individual, who
was formerly a vice principal and is now a lead educator, testified that although the lead
educator 	position 	deals 	more 	with 	instructional 	duties, 	his 	job 	responsibilities 	and
his instructional role as vice principal were similar to those of lead educator. 	Even the
district’s chief support officer at the time of the reorganization – who was involved in the
decision-making process surrounding these positions, and who testified most specifically as to
the differences between the positions – acknowledged that vice principals had an instructional
role prior to the reorganization.5
Having heard the abundance of testimony, the ALJ determined that the roles of
vice principal and lead educator are substantially similar, and the Commissioner accepts that
conclusion. Petitioners are entitled to appointment as “lead educators” retroactive to July 1, 2016,
with all salary, benefits, and emoluments of that position, subject to mitigation.6 	While the record
is lacking in evidence regarding the tenure and seniority rights of individuals currently holding the
position of lead educator, that does not preclude the Commissioner from awarding relief to
5 Respondent also presented the testimony of a witness who is currently a lead educator but has never served as or
supervised a vice principal, which the Commissioner does not find persuasive due to her lack of experience with the
vice principal position. 	A second individual who formerly served as vice principal and is now a bilingual lead
educator also testified regarding the differences in job duties. 	However, given that bilingual lead educator is a
distinct job description requiring an additional certification, her testimony is not particularly revealing of the nature
of the general lead educator role.
6 The Commissioner does not find that petitioners are entitled to any of the variations of the lead educator title for
district-wide positions or positions that have additional requirements based on the specialty, such as the Lead
Educator, Special Educator position that requires a Teacher of Students with Disabilities certification.

8
petitioners. 	The Board is directed to review the tenure and, if applicable, seniority rights7 of
petitioners and all individuals appointed as lead educators as of the beginning of the 2016-17 school
year. If a dispute arises following the Board’s review, a new petition shall be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.8
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 17, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	December 18, 2019
7 Tenured staff members are entitled to retention following a RIF over non-tenured staff, regardless of seniority
rights. Capodilupo v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of West Orange, 218 N.J. Super. 510, 514. Accordingly, petitioners
are entitled to lead educator positions over any staff members appointed to those positions who were not tenured as
of July 1, 2016. However, the Commissioner recognizes that seniority rights may be implicated if the number of
tenured staff members entitled to lead educator positions exceeds the number of positions available or as part of the
Board’s determination of which non-tenured staff members may need to be removed from their lead educator
positions in order to appoint petitioners.
8 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
AGENCY DKT. NO. 180-6/16
CYNTHIA ADAMS-BUFFALOE, GAY BROWN,
ROBERT ATWELL, JERRY BROWN, LEON
MASHORE, AND HOPE EDWARDS-PERRY,
Petitioners,
v.
STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF CAMDEN,
Respondent.
Robert M. Schwartz, Esq., for petitioners (Schwartz Law Group, LLC)
Cherie L. Adams, Esq., for respondent (Adams, Guiterrez & Lattiboudere, LLC)
Wayne J. Oppito, Esq., for intervenors Cameron Baynes, Johari Sykes, Jonathan
Taylor and Jason Waugh
BEFORE CARL V. BUCK III, ALJ:
Record Closed: August 28, 2018 	Decided: October 8, 2019

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioners Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe, Gay Brown, Robert Atwell, Jerry Brown, Leon
Mashore, and Hope Edwards-Perry were tenured vice principals (VPs) employed by the
State-Operated School District of the City of Camden (District or respondent). 	Their
positions were eliminated as part of a reduction in force and district-wide reorganization
in July 2016, and they were subsequently reassigned as classroom teachers. 	They
appeal their reassignment on the grounds that based upon their status as tenured VPs
they were entitled to the lead educator (LE) positions then created by the District to
replace the VP role. Respondent asserts that petitioners are not entitled to the positions
by virtue of tenure rights.
This litigation began as a result of the District’s decision to abolish the VP positions
effective July 1, 2016. On or about June 27, 2016, petitioners filed a Petition of Appeal
on behalf of six individuals claiming a violation of tenure rights, that the District acted in
bad faith by abolishing the VP positions, and that the District failed to comply with State
regulations relative to obtaining approval to utilize unrecognized titles.
