L.M., on behalf of minor children, J.M. and J.M. v. Board of Education of the Township of Allamuchy, Warren County, 6/18/19, (#151-19)

151-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.M., on behalf of minor children, J.M. and J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Allamuchy, Warren County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
This case involves a dispute over summer homework in reading and mathematics, assigned to all students
in the Allamuchy School District for completion during the summer of 2018. Petitioner, the mother of
minor children J.M. and J.M., challenged the respondent Board’s Homework Policy 2330, and sought to
remove summer homework grades from her older child’s overall average. Petitioner contended that she
sent several notifications to the school district stating that her children would not be participating in
summer homework, and asserted that her children should not be “punished” for a parental decision that
she made. The Board filed a motion for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute in this case, and the
matter is ripe for summary decision; petitioner sought to have certain zeros removed from her older
child’s average, asserting that the Board does not have a written policy addressing summer homework and
that the Board lacks authority to require students to complete any assignments outside of the 180-day
school year; the Board interprets its homework policy to support its practice/policy of assigning grade-
appropriate math and reading over the summer; 	the Board’s policy is entitled to a presumption of
correctness, and should not be disturbed unless the policy or its implementation, with respect to
petitioner’s children, is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; and the Board has a long-standing practice
of assigning summer homework which is intended to reinforce the school learning experience and help
students prepare for the coming school year. The ALJ concluded that the Board did not exceed the scope
of its authority, nor has it violated any of its policies or any law, by supporting the assignment of summer
homework; such practice/policy is not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; and the grades of zero that
were given to J.M. when he failed to complete summer homework assignments did not reflect any
arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable action taken by the Board. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the
Board’s motion for summary decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion. 	Accordingly, 	the
Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this case.
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.
June 18, 2019

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 17944-18
Agency Dkt. No. 271-11/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.M., on behalf of minor children, J.M. and J.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Allamuchy, Warren County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon such review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) that the Board’s practice of assigning summer homework is not arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, or contrary to law. The Commissioner further concurs that the Board did not act in an
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner by implementing grading consequences for the failure
to complete summer homework assignments.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter – for the reasons thoroughly expressed therein – and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 18, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	June 19, 2019
1 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
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 271-11/18
L.M. ON BEHALF OF J.M. AND J.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF ALLAMUCHY,
WARREN COUNTY,
Respondent.
L.M., petitioner, pro se
Caitlin W. Lundquist, Esq., for respondent (Busch Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 1, 2019 	Decided: May 15, 2019
BEFORE SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or around November 14, 2018, L.M., parent of minor children J.M. and J.M.,
(petitioner) filed a Petition of Appeal with the Commissioner of Education seeking to
remove certain grades from her minor child’s average, and challenging the Allamuchy

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
2
Board 	of 	Education’s 	(Board 	or 	respondent) 	Homework 	Policy. 	The 	Bureau 	of
Controversies and Disputes transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law
as a contested case on December 5, 2018.
The Board filed a motion for summary decision, which was opposed by petitioner.
After final submission on the motion was received, the record closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Based on the submissions presented, including a Joint Stipulation of Facts, I rely
on the following FINDINGS of FACT in deciding this motion:
L.M. is the mother of two students who attend the Allamuchy Township Schools.
During the 2017–2018 school year, J.M. was a sixth-grade student and J.M.’s younger
sibling, J.M., was a third-grade student. They are currently in seventh and fourth grade,
respectively.
Towards the end of the 2017–2018 academic year, students in the Allamuchy
School 	District, 	including 	rising 	seventh-graders 	and 	rising 	fourth-graders, 	were
assigned summer homework in the areas of reading and mathematics to be completed
during the summer of 2018.
Petitioner’s rising fourth-grade student, J.M., did not complete any of the summer
homework assignments during the summer of 2018, and no academic consequences
were imposed as a result of his non-completion of these assignments.