Former counsel for the District filed a Motion in Lieu of an Answer on September
6, 2016. 	Petitioners filed an opposition to this motion on September 23, 2016. 	The
District withdrew its motion on January 19, 2017. 	An Answer to the Petition of Appeal
was filed on February 3, 2017. 	Petitioners filed a Motion for Summary Decision on
August 17, 2017. 	The respondent filed a Motion for Summary Decision on August 24,
2017. 	Petitioners filed an opposition to this motion on September 29, 2017, but did not
oppose any of the facts set forth by the respondent. 	Respondent filed an opposition
brief on October 2, 2017. 	Oral argument for these motions took place on October 13,
2017. 	A conference call took place between the parties and the judge on December 8,
2017, to discuss the status of the pending motions. The hearing commenced, without a
decision on these motions, on December 12, 2017, and was completed on March 1,
2018. 	The parties submitted post-hearing briefs and the record closed on August 28,
2018. Extensions were requested and granted for the filing of this Initial Decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Many of the material facts are not in dispute:
1. 	Petitioner Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe began her employment with the District as a
classroom teacher in 1988.
2. 	Petitioner 	Adams-Buffaloe 	was 	promoted 	to 	the 	VP 	position 	in 	2008 	and
remained in that position until the 2015–2016 school year.
3. 	Petitioner Gay Brown began her employment with the District as a mathematics
teacher in September 1992.
4. 	Petitioner Brown was subsequently promoted to the VP position and remained
there through the 2015–2016 school year.
5. 	Petitioner Robert Atwell began his employment with the District in September
1992.
6. 	Petitioner Atwell was promoted to the title of VP in 2000 and remained in that
position until the 2015–2016 school year.
7. 	Petitioner Jerry Brown began his employment with the District as a classroom
teacher in March 1992.
8. 	Petitioner Brown was subsequently appointed to VP and remained in the role
through the 2015–2016 school year.
9. 	Petitioner Leon Mashore was initially employed by the District as a classroom
teacher in 1992.
10. 	Petitioner Mashore was promoted to the VP role in 1997 and remained in that
position through the 2015–2016 school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
4
11. 	Petitioner Hope Edwards-Perry began her employment with the District as a
classroom teacher in 1988.
12. 	Petitioner Edwards-Perry was subsequently promoted to the VP position and
remained there through the 2015–2016 school year.
13. 	The District first introduced the lead educator position in the 2014–2015 school
year.
14. 	The VP position was abolished after the 2015–2016 school year.
15. 	The VP role was split into three different positions—the LE, the operations
manager, and the dean of climate and culture.
16. 	The operations manager position addresses the daily operations of the building,
manages 	office 	and 	security 	staff, 	and 	handles 	school 	budget, 	ordering 	and
procurement, technology needs, teacher needs, and anything to do with operational
strategy.
17. 	The dean of 	climate and 	culture position deals 	with 	student behavior 	and
discipline, conducts parent conferences with regard to the District behavior policy, and
has the responsibility to ensure that students are in the building and in the classroom
during the school day.
18. 	The primary duties of an LE are instructional coaching, teacher evaluations,
classroom walkthroughs, reviewing lesson plans, and proposing recommendations for
teacher and instructional improvement.
19. 	Both the VP and LE positions require a principal certification.
20. 	All VPs were invited to apply for the LE position.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
5
21. 	All petitioners, with the exception of petitioner Atwell, applied to become LEs.
22. 	No petitioner was chosen for the LE role, and all were reassigned to a classroom
teaching position.
The 	issues 	in 	this 	matter 	arise 	out 	of 	the 	district-wide 	reorganization 	and
reduction in force conducted by the respondent in 2016. That reorganization resulted in
the abolishment of all VP positions and the creation of three separate roles—the
operations manager, the dean of climate and culture, and the LE. 	When none of the
petitioners were hired for the LE role and non-tenured staff were instead hired, this
appeal ensued. 	With many of the underlying facts agreed upon by the parties, the
testimony in this matter focused mainly on the scope of the duties performed by the
LEs, and whether in reality this newly created position was actually the old VP position
disguised under a new name.
Dr. Davida Coe-Brockington
Dr. 	Coe-Brockington 	has 	been 	employed 	with 	the 	Camden 	City 	Board 	of
Education for thirty-one years and is currently a principal at the Creative Arts Morgan
Village Academy. 	She testified that the VPs who worked with her evaluated and
observed teachers, as well as conducted walkthroughs of the classrooms. 	The VPs
also coached, meaning they met with teachers to discuss what was observed, and
provided professional development to teachers. 	In addition, the VPs assisted with
discipline, conducted parent conferences, and assisted in the overall running of the
school. 	The LE who works with her evaluates, observes, coaches, and conducts
professional development of teachers. 	The LE is also involved in discipline and meets
with parents. 	Both the VPs and LEs utilized research-based strategies, such as
student-data collection, to assist with instructional improvements in the school. Dr. Coe-
Brockington testified that she sees no difference between the roles of the VP and the
LE, and, more specifically, she utilizes the LE the same way she did the VP. She stated
that only the senior LEs, who travel to multiple schools and are housed in the central
district office, differ from the VP position, but the LE placed within her specific school
performs the same duties as a VP.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
6
Evelyn Ruiz
Ms. Ruiz has been employed with the Camden City Board of Education for
twenty-five years and is currently the principal of the Harry C. Sharp Family School.