For students in the District who were rising seventh-graders during the summer
of 2018, the summer reading homework consisted of an assignment to read two books
and to complete a writing assignment for each book. 	The students were permitted to
read two books of their choice, provided that the books were of an age-appropriate
reading level and had not been made into a movie.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
3
Rising seventh-grade students, including J.M., were required to complete a
writing assignment relating to one book during the summer of 2018. 	This writing
assignment was due on the first day of school in September 2018 and was graded, with
the grade factoring into each student’s overall first marking period grade as a homework
assignment. 	With respect to the second book, students were required to complete an
in-school writing assignment on the first day of school in September 2018. 	This in-
school writing assignment was graded, with the grade factoring into each student’s
overall first-marking-period grade as a homework assignment. 	Petitioner’s seventh-
grade child, J.M., completed the in-school writing assignment and received a grade of
100 percent. J.M. did not complete the writing assignment that was due on the first day
of school in September 2018.
The 	summer 	mathematics 	homework 	for 	rising 	third- 	through 	eighth-grade
students in the District consisted of a math practice assignment to be completed using
an online computer program. 	Students were required to complete the math practice
assignment to minimal mastery for their grade level, as indicated by a “SmartScore” of
70, for several types of math skills. 	J.M., petitioner’s rising seventh-grader, did not
complete the summer mathematics homework.
On June 21, 2018, petitioner sent an e-mail to Allamuchy superintendent of
schools, Mr. Flynn, advising that her children “will not be participating in summer
homework.” This was the third e-mail petitioner had sent regarding the issue of summer
homework that month.
As a consequence of J.M. not completing one of the two writing assignments
over the summer and the mathematics summer homework, J.M. received a grade of
“zero” for one homework-assignment grade in his seventh-grade literature class for the
first marking period of the 2018–2019 school year, and a “zero” for one homework-
assignment grade in his seventh-grade mathematics class for the marking period.
On October 17, 2018, petitioner sent an e-mail to a member of the Allamuchy
Board of Education with a “Formal complaint,” requesting a closed-session meeting
before the Board at the suggestion of the executive county superintendent (ECS). 	In

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
4
her e-mail, petitioner indicates that she had contacted the ECS concerning the “ongoing
issue” regarding petitioner’s decision to not have her children participate in summer
work, “as it is summer and it is [her] decision to make, not the Board’s.” 	This issue,
petitioner asserts, had now affected her “honor roll son who received zeros for the
summer assignments, which has now brought his average down to Bs.” 	In her e-mail,
petitioner also suggests that her children are being “punished” for something she
decided to do, and which she believes is “well within [her] parental authority to do.”
At all times relevant, Board Policy 2330 titled “Homework” was in effect. 	This
Policy does not expressly reference “summer homework.” The Board has maintained a
long-standing practice of assigning and grading grade-appropriate summer homework.
On October 22, 2018, petitioner and her husband appeared before the Board, in
closed 	executive 	session, 	for 	an 	informal 	hearing 	in 	response 	to 	the 	petitioner’s
complaint 	regarding 	the 	District’s 	handling 	of 	the 	aforementioned 	homework
assignments, and Policy 2330. 	Following the hearing, the Board issued a written
decision and response to petitioner on October 30, 2018, addressing the statements
petitioner had made during the hearing. 	In its letter to petitioner, the Board wrote,
regarding 	Policy 	2330, 	that 	“Homework 	is 	a 	means 	of 	reinforcing 	the 	learning
experience of the school,” and having students perform academic work during the
summer reinforces the prior year’s learning and helps students to prepare for the
upcoming school year. 	Also, while the Policy does not expressly authorize “summer”
homework, it also does not limit when and/or how homework can be assigned. 	The
Board also explained that assigning students homework in the summer is not “punitive,”
but a benefit to student learning, and a student’s failure to complete the work does not
make the assignment punitive. 	Finally, the Board writes that there is no basis for
petitioner’s assertion that the Board has exceeded its authority by continuing its long-
standing practice and policy of having students complete homework over the summer.
The Board is not aware of any limitations imposed by law or policy that would restrict
the Board in its use of work assigned over the summer to support student learning.
Following the receipt of the Board’s written decision, petitioner sent a letter to the
Board expressing her disagreement with the Board’s decision and informing the Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
5
that a complaint had been filed with the New Jersey Department of Education, Bureau
of Controversies and Disputes. In her letter to the Board, petitioner first argues that the
policy referenced by the Board does not apply to summer work and that the Board is
acting beyond its authority in assigning work over the summer. 	Second, petitioner
asserts that respondent acted punitively in giving her son zeros for not completing the
assignments when she, as a parent acting within her right, instructed the child not to
complete the assignments. 	The Board, she asserts, acted contrary to its policy when it
gave her child a “zero” for not completing an assignment that the Board had no right to
assign. 	Third, petitioner again challenges the Board’s authority to “dictate to our
children what they can and can not do when school is not in session,” and asserts that
simply because the District has a long-standing practice and policy of assigning summer
homework, it does not mean that the Board has not exceeded its authority.
Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision
Respondent asserts that the Board is entitled to summary decision because
there are no material facts in dispute and petitioner has failed to show any action by the
Board that should be overturned as arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Local boards of education are vested with broad authority and discretion to
develop and adopt educational policies and practices as they deem appropriate, based
upon the unique needs and characteristics of the students, parents, and members of the
community who are served by the district. 	Unless the decision made by the board of
education clearly violates the law or was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the
board’s discretionary actions are entitled to deference and a presumption of validity.
Here, 	the 	Board 	properly 	determined 	to 	exercise 	its 	educational 	decision-making
authority by adopting a general policy governing the ability to assign homework to
students, which describes the pedagogical rationales for and purposes of homework,
and does not prohibit or limit any teaching staff members from assigning homework in
the areas of reading and mathematics over the summer. 	In compliance with Policy
2330, the Board has determined that assigning homework during the summer months is
appropriate to serve the academic needs of the students in the District, reinforce their

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
6
learning during the summer breaks, and sufficiently prepare them to transition back into
their regular educational programing each September.
There is nothing “punitive” about the Board’s policy and practice with regard to
assigning summer 	homework. 	The 	Board did 	not act 	arbitrarily, 	capriciously, 	or
unreasonably in upholding and adhering to its long-standing policy and practice of
assigning summer homework to its students, and in grading the summer homework
assignments for seventh-grade students.
N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d) provides that boards of education shall “[p]erform all acts
and do all things, consistent with law and the rules of the state board, necessary for the
lawful and proper conduct, equipment and maintenance of the public schools of the
district.” 	When 	a 	local 	board 	acts 	within 	its 	legal 	authority, 	its 	actions 	carry 	a
presumption of validity and will not be disturbed, absent an affirmative showing that its
judgment was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Moreover, academic grading
policies and systems that may be adopted and implemented by a board of education or
the 	school 	district 	are 	merely 	required 	to 	be 	reasonable 	and 	non-discriminatory.
Academic issues relating to students’ grades and how they are determined or calculated
fall well within the board’s educational decision-making authority. 	Here, the Board’s
general 	policy 	concerning 	homework, 	Policy 	2330, 	does 	not 	preclude 	assigning
academic work to students during the summer months, nor does it restrict or limit the
District 	in 	assigning 	any 	type 	of 	homework 	deemed 	necessary, 	reasonable, 	and
appropriate to adhere to the policy’s goals and purposes. 	The Policy itself, as well as
the Board’s interpretation and application of the Policy, is entitled to a presumption of
validity and should not be disturbed since neither the Policy nor its implementation by
the Board with respect to J.M. and J.M. was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Pursuant to New Jersey law, the Board is permitted to determine, as an exercise
of its discretionary authority, that the educational needs of the students in the District
are properly served by assigning summer reading and math homework, and grading
that homework during the first marking period of the school year for seventh-graders.
The Board’s actions in assigning and grading summer homework are based upon
legitimate and reasonable educational-policy rationales and the academic needs of the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
7
District’s students, including: 	(1) the need for reinforcement of the material each
student has learned during the prior school year; (2) the need for adequately preparing
students to transition back into the regular educational program each September,
following the extended summer break; and (3) the differences in academic standards,
demands, and expectations for students entering seventh grade as opposed to those
entering fourth grade.
Petitioner’s Response to the Motion for Summary Decision
Petitioner opposes the motion for summary decision by asserting that there are
material facts in dispute.
Petitioner argues that Policy 2330 does not mention “summer” or “summer
homework,” and therefore does not apply to homework assigned outside the 180-day
academic year. 	Policy 2330 mentions homework as it relates to a “marking period” or
“school days,” and therefore only applies to homework given during the school year.
Petitioner asserts that the Board does not have authority over her children outside the
180-day school year, and the Board cannot unilaterally impose its authority when school
is not in session. 	Simply because the Board claims that it has a long-standing practice
of assigning summer work does not mean that it has not exceeded its authority.
Petitioner challenges statements made by superintendent Joseph Flynn in his
certification, and specifically his statements regarding the Board’s policy and practice of
assigning summer work and the different academic demands and standards that apply
to middle-school versus elementary-school students. 	Petitioner argues that there is no
written policy to support what he asserts, including no written policy addressing the
consequences of not completing summer homework by seventh-graders versus fourth-
graders. 	She argues that her seventh-grader received zeros for partially completing
summer homework, while her fourth-grade child suffered no consequence, and this
inconsistency is arbitrary since Flynn’s explanation for treating these students differently
cannot be verified. Petitioner also claims that the Board is acting arbitrarily by not giving
petitioner the option to opt out of summer homework assignments while parents of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
8
children with individualized education program (IEPs) are able to opt out of an extended
school year program.
Finally, 	petitioner 	asserts 	that 	neighboring districts 	do 	not 	have 	mandatory
summer-homework policies, and that the Board has ignored evidence to support that
summer homework does not carry the benefits that it claims. 	According to petitioner,
the Board is choosing to punish J.M. for doing what petitioner instructed him to do, as
she felt it was best for their family.
Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition
In 	response to petitioner’s 	opposition 	to the motion for 	summary decision,
respondent points out that petitioner failed to cite any statute, regulation, or caselaw in
support of her argument that the Board has no authority to require students to complete
graded homework over the summer. 	Also, nothing in the Policy negates the Board’s
right to exercise its discretionary authority to determine that the educational needs of
the District’s students are properly served by assigning summer homework. 	Consistent
with the Policy’s statement that homework is intended to extend learning beyond the
limited hours of school attendance, and support lessons learned in the curriculum, the
Board’s 	stated 	rationales 	for 	its 	practice 	of 	assigning 	summer 	homework 	include
reinforcement of the prior year’s learning and helping students to prepare for the
upcoming school year. 	The Policy states that “homework is a means of reinforcing the
learning experience of the school,” and requires the assessment and evaluation of
homework in order to “underscore the value of homework as an evaluation tool.” 	The
Policy does not limit such assessment and evaluation to homework completed during
non-summer months.
Respondent stresses that a local board of education’s authority is limited by its
obligation to refrain from arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable decision making, and
that petitioner’s efforts to show arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action by the
Board are meritless and should be rejected.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
9
Petitioner’s 	disagreement 	with 	the 	District’s 	approach 	to 	grading 	summer
homework assignments of seventh vis-à-vis fourth-graders does not make it arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable and does not warrant judicial intervention. 	Also, the
absence of any formal or written Board policy or regulation specifying that students may
be subject to different grading consequences for not completing homework does not
constitute arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action by the Board. 	Fourth-graders
and seventh-graders are not similarly situated with respect to their education, and
implementing different academic standards for these students is not inappropriate. With
respect to grading, respondent cites to several cases to support its position that it is the
prerogative of a local board of education, which need not be formally codified in any
written 	policy, 	that 	an 	academic 	grading 	system 	and 	its 	implementation 	is 	the
prerogative of a local board of education. 	The Board is not required by law to enact a
formal 	written 	policy 	describing 	its 	grading 	system 	or 	to 	explicitly 	authorize 	the
assignment of summer homework.
In 	response 	to 	petitioner’s 	claim 	that 	the 	District 	is 	arbitrarily 	picking 	and
choosing who is required to complete summer work because some students with IEPs
are not required to do summer work, respondent explains that the mere fact that an IEP
team may determine that a student will not participate in a summer program that may be
offered, or that a student with an IEP should have modified homework requirements,
does not constitute an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable Board action.
Finally, respondent cites to J.L. & J.E.H. ex rel T.H.L. v. Hopewell Valley, EDU
2658-99, Initial Decision (September 2, 1999), aff’d, Comm’r (October 8, 1999), aff’d,
State Bd. (February 2, 2000), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, to support its
argument that a grade of “zero” for non-compliance of homework is purely an academic
consequence and does not constitute discipline or punitive action.