She has an LE assigned to her who helps with teacher evaluations, observations,
classroom walkthroughs, and professional development. 	Ms. Ruiz testified that the LE
also deals with discipline issues and parental complaints and conferences. 	The LE
assists with attendance records, as well as monitoring of the facility and operational
needs of the building. 	Prior to becoming a principal, Ms. Ruiz was a VP. 	In that role,
she evaluated and coached teachers, met with parents, and handled disciplinary issues.
She stated that the role of a VP and the role of an LE are the same. 	Specifically, there
is no distinction between the duties that the LE performs and the duties that VPs
performed.
Herbert Simons
Mr. Simons has been employed with Camden City public schools since 1997 and
at the time of his testimony was the principal of the Riletta Twyne Cream Family School.
He was previously a VP for five years, and a teacher prior to that. 	He testified that the
LEs he worked with observed, evaluated, coached, and held professional development
for 	teachers. 	The 	LEs 	were 	also 	involved 	with 	student 	discipline 	and 	parent
conferences. Mr. Simons stated that there were no differences between the duties LEs
performed and the duties VPs performed. 	The only differences between the two
positions are the title and the job description. 	There was no LE at his school that year,
and he therefore handled all the instructional duties, but an operations manager deals
with 	the 	budget, 	and 	monitoring 	and 	scheduling 	of 	the 	extracurricular 	activities.
Mr. Simons testified that he and the operations manager served as the liaison with the
police and probation and child welfare.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
7
Gay Brown
Ms. Brown has worked in the Camden City School District since 1992. 	She is
currently employed as a teacher, but previously served as a VP in various different
schools from 2009 to 2016. 	She was suspended for the 2014–2015 school year
because the District filed a tenure charge for inefficiency, but she returned to her
position as VP with back pay. 	As a VP, she received her duties from her principal.
These 	duties 	included 	observation 	and 	evaluation 	of 	teachers, 	conducting
walkthroughs, 	coaching 	and 	providing 	feedback 	to 	teachers 	to 	ensure 	academic
improvement for students, overseeing certain departments within a school, supervising
clerks, holding additional practice for high-stakes State assessments, and ensuring that
teachers were adhering to the curriculum. 	Ms. Brown utilized the Charlotte Danielson
framework for teacher evaluations. 	As a VP, she also handled student discipline and
held parent conferences.
Ms. 	Brown 	said 	that 	while 	employed 	as 	a 	VP, 	she 	provided 	professional
development 	regarding 	student-growth 	objectives 	and 	participated 	in 	a 	school
improvement panel. 	She further testified that she attended the same mandatory
professional development programs that LEs attended. 	Although she acknowledged
that a rubric allowed LEs to evaluate VPs, she stated that never occurred at her school
while she was a VP. Ms. Brown had applied for the role of LE but did not obtain the job.
She affirmed that she filed two complaints against the District after the abolishment of
the VP position—one for discrimination and one for retaliation for increment withholding.
Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe
Ms. Adams-Buffaloe has been employed with the Camden City School District for
twenty-nine years. 	She is currently a teacher, but previously held the title of VP for
eight years at Woodrow Wilson High School. 	As VP, she observed teachers who
worked with ninth-grade students, checked lesson plans, conducted walkthroughs,
coached teachers, reviewed student data and discipline data, and met with parents.
More 	specifically, 	she 	ensured 	that 	the 	teachers’ 	instruction 	aligned 	to 	specific

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
8
expectations 	the 	principal 	had 	and 	reviewed 	instruction 	to 	improve 	academic
performance.
During the 2014–2015 school year, Woodrow Wilson High School had two LEs
and two VPs, with each individual being assigned a specific grade level for which they
were responsible. 	Ms. Adams-Buffaloe testified that the LEs at her school dealt with
disciplinary issues for their respective grades, met with parents, and coached teachers.
During 	the 	2015–2016 	school 	year 	she 	was 	the 	only 	VP, 	and 	she 	attended
administrative-team meetings with the LEs and the principal where they discussed
teacher observations, coaching, walkthroughs, and lesson-plan review, and provided
feedback on lesson plans. 	They also discussed disciplinary issues and problematic
teachers. 	Both LEs and VPs had lunch duty, participated in the same professional-
development meetings, and were evaluated using the same rubric components. 	She
was unaware of a pay difference between the LE and VP positions and believed the two
positions to be equal. 	After the VP positions were abolished, she filed an age-
discrimination complaint against the District. 	She had applied and interviewed for the
LE position, but was not chosen, and was assigned to a teaching role.
Jerry Brown
Mr. Brown is currently employed as a teacher with the Camden City public
schools and previously held the position of VP for eight years. 	As a VP, Mr. Brown
provided 	feedback 	to 	teachers 	regarding 	what 	he 	witnessed 	in 	his 	evaluations,
walkthroughs, 	and 	review 	of 	lesson 	plans. 	He 	discussed 	improvements 	in 	the
classroom 	and 	issued 	letters 	to 	teachers 	regarding 	reprimand. 	Furthermore, 	he
conducted professional development and provided a syllabus for this development. Mr.
Brown stated that LEs performed the same duties as VPs. 	Both observed and
evaluated teachers, handled student discipline, and dealt with parental issues. 	Mr.
Brown testified that he has never been evaluated by an LE and only worked side by
side with them. 	He was unaware of a pay difference between the two positions and
believed the roles were equal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
9
Leon Mashore
Mr. Mashore was a VP for the Camden City public schools for twenty years
before being assigned as a sixth-grade math teacher. 	He worked alongside an LE at
Veterans Memorial Family School for the 2015–2016 school year. He testified that as a
VP he was on the same salary guide as LEs and was never evaluated by an LE.
Hope Edwards-Perry
Ms. Edwards-Perry was previously employed as a VP with the Camden Board of
Education for nineteen years. 	She is currently assigned as a math teacher. 	She
testified that when she was a VP she was never evaluated by an LE, and when she
worked alongside an LE they had the same responsibilities. 	She did not know if she
was paid on the same salary guide as the LE.
Robert Atwell
Mr. Atwell was a VP with the Camden City Board of Education for sixteen years
before being assigned as a classroom teacher for the 2016–2017 school year. 	He
testified that he had never been evaluated by an LE when he was a VP. He and the LE
split responsibilities in the school. Mr. Atwell did not know whether he was on the same
salary guide as an LE. He applied for the LE title but did not get the job.
Pia Garbutt
Ms. Garbutt has worked with the Camden City Board of Education since 2015,
first as a teacher, and then as an LE of Camden High School. As an LE, she observed
teachers, provided feedback regarding instruction, held data meetings, and conducted
professional 	development. 	She 	did 	not 	deal 	with 	any 	responsibilities 	related 	to
operations or discipline. 	Ms. Garbutt had a certification of eligibility when she applied
for and accepted the LE position, and received her provisional certification after August
2016.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
10
Tracey Reed-Thompson
Ms. Thompson has been employed in the Camden City School District since
1994, first as a teacher, then a math coach, then a VP, and she is currently the principal
of Yorkship Family School. 	During her time as a VP, she did not conduct professional
development or coach teachers. 	She testified that the VP she worked with focused on
the school culture, behavior and discipline, lunch duty, and building operations, while
the LE focused on coaching and instruction, and provided professional development.
However, Ms. Thompson testified that her VP did sometimes evaluate and observe
specific-content-area 	staff 	members 	and 	would 	provide 	recommendations 	on
improvements.
Charles Jennings Dawson
Mr. Dawson is an LE in the Camden City School District, but was previously
employed as a teacher, school counselor, education program specialist, and VP within
the District. 	As an LE he does not deal with discipline, parent conferences, or
operations within the school, he instead only focuses on evaluations and observations
of teachers. 	During his time as a VP, he was involved in discipline, school climate and
culture, and operations. 	As a VP, Mr. Dawson also shared evaluation and observation
duties with the principal, conducted walkthroughs, and made recommendations for
instructional improvement with teachers. 	He testified that his instructional role as a VP
was similar to his instructional role as an LE because he evaluated, observed, and
coached in both positions. However, his LE position deals much more with instructional
duties than his VP position did.
Anna Schwartz Shurak
Ms. Shurak has been employed with the Camden City School District since 2015
and currently serves as the chief school support officer of high schools. 	She testified
that when she first started working in the District, the VP role was very generalized.
While she stated that some VPs did have instructional duties such as walkthroughs,
evaluations, and coaching, this was not a regular occurrence and only happened at

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
11
some schools where a principal decided to assign these instructional duties. 	If a VP
had an instructional role, their personal evaluations included instruction. 	Ms. Shaurak
further testified that the LE position was necessary to deal with instruction to ensure
better educational outcomes for students. 	She had input on the LE job formation and
job description. 	She acknowledged that the LE role was the only new job that required
certification, whereas the operations manager and dean did not require any certification.
Ms. Shurak stated that only one VP, Charles Dawson, was chosen for an LE role.
Yolanda Babilonia
Ms. Babilonia is a bilingual LE with the Camden City School District. 	Prior to
securing an LE role, she was a fourth-grade bilingual teacher, math coach, and then a
VP from 2011 to 2016. She testified that her duties as a VP included operational duties,
such as breakfast, lunch and dismissal duties, creating schedules, handling student
discipline, and conducting teacher evaluations and observations. 	She testified that she
did not coach as a VP, but she did make recommendations to teachers when she
observed them, and followed up on those recommendations. 	As an LE, she focuses
solely on instruction and she coaches, observes, and evaluates teachers. She does not
handle any scheduling, discipline, or operational duties.
Kristen Reid
Ms. Reid was a VP for the Camden City School District for two years at Camden
High School. She testified that her duties included instructional leadership, evaluations,
observations, feedback, reviewing lesson plans, parent/student conferences, discipline,
and hall duty. 	She also oversaw the guidance, special education, and fine arts
departments. 	She stated that she spent 80 percent of her time on instruction and
observed and evaluated thirty to forty teachers. She further testified that she conducted
walkthroughs, made recommendations to the principal regarding teacher renewals, and
provided professional development on instructional strategies.
Ms. Reid became an LE at Camden High School for the 2015–2016 school year.
Her duties as an LE included evaluations, observations, and attending administrative-

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
12
team meetings. 	She was assigned close to forty teachers to observe. 	She stated that
the core duties she performed as a VP were the same core duties that LEs performed.
She was reassigned to a teaching role for the 2017–2018 school year because her role
as LE was not renewed due to unsatisfactory performance. 	Ms. Reid currently has an
EEOC claim alleging racial and gender discrimination against the District.
Jason Wall
Mr. Wall has been employed with the Camden City School District for four years
and is currently employed as an LE for strategic conditions and operations with the
Camden School District. Prior to holding this position, Mr. Wall was a special education
LE in the District. He testified that as a special education LE he supervised teachers at
eight different buildings, and his duties included evaluating special education teachers
to 	ensure 	that 	these 	teachers 	complied 	with 	students’ 	individualized 	education
programs, assisting with implementation of the curriculum, and coaching teachers with
regard to instruction.
In his current role as an LE for strategic conditions and operations, Mr. Wall
works in five high schools to ensure that the vision and mission of the school is being
met through teacher instruction. 	Specifically, he continues to coach teachers by
conducting walkthroughs, 	meeting with 	teachers 	to discuss 	his 	observations, and
following up with them. 	As an LE, he does not have any managerial duties, such as
lunch or dismissal duties, nor did he ever deal with any disciplinary issues. 	His LE
position requires that he have the Charlotte Danielson Certification. 	When he first
started in an LE role, Mr. Wall met with principals to discuss the evaluations he
conducted, his observations of teachers, and his review of lesson plans. 	In his current
role, he is not supervised nor evaluated by any school principal, rather, he is supervised
through the central District office.
Andrew Travis Bell
Mr. Bell has worked in the Camden City School District since 1998 and currently
holds the chief strategy officer position. He spent two and a half years working as a VP

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
13
and 	four 	years 	working 	as 	a 	principal. 	As 	a 	VP, 	he 	conducted 	some 	teacher
evaluations, but his main role focused on operational and managerial duties, such as
recess duty, lunch duty, dismissal, and discipline. 	In the 2014–2015 school year, he
was put in charge of LEs. 	Mr. Bell testified that, initially, the LE role was based on
evaluations conducted in accordance with the Charlotte Danielson framework. The role
later evolved into responsibility for instructional development in school buildings and
instituting new programs and guidelines to aid student success. 	LEs did not deal with
student discipline nor operations of the building. Mr. Bell testified that although both the
VPs and LEs evaluated students using the Charlotte Danielson framework, the roles
differed 	in 	that 	LEs 	focused 	on 	instructional 	duties 	and 	VPs 	mainly 	focused 	on
managerial duties, with an occasional focus on instruction. 	He specifically stated that
the titles of VP and LE are similar, but the critical aspects of the jobs are much different.
The operations manager role replaced the VP role. However, only the VP and LE roles
required a certification.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
The petitioners assert their entitlement to the LE positions newly created by the
District in its 2016 reorganization. Their claim arises from the tenure rights that accrued
to their abolished positions as VPs. 	The security of tenure and the ensuing rights of
teaching-staff members as a result of abolishment of positions are set forth in N.J.S.A.
18A:28-1 et seq. 	Tenure is a “statutory right imposed upon a teacher’s contractual
employment status.” 	Zimmerman v. Newark Bd. of Educ., 38 N.J. 65, 72 (1962), cert.
denied, 371 U.S. 956 (1963).
A reduction in force (RIF) can challenge the parameters of those tenure rights, as
the resulting dismissals must be made on the basis of seniority as set in statute and
regulations. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:28-10; see N.J.A.C. 6A:32-5.1. 	Seniority provides a way to
rank tenured school-staff members so reductions in that staff can be equitable and in
accordance with sound educational policies. 	Capodilupo v. Bd. of Educ., 218 N.J.
Super. 510, 514 (App. Div. 1987). Regulations set forth categories of prior employment
to 	which 	a 	tenured 	employee 	may 	assert 	an 	entitlement 	if 	faced 	with 	a 	RIF.
Additionally, case law recognizes that a tenured staff member is entitled to retention

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
14
over non-tenured staff, regardless of seniority rights. 	Id. at 514–15. 	To hold otherwise
would defeat the purpose of tenure, which provides a measure of security to educational
staff after a certain number of years of service. Ibid.
Determining which 	positions fall 	within 	the 	scope 	of 	an 	employee’s 	tenure
protection can be complex. 	A teaching-staff member has tenure in either a specifically
designated position as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 or another position for which an
appropriate certificate is required. 	Ellicott v. Frankford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 251 N.J.
Super. 342, 347 (App. Div. 1991). 	There are three types of educational certificates
established by the Department: 	instructional, educational services, and administrative.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.2 et seq. An endorsement on the certificate then specifies a category
in which an individual is allowed to teach or provide a service within a public school.
This matter involves tenure rights accruing to the holder of a principal certificate.
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.3(b), that certificate allows endorsements for assistant
superintendent 	for 	curriculum 	and 	instruction, 	principal, 	assistant 	principal, 	vice
principal, director, and supervisor. 	If an administrative officer position is enumerated in
the tenure statute, such a position has been held to be “separately tenurable.” 	Nelson
v. Old Bridge Bd. of Educ., 148 N.J. 358, 363 (1997). A tenured staff member therefore
may “bump” a less senior or non-tenured principal only by having served in that
position. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5(c) provides that “[f]or purposes of this chapter, tenure in
any of the administrative or supervisory positions enumerated herein shall accrue only
by employment in that administrative or supervisory position. 	Tenure so accrued shall
not extend to any other administrative or supervisory position.”
Each of the petitioners here were tenured VPs and do not assert their entitlement
to any of the separately enumerated positions in N.J.S.A. 18:28-5. 	Instead, they
contend that their tenure protection extends to the newly created, unrecognized LE
positions. 	They argue that their rights are determined by Duva v. State-Operated
School District of Jersey City, EDU 9801-98, State Bd. of Educ. (March 6, 2002),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, 	which 	held 	that 	since 	neither 	“director” 	nor
“supervisor” is among those positions enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18:25-5, a tenured
supervisor 	was 	entitled 	to 	employment 	requiring 	a 	supervisor 	endorsement 	in
preference to any non-tenured individuals. 	See also Sahagian v. N. Bergen Bd. of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
15
Educ., 1989 S.L.D. 2878, 2883–84, which held that a tenured supervisor was entitled to
any other supervisory position in the district over a non-tenured individual.
Building upon the principal enunciated in Duva, petitioners argue that the more
recent decision in Nicholson et al. v. Asbury Park Board of Education, EDU 9228-10,
Initial 	Decision 	(August 	1, 	2013), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(September 	16, 	2013),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, is directly on point with their case. 	In his Final
Decision the Commissioner upheld the decision by an administrative law judge that
tenured supervisors were entitled to the new assistant director position. 	The school
board in Asbury Park abolished the supervisors’ positions and created a new title of
assistant director, but required an additional curriculum-based endorsement for the new
position. 	Each of the petitioners who possessed both endorsements claimed a tenure
right. The Commissioner reinstated the petitioners who were qualified to hold the title of
assistant director, finding that as compared to the non-tenured holders of the title, they
had a superior claim. Duva and its progeny therefore establish petitioners’ right to claim
other non-enumerated positions within the range of their administrative certificate over
non-tenured individuals.
In 	this 	matter, 	the 	LE 	positions 	were 	approved 	by 	the 	executive 	county
superintendent. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.5(b)(1) provides that in order for board of education
to use an unrecognized title, the board must submit a written request to the county
superintendent to use the title proposed, including a detailed job description. 	Here, the
LE title was initially approved for the 2015–2016 school year, but the title was not re-
approved until the 2017–2018 school year, a year and a half after the petitioners had
lost their VP positions. While approval for the position was delayed for a school year, it
is clear that the executive county superintendent did not disapprove the District’s
creation of a new title nor contest the overall reorganization of the Camden City School
District. 	Although petitioners contest the timing of review and ultimate approval, the
record indicates that the superintendent did in fact review the LE job description and
approved the new title.
The gravamen of petitioners’ case is that the District violated their tenure rights
when, in using its statutory authority under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9, it abolished their VP

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
16
positions in which each of them had accrued tenure and failed to assign them to the
newly created, unrecognized LE title. They argue that the role of the LEs is the same or
substantially similar to the role played by VPs with respect to instruction. 	Although the
LE position is narrower than the VP position, in that the LEs do not have all of the
administrative functions previously performed by VPs, the two positions both require the
same certification and same instructional job duties. 	Petitioners argue that the primary
reason for abolishing the VP role and creating the LE role was to remove them from
their administrative assignments altogether. Petitioners acknowledge that the District is
entitled to dismiss staff members under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-10; however, they argue that a
RIF should not be used as an end-run to abrogate their rights of tenure. See Viemeister
v. Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J. Super. 215, 218 (App. Div. 1949) (“The tenure provisions in our
school laws were designed to aid in the establishment of a competent and efficient
school system by affording to principals and teachers a measure of security in the ranks
they hold after years of service.”).
While the District does not dispute that the LE position requires the same
certification 	as 	the 	VP 	position 	did, 	it 	argues 	that 	the 	two 	positions 	are 	not
interchangeable. 	The District points to Dennery v. Passaic County Regional High
School District #1, 131 N.J. 626, 640 (1993), which held that “[a] mere overlap in duties
. . . does not mean that two positions are equivalent for tenure purposes. 	If a newly-
created position is similar to a tenure holder’s abolished position, but also requires
additional duties or different responsibilities, then the newly-created position is not
considered to be substantially similar to the former position.” 	Dennery thus establishes
that even if the duties of the LE and VP positions are similar, the positions are not
necessarily equivalent for tenure purposes because the scopes of the positions may be
different. 	The District alleges that an LE’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the
best instructional practices are being implemented in the classroom, whereas the VP
had a generalized role which focused mainly on managerial and operational duties in
the school building and was limited in terms of moving student progress and instruction
forward.
It is clear from the record that the LE and the VP roles are substantially similar.
Both positions dealt with instruction in an attempt to improve students’ academic

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
17
success. 	All of the petitioners, Andrew Bell, and Dr. Davida Coe-Brockington testified
that both VPs and LEs evaluated and observed teachers, coached teachers, conducted
classroom walkthroughs, and provided professional developmental. 	More importantly,
the majority of these witnesses stated that there is no difference between the role of the
VP and the role of the LE, as both are utilized in the same way. 	Respondent’s reliance
on 	Dennery 	is 	misplaced 	because 	there 	are 	no 	additional 	duties 	or 	different
responsibilities with the LE role. 	Rather, the new role is actually narrower than the VP
role and eliminates the managerial duties that the VPs performed. 	The duties of an LE
are substantially identical to those of a VP, and therefore petitioners’ tenure rights
extend to this newly created position. 	See Dennery, 131 N.J. 626, 639–40 (“When the
duties of the position in which a teaching-staff member has acquired tenure are
substantially identical to those of the position that the person seeks, a local school
board may not sidestep an educator’s tenure rights by simply renaming the position or
tacking on additional meaningless requirements. 	The local board must extend the
teaching-staff member’s tenure rights to the newly-created position.”).
I therefore CONCLUDE that the petitioners were entitled by virtue of their tenure
to the lead educator positions.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
18
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
October 8, 2019
DATE 	CARL V. BUCK III, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
/lam

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
19
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
Davida Coe-Brockington
Evelyn Ruiz
Herbert Simons
Gay Brown
Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe
Jerry Brown
Leon Mashore
Hope Edwards-Perry
Robert Atwell
Kristen Reid
Jason Wall
Andrew Travis Bell
For Respondent:
Pia Garbutt
Tracy Reed Thompson
Charles Dawson
Anna Shurak
Yolanda Babilonia
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 	VP/High School/Middle School/Elementary School Job Description

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
20
P-2 	Vice Principal/Principal Overview
P-3 	Professional Dev. Vice Principal/Lead Educator
P-4 	Principal/Assistant Principal Evaluation Rubric
P-5 	Observation schedule for Gay Brown
P-6 	Email from Shannon James to County Supt seeking approval for unrecognized
title – 2/11/16
P-7 	Approvals given by county supt. 11/5/14; 7/2/15; 6/8/16; 8/25/16;
P-8 	Nonrenewal Notice of Gay Brown
P-9 	Non-renewal Notice of Cynthia Adams Buffaloe
P-10 	Non-renewal notice of Jerry Brown/Hope Edwards Perry/Robert Atwell/Leon
Mashore
P-11 	Lead Educator/Bilingual Employment Application
P-12 	Lead Educator Evaluation Rubric
P-13 	Lead Educator Job Description
P-14 	Lead Educator Evaluation Overview
P-15 	2/16 evaluation of Kristen Reid by Andrea Kerwin
P-16 	2/16 evaluation of J. Brown by Anna Shurak
P-17 	2/16 evaluation of Cynthia Buffaloe by Anna Shurak
P-18 	2/16 evaluation of G. Brown by Anna Shurak
For Respondent:
R-1. 	Letter from Interim County Superintendent of Schools to Superintendent of
Camden City School District regarding approval for unrecognized title 0001-2 November
5, 2014
R-2. 	Letter from Interim County Superintendent of Schools to Superintendent of
Camden City School District regarding approval for unrecognized title 0003-5 July 2,
2015
R-3. 	Email from the District to the county Superintendent applying for annual approval
of the positions 0006-0209 February 11, 2016
R-4. 	Letter 	from 	Interim 	Executive 	County 	Superintendent 	to 	Superintendent 	of
Camden City School District regarding approval for unrecognized title 0210-211 April
27, 2016

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
21
R-5. 	Letter 	from 	Chief 	Talent 	Officer 	to 	Cynthia 	Adams-Buffaloe 	regarding
abolishment 0212-213 April 29, 2016
R-6. 	Letter from Chief Talent Officer to Gay Brown regarding abolishment 0214-215
April 29, 2016
R-7. 	Letter from Chief Talent Officer to Robert Atwell regarding abolishment 0216-217
April 29, 2016
R-8. 	Letter from Chief Talent Officer to Jerry Brown regarding abolishment 0218-219
April 29, 2016
R-9. 	Letter from Chief Talent Officer to Leon Mashore regarding abolishment 0220-
221 April 29, 2016
R-10. Letter from Chief Talent Officer to Hope Edwards-Perry regarding abolishment
0222-0223 April 29, 2016
R-11. Minutes of Division of Talent and Labor Relations reflecting the abolishment of
the VP positions 0224-285 May 10, 2016
R-12. Letter 	from 	Interim 	Executive 	County 	Superintendent 	to 	Superintendent 	of
Camden city School District regarding approved for unrecognized title 0286-287 June 8,
2016
R-13. Interview Notes for Cynthia Adams-Buffaloe 0288-300 July 15, 2016
R-14. Interview Notes for Hope Edwards-Perry 0301-317 July 15, 2016
R-15. Interview Notes for Leon Mashore 0318-329 July 15, 2016
R-16. Interview Notes for Jerry Brown 0330-336
R-17. Letter 	from 	Interim 	Executive 	County 	Superintendent 	to 	Superintendent 	of
Camden city School District regarding approved for unrecognized title 0337-338 August
25, 2016
R-18. Policies 0339-345
R-19. Job Descriptions 0346-376
R-20. Lead Educator Professional Development 0377-379 October 15, 2015
R-21. Lead Educator Professional Development 0380-384 October 22, 2015
R-22. Professional Development Cream School 0385-388 2015-2016
R-23. Professional Development Sharp School 0389-395 2015
R-24. Principal Checklist for Operation Manager “On boarding” 0396-398
R-25. School Leader Professional Learning PowerPoint 0399-406 April 28, 2016
R-26. Operation Manager Training 0407-432 August 15, 2016

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13906-16
22
R-27. Operational Updates – School Leader Institute 0433-440 June 30, 2016
R-28. Operation Manager Training 0441-451 August 16, 2017
R-29. Principal and Vice Principal Policies and Procedure 0452-458
R-30. Lead Educator Evaluation Policies and Procedure 0459-479
R-31. Climate Coordinator performance rubric for Yorkship School 0480-486
R-32. Professional Development PowerPoint for School Climate and Culture Position
0487-510
R-33. Employment Application Manager School Operation 0511-516
R-34. Dean of Culture and Climate Job Description 0517-520
R-35. List reflecting number of administrators in each school 0521-523
R-36. Sign in sheet for School Leader Professional Development 0524-543
August 2017
R-37. Lead Educator Rubric 0544-0564
R-38. Email from the District to the county Superintendent applying for annual approval
of job descriptions 0565-610
R-39. Letter 	from 	Interim 	Executive 	County 	Superintendent 	to 	Superintendent 	of
Camden city School District December 17, 2019
R-40. Submission discussed but not received