Petitioner’s Sur-reply
Petitioner 	submitted 	a 	sur-reply 	which 	was 	considered 	over 	the 	Board’s
objection. 	In the sur-reply, petitioner repeats her position that there is no written policy
governing summer homework, and that the Board lacks authority to “mandate what

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
10
children must do when school is not in session.” 	Petitioner states that the Board is
engaging in unreasonable decision-making with its refusal to accept that its authority
does not exist when school is not in session, and its refusal to accept the limitation on
its authority, and that results in arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable decision making.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Summary Decision Standard
As 	the 	moving 	party, 	respondent 	Board 	carries 	the 	burden 	of 	proof 	to
demonstrate, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that summary decision
should be entered in favor of respondent. 	Summary decision may be granted “if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving
party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	To survive a
summary decision motion, the opposing party must show that “there is a genuine issue
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding.” 	Ibid. 	Failure to do so
entitles the moving party to summary judgment/decision. 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 529 (1995).
The pivotal issues in this matter are whether the Board or its agents were
authorized to assign and grade summer homework, and whether the grades given to
J.M. 	when 	he 	did 	not 	complete 	two 	summer 	homework 	assignments 	should 	be
removed.
In petitioner’s opposition to the Board’s motion for summary decision, she argues
that there are material issues of fact in dispute. 	She asserts that these include, for
example, statements allegedly made by the superintendent to petitioner in a June 2018
e-mail concerning homework and summer work, and whether Policy 2330 applies to
summer homework. In carefully considering the issues of fact raised by petitioner, I am
not convinced that any of the factual issues raised are material to the disposition of this
matter 	and 	must 	be 	determined 	at 	an 	evidentiary 	proceeding. 	Based 	on 	my
consideration 	of 	the facts 	as 	presented 	in 	the 	Joint 	Stipulation, 	and 	the parties’

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
11
submissions, I CONCLUDE that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the matter is ripe for summary decision.
Authority of the Board to Require Summer Homework
Petitioner seeks to have certain zeros removed from her minor child’s average
because, she asserts, the Board does not have a written policy addressing summer
homework and the Board lacks the authority to require her children to complete any
assignments outside the 180-day school year.
To support her position, petitioner argues that Policy 2330, on “Homework,” does
not refer to “summer homework,” and therefore does not apply to the assignment of
summer work in the District. Petitioner is correct, and respondent does not dispute, that
Policy 2330 does not expressly refer to “summer homework.” However, it also does not
preclude the assignment of summer work. 	In fact, there is no law in New Jersey that
expressly precludes a board, or its agents, from assigning summer work.
The Board interprets Policy 2330 to support its practice/policy of assigning grade-
appropriate reading and math homework over the summer. 	Policy 2330, as well as the
Board’s interpretation and application of the Policy to include summer homework, is
entitled to a presumption of validity. 	Boards of education have wide policymaking
discretion and their decisions may not be disturbed unless there is an affirmative
showing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Thomas v. Morris
Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of
Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). 	The management prerogative of
boards of education cannot be usurped or assumed by the Commissioner of Education
absent a definitive showing of bad faith or arbitrary actions taken in bad faith without a
rational basis. 	G.M. v. Roselle Park Borough Bd. of Educ., 95 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU) 107,
109 (citing Paddock v. Bd. of Educ. of Demarest, 1974 S.L.D. 435).
Even assuming arguendo that Policy 2330 does not apply to summer homework,
the absence of a written policy explicitly addressing summer homework does not
preclude the Board or its agents from maintaining a practice (or unwritten policy)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
12
supporting the assignment of grade-appropriate summer work. 	This practice/policy
should not be disturbed unless the policy or its implementation with respect to J.M. or
J.M. is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Here, it is undisputed that the Board has
maintained a long-standing practice supporting the assignment of summer homework in
the District. 	The Board asserts that this practice/policy is a means of reinforcing the
learning experience of the school and helps students to prepare for the upcoming
school year. While petitioner may not agree with the Board’s position, there is clearly a
nexus between the assigning of grade-appropriate summer homework and the Board’s
stated purpose for assigning this work. 	While petitioner argues that the Board’s
authority does not extend beyond the school year, there is no legal authority that
restricts its authority in this fashion. 	Rather, boards are restricted generally by their
obligation 	to 	refrain 	from 	actions 	or 	decisions 	that 	are 	arbitrary, 	capricious, 	or
unreasonable.
Petitioner fails to make a viable argument that the Board’s practice or policy
(even if unwritten) supporting the assignment of summer homework is in any way
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Petitioner’s argument that the Board violated its
own policy by assigning summer homework is also entirely without merit. 	Simply
because petitioner does not agree with the assigning of summer homework, and some
neighboring districts may not require summer homework, does not make the Board’s
practice/policy arbitrary or unreasonable.
I 	CONCLUDE, 	therefore, 	that 	neither 	the 	Board 	nor 	its 	agents 	here 	have
exceeded 	the 	scope 	of 	their 	legal 	authority 	by 	adopting 	and 	maintaining 	a
practice/policy of assigning summer homework, nor has the Board violated any of its
policies, or any law, by supporting the assignment of summer homework. 	I also
CONCLUDE that the Board’s general practice/policy supporting the assigning and
grading of summer homework is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
J.M.’s Grades
The Board’s written decision references its expectation that all students complete
their assigned work in a timely manner, and that consequences result if a student fails

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
13
to complete the assigned work. 	There is no evidence, and petitioner does not assert,
that her children were treated any differently from other similarly situated students.
Petitioner’s seventh-grader received zeros for not completing two summer assignments
while her fourth-grader was not graded on his summer homework assignment. 	It is,
however, a valid and reasonable exercise of the Board’s authority to maintain different
grading practices for middle- and elementary-school students. 	It is well settled that
“[t]he grading system is the prerogative of local school boards and need not be formally
codified, although it must be reasonable and nondiscriminating.” M.M. v. Demers, et al.,
92 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU) 525, 526 (citing Dooner v. Bd. of Educ. of Toms River, 1976
S.L.D. 619; Tarlarsky v. Edison Twp. Bd. of Educ., 1977 S.L.D. 862). 	There is nothing
in petitioner’s moving papers or the record in general to suggest that the two zeros
given to petitioner’s older child for failing to complete the summer homework were in
any way “punitive” or discriminatory. 	There is nothing in the record to suggest that the
grades given to J.M. were anything other than a consequence of his failure to complete
the work assigned to the students in his grade.
There is also no requirement that the Board maintain a formal or written policy
addressing how these assignments are graded, and there is no indication that the
grading practices for summer homework here constitute a violation of any rule, policy,
law, or that they are in any way unreasonable or discriminatory.
Petitioner argues that the Board/administration is acting in an arbitrary manner
because it did not give her the option of having her children opt out of summer
homework without any consequences, while the parents of children with IEPs have the
option 	not 	to 	participate 	in 	the 	extended-year 	program 	without 	consequence.
Petitioner’s 	strained 	comparison 	of 	the 	Board’s 	handling 	of 	this 	matter 	with
accommodation provided to students with special needs in the District is entirely
misguided, meritless, and does not support her argument that the Board acted in an
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner.
For the reasons set forth above, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has identified no
basis upon which this tribunal could conclude that the Board acted in an arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable manner with regard to the grading consequences imposed

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 17944-18
14
upon J.M. and/or J.M. 	I also CONCLUDE that the grades of “zero” given to J.M. when
he failed to complete the summer homework assignments did not reflect any arbitrary,
discriminatory, or unreasonable action taken by the Board or its agents.
Even when considering all of the facts presented in the light most favorable to the
petitioner, petitioner cannot demonstrate that the Board’s actions should be reversed as
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	The Board was acting within its legal authority
when it adopted its practice/policy of supporting the assigning and grading of summer
homework, and the Board’s assigning and grading of summer homework is based upon
legitimate and reasonable educational-policy rationales. 	Absent any showing that the
Board’s judgment was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the Board’s action is
presumed to be valid and will not be disturbed. 	Nothing in the petition or petitioner’s
opposition to the motion for summary decision can support overturning the Board’s
action here as arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Therefore, the Board’s action
must stand. 	Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the respondent’s motion for
summary decision should be GRANTED.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the motion for summary decision filed by the respondent, the
Allamuchy Township Board of Education, is GRANTED for the reasons stated herein.
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 17944-18
15
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.
May 15, 2019
DATE 	SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	May 16, 2019
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb