Teresa-Anne Lucas v. Board of Education of the Township of Willingboro, Burlington County, 6/16/2022, (#123-22)

123-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Teresa-Anne Lucas,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Willingboro, Burlington County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner, who has been continuously employed by the respondent Board since 1997, asserted that her
tenure rights were violated when the Board failed to place her in the position of Director of Special Services
after her position as Director of Early Childhood was eliminated in June 2020. Instead, the Board appointed
a non-tenured employee to that position and reassigned petitioner to a position as a principal. The parties
filed cross motions for summary decision, which were denied by the ALJ because of factual disputes, and a
hearing was held in October 2021.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioner has earned tenure as a director, and her tenure protection
extends to other director-level positions, notwithstanding the absence of prior service in those positions;
petitioner satisfied all mandatory qualifications for the position of Director of Special Services, as well as an
optional qualification involving experience with special education administration or supervision; petitioner
demonstrated that she had experience in special education, obtained when she served as an administrator
and a principal in respondent’s school district. The ALJ concluded that petitioner’s tenure rights entitled
her to appointment as the Director of Special Services over a non-tenured employee and ordered that she
be placed in the position of Director of Special Services immediately with all salary, benefits and other
emoluments to which she is entitled, retroactive to the date the current Director of Special Services was
appointed.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the findings and conclusion of the ALJ that
petitioner did achieve tenure as a director and that her tenure protection extends to all other positions for
which she is qualified by virtue of her administrator and principal endorsements, even if she has not served
in those positions. Further, the Commissioner concurred that petitioner was qualified for the position of
Director of Special Services at the time her former Director position was eliminated and is entitled to
appointment as Director of Special Services effective July 1, 2020.
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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08601-20
Agency Dkt. No. 169-8/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Teresa-Anne Lucas,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Willingboro, Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), the
exceptions filed by the Board pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto, have
been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner holds an administrative certificate with school administrator, principal, and
supervisor endorsements, and an instructional certificate with a Teacher of Psychology
endorsement. Petitioner’s position as the Director of Early Childhood Education in the Willingboro
school district was eliminated in July 2020, and she was reassigned to a position as a principal. She
filed a petition of appeal, alleging that the Board had violated her tenure rights by failing to assign
her to the position of Director of Special Services and instead appointing a non-tenured employee
to that position. Following cross-motions for summary decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
concluded that petitioner had earned tenure as a director1 and that her tenure protection extended
1 Tenure was earned during petitioner’s prior service in the Director of Special Projects position. Petitioner then
served as assistant superintendent before being appointed to the Director of Early Childhood Education position.
123-22

2
to other director-level positions, notwithstanding the absence of petitioner’s prior service in those
positions. However, the ALJ denied the motions for summary decision because facts were in
dispute, and a hearing was held to develop the record. Thereafter, the ALJ found that petitioner
satisfied all of the mandatory qualifications for the position of Director of Special Services, as well as
the optional qualification concerning experience with special education administration or
supervision. The ALJ rejected the Board’s argument that petitioner was ineligible for the position of
Director of Special Services because she does not possess an adequate knowledge of special
education law and practice, finding that a specific degree of experience and substantive knowledge
was not a job requirement and that the Board had not demonstrated that it was a necessary
prerequisite. The ALJ further noted that petitioner did demonstrate that she had experience in
special education, obtained when she served as an administrator and principal. Accordingly, the ALJ
concluded that petitioner’s tenure rights entitled her to appointment as the Director of Special
Services over a non-tenured employee.
In its exceptions, which reiterate arguments made below, the Board argues that petitioner
does not have the experience in special education that would allow her to successfully perform the
duties of a Director of Special Services, while the individual who is employed in that position does
have experience and has been successful in the position since he was appointed. The Board
contends that the State Board of Education’s decision2 in Nicholas Duva v. State-Operated School
District of the City of Jersey City, Hudson Cty., State Board Decision No. 56-99, decided
March 6, 2002, was incorrectly decided. According to the Board, tenure accrued as a Director of
Special Projects should not extend to any other director position.
2 The Board erroneously attributes the decision to the Commissioner but, as noted herein, the decision was issued
by the State Board of Education, which heard appeals of Commissioner decisions prior to July 7, 2008.

3
In reply, petitioner primarily relies on her arguments below, noting that respondent’s
arguments regarding a subjective preference for any other non-tenured individual are irrelevant to
the tenure analysis mandated by precedent and relied upon by the ALJ to correctly conclude that
petitioner is entitled to the Director of Special Services position.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner achieved tenure as a
director, and her tenure protection extends to all other positions for which she is qualified by virtue
of her administrator and principal endorsements, even if she has not served in those positions.3 It is
well settled that an “educator who has attained tenure by virtue of the requisite service in a specific
position will have tenure with respect to all positions under the particular certificate. Tenure under
any one endorsement entitles an educator to tenure under all endorsements obtained under his or
her certificate. Thus, an educator with tenure in any endorsement that he or she possesses can, in
effect, extend or transfer that tenure to other endorsements that are subsumed under the same
certificate.” Dennery v. Bd. of Educ. of the Passaic Cty. Regional High School District #1, Passaic Cty.,
131 N.J. 626, 634 (1993) (citations omitted).
There are three types of certificates issued by the Department of Education: instructional,
educational services, and administrative. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.3. For instructional and educational
services certificates, case law makes clear that tenure transfers between endorsements under the
same certificate.
Regarding the instructional certificate, “a tenured teacher seeking reinstatement within the
endorsements on his or her certificate is entitled to preference in a [reduction in force (RIF)] as
against a non-tenured applicant with the same certification.” Capodilupo v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp.
3 This conclusion does not apply to any of the positions enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, which require service in
those positions for tenure to accrue, as explained herein. The record does reflect that petitioner earned tenure as
an assistant principal and principal based on her prior service in those positions, but her tenure in those positions
is not at issue in this matter and is irrelevant to the analysis herein.

4
of West Orange, Essex Cty., 218 N.J. Super. 510, 515 (App. Div. 1987). This principle applies even
when the tenured teacher has no experience in the position he or she is seeking, and even when
the non-tenured teacher does have experience in the position. Id. at 513.
Regarding the educational services certificate, in Ellicott v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of
Frankford, Sussex Cty., 251 N.J. Super. 342 (App. Div. 1991), the board of education argued that the
reasoning of Capodilupo should not apply to staff members holding an educational services
certificate because the endorsements under that certificate constituted separate categories of jobs
rather than subject areas, as is the case with instructional certificate endorsements. The Appellate
Division concluded that the tenure laws do not make a distinction between categories of
certification and, therefore, a tenured employee holding an educational services certificate was
entitled to preference in a RIF against a non-tenured employee for a position that required an
educational services certificate. Id. at 350. In so doing, the Appellate Division noted that the State
Board of Education, applying its expertise, grouped the various endorsements of the educational
services certificate together “for sound administrative and educational reasons.” Ibid.
Furthermore, the Appellate Division stated that “any differences among the endorsements, in the
context of tenure rights, become less significant since the teaching staff member asserting a tenure
right under the certification must still qualify for the particular position by securing the pertinent
endorsement.” Ibid. The Appellate Division therefore concluded that an employee who held both
speech-language specialist and learning disabilities teacher-consultant (LDTC) endorsements could
transfer tenure earned while serving as a speech-language specialist to an LDTC position. Ibid.

5
In the context of an administrative certificate,4 there is a statutory limitation on the
transferability of tenure. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, tenure in any of the administrative or
supervisory positions enumerated in the statute – principal, other than administrative principal,
assistant principal, vice-principal, and assistant superintendent – accrues only by employment in
that administrative or supervisory position. Accordingly, an employee cannot transfer tenure rights
to an enumerated position unless he or she has served in that enumerated position, even if the
employee has the appropriate endorsement for the position. Nelson v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of
Old Bridge, Middlesex County, 148 N.J. 358 (Mar. 1997) (holding that an employee who achieved
tenure as a supervisor and also possessed a principal endorsement had no claim to a principal
position following a RIF because he had never served as a principal).
However, with regard to unenumerated positions, the State Board of Education (State
Board) has extended the reasoning of the Appellate Division in Capodilupo and Ellicott to allow
tenure to transfer between unenumerated positions requiring an administrative certificate. In
Duva, supra, the petitioner’s position of Director of Planning/Evaluations/Grants was abolished and
he was not reemployed in another supervisory position that was held by a non-tenured individual.
The State Board found that neither “director” nor “supervisor” was a position enumerated in
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-55 and that “[g]iven the plain language of the statute and the applicable precedent,
there is no basis to hold that these assignments constitute ‘separately tenurable positions.’” Id. at
11. The State Board concluded:
4 The endorsements that are issued under the administrative certificate are school administrator, principal,
supervisor, and school business administrator. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.3.
5 The State Board noted that although director and supervisor were added to the list of expressly enumerated
positions when N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 was amended to clarify that enumerated positions are separately tenurable, they
were deleted prior to the final passage of the bill. Id. at 11, n.3.

6
[P]etitioner’s tenure protection extended to all assignments under his
Administrative Certificate for which he held the appropriate endorsement,
except for those positions specifically enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5. . .
Hence, upon abolishment of his director’s assignment, the petitioner was
entitled to be employed in assignments requiring a supervisor endorsement in
preference to any non-tenured individuals.
Duva, supra, at 17-18.
While the Board characterizes the Duva decision as a “creative statutory interpretation” and
asserts its disagreement with its holding, the Commissioner finds no basis to overturn the holding.
First, a plain reading of the statute, as well as its legislative history, demonstrates that the only
limitation on the transferability of tenure is for enumerated positions. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 contains a
clear list of the positions which require actual service before tenure can accrue. “Director” is not
one of the positions, and the Commissioner declines to impose a limitation that is not written into
the statute. Furthermore, the removal of “director” and “supervisor” from the list of separately-
tenurable positions enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 during the course of the bill’s passage strongly
suggests the Legislature’s intent for tenure to be transferable between different director or
supervisor positions.
Second, a long line of cases regarding the tenure laws supports the conclusion that tenure
may transfer between unenumerated administrative positions. The Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 et
seq., “should be liberally construed to achieve its beneficent ends.” Spiewak v. Board of Education
of Rutherford, 90 N.J. 63, 74 (1982). In Dennery, supra, the Court stated, “Endorsements under a
single certificate represent a related combination of qualifications, reflecting the common or
related skills that are required for the satisfactory performance of educational responsibilities under
that certificate.” 131 N.J. at 637. This principle applies equally to the endorsements issued under
the administrative certificate as to those issued under the instructional and educational services
certificates. Furthermore, as the Appellate Division noted in Ellicott, supra, the tenure laws do not

7
make a distinction among the categories of certification. 251 N.J. Super. at 350. Accordingly, the
Commissioner concludes that there is no basis to allow tenure to transfer under the instructional
and educational services certificates, but not to unenumerated positions under the administrative
certificate.
Finally, the Commissioner finds that the authorizations conferred by the school
administrator and principal endorsements are not limited by subject area. Pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-12.3, an individual holding a school administrator or principal endorsement6 is authorized to
provide educational leadership by directing the formulation and implementation of goals, plans,
policies, and budgets. They have authority regarding personnel actions, evaluations, operations,
and programs. These functions are largely administrative in nature, rather than being based in a
particular subject area. By obtaining one of these endorsements, an individual demonstrates that
she is qualified to perform all of the administrative functions for which that endorsement is
required.7 Accordingly, there is no basis to limit petitioner’s ability to transfer her tenure as a
director to other unenumerated positions for which she has earned the appropriate endorsement.
The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ that petitioner was qualified for the position
of Director of Special Services. The Commissioner has previously held that “a supervisor
endorsement is generic and authorizes the holder to supervise any subject matter and any grade
level.” Galbraith v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lenape Regional High School District, Burlington Cty., 1996
6 The primary distinction between these endorsements is the level of responsibility that is authorized. The school
administrator endorsement authorizes activities at the district level, while the principal endorsement authorizes
activities at the level of a school or a unit within a school or district.
7 The endorsements themselves establish the parameters of the employee’s qualifications. As the Appellate
Division noted in Ellicott, “the teaching staff member asserting a tenure right under the certification must still
qualify for the particular position by securing the pertinent endorsement.” 251 N.J. Super. at 350. For example,
petitioner does not possess a business administrator endorsement, and therefore is not qualified to fill any
position requiring a business administrator endorsement.

8
N.J. Agen. LEXIS 91, at*54. Furthermore, while a board of education may establish additional
instructional certification requirements for a supervisory position, “absent a showing that an
instructional certificate is necessary to perform the duties of the position at issue, such
requirements cannot sidestep the educator’s tenure rights.” Id. at *54-55. See also Annecchino v.
Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Irvington, Essex Cty., Commissioner Decision No. 267-14, decided June
24, 2014 (holding that a tenured supervisor had a greater right to a supervisory position than non-
tenured supervisors, even though the non-tenured supervisors had knowledge and experience in
the subjects they were supervising, while the tenured supervisor did not).8 Here, the Board did not
require the Director of Special Services to hold an endorsement as a Teacher of Students with
Disabilities or any other instructional endorsement, nor does the Commissioner find such a
requirement necessary for the position. Instead, the Board only indicated that experience in the
area of special education administration or supervision was “preferred.” Therefore, as petitioner is
in possession of both a school administrator endorsement and a principal endorsement, either of
which fulfills the endorsement requirement for the position, the Commissioner concludes that she
is qualified for it.9 When petitioner’s position as Director of Early Childhood Education was
abolished, she was entitled to be employed as Director of Special Services over non-tenured
employees.
8 Both Galbraith and Annecchino involved tenured supervisors, rather than directors. However, as neither
“supervisor" nor “director” is enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, the Commissioner finds that the analyses used in
those decisions are applicable to this matter.
9 Although this conclusion is sufficient to establish petitioner’s right to the position, the Commissioner further
concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has met all of the other qualifications listed in the job description, including
having successful experience in special education administration or supervision. The ALJ thoroughly detailed
petitioner’s testimony regarding her prior experience and found that testimony to be credible. The Commissioner
finds no reason to disturb that finding.

9
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to appointment as Director of Special Services effective
July 1, 2020, with all salary, benefits, and emoluments of that position, subject to mitigation. If any
disputes arise regarding the calculation of back pay or other related issues, including the issue of
membership dues that was raised before the ALJ following the close of the record, a new petition
may be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.10
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
10 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
June 16, 2022
June 16, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 169-8/20
TERESA-ANNE LUCAS,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE,
TOWNSHIP OF WILLINGBORO,
BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________
Maria M. Lepore, Esq., for petitioner
Eric L. Harrison, Esq. for respondent (Methfessel & Werbel, attorneys)
Record Closed: 	February 14, 2022 	Decided: May 4, 2022
BEFORE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Teresa-Anne Lucas, asserts respondent, Board of Education of the
Township of Willingboro, Burlington County (Board), violated her tenure rights when it did
not place her in the position of Director of Special Services after her position as Director
of Early Childhood was eliminated.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed an appeal on August 5, 2020. 	The New Jersey Department of
Education, Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, transmitted the matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on September 10, 2020, as a contested
case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to-15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to-13.
During the first status conference, conducted October 20, 2020, counsel sought
leave to file cross-motions for summary decision after discovery was completed. 	A
briefing schedule established that all moving and reply briefs would be submitted by
February 2, 2021. Two extensions of the brief submission deadlines were requested and
approved, and all briefs were received by March 12, 2021. On April 29, 2021, respondent
was asked to clarify a statement in its reply. 	It responded to this request on May 11,
2021, and the record for the cross-motions thus closed on May 11, 2021.
On May 21, 2021, I issued an Order partially granting petitioner’s motion. 	The
Order provided:
The fundamental issue here is whether petitioner’s tenure
status requires the Board appoint her to another supervisor
position 	to 	which 	a 	non-tenured 	but 	otherwise 	qualified
individual was appointed. The cases cited above established,
and I CONCLUDE, that her tenure protection shall extend to
other supervisor positions, notwithstanding the absence of
prior service in those positions.
The Order was clarified in an August 24, 2021, Letter Order, which provided:
Clarification of this statement was required because, here,
petitioner sought appointment to a director-level position. She
contended that, having obtained tenure in the position of
director within the respondent district, she should have been
reassigned to a director position when her prior director-level
position was eliminated. The Order, in its entirety, addressed
this issue. Thus, during the status conference, it was clarified

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
3
that 	the 	Order 	addressed 	petitioner’s 	tenure 	rights 	with
respect to director-level positions.
The May 21, 2021, Order addressed the issue that remained to be decided:
The parties, however, raised an issue that cannot be resolved
by way of this motion. 	Respondent contends that other
factors, 	such 	as 	petitioner’s 	experience 	with 	special
education, are relevant. While it is unclear whether petitioner
concedes that this analysis is even required, she seems to
acknowledge that it may be relevant. 	In her brief, she noted
that she did not seek appointment to another director position
for 	which 	she 	“does 	not 	claim to 	possess 	the 	required
expertise for purposes of this motion.” Pet. Brf. at 3, f.n. 3.
She also addressed her qualifications at length. Id. at 5. While
petitioner may have intended to merely underscore that she
sought a position for which she was qualified and opted to not
pursue an alternate position for which she was eligible, this
analysis cannot be made by way of a summary decision
motion. 	The record indicates that petitioner previously held
positions that required at least some degree of responsibility
with respect to special education. 	By way of example, her
curriculum vitae represents that, in her current position of
Director 	of 	Early 	Childhood, 	she 	is 	responsible 	for 	the
development, implementation and monitoring of program plan
budgets. J-H. 	It also represents that, in this position, she
monitors, 	supervises 	and 	coordinates 	child 	study 	team
referrals. 	Ibid. 	While Director of Special Projects, she
prepared and administered “centralized state and federal
project budgets[.]” Ibid. However, the parties assert that these
facts are in dispute and a record has not been developed in
this regard. 	Consequently, I CONCLUDE that summary
judgment is inappropriate at this time.
A hearing on this remaining issue was held on October 2, 2021. 	The record
remained open for the submission of briefs after the parties received the hearing
transcript. 	Briefs were initially due on January 31, 2022. 	An extension was granted in
response to petitioner’s request. All briefs were received by February 14, 2022, and the
record closed that day. An extension of time for the issuance of the Initial Decision was
granted on March 28, 2022.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
4
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The parties stipulated to the following. I, therefore, FIND the following as FACT:
1. 	Petitioner has been continuously employed by the Board since September
1997.
2. 	Petitioner held the following positions in the District:
a. 	Teacher of Psychology (September 1997 – August 2002).
b. 	Assistant Principal (August 2002 – December 2004).
c. 	Principal (December 2004 – June 2013).
d. 	Director of Special Projects (June 2013 – December 2016).
e. 	Assistant Superintendent – Chief of Schools (December 2016–June
2018).
f. 	Director Early Childhood Education (July 2018 – June 2020).
g. 	Principal (July 1, 2020 to present).
3. 	Subsequently, petitioner became tenured in the following positions:
a. 	Teacher of Psychology;
b. 	Assistant Principal;
c. 	Principal; and
d. 	Director of Special Projects.
4. 	On or about May 14, 2020, the superintendent notified petitioner that her
position as Director of Early Childhood would be eliminated, effective July
1, 2020, and that she would be reassigned to the position of Principal at the
Early Childhood Center at Garfield East.
5. 	Subsequently, petitioner, through her undersigned counsel, notified the
District, through its counsel, that petitioner contends that she has tenure in
the position of director within the District and, as such, she contends her
tenure rights require that she be placed in the vacant position of Director of
Special Services.
6. 	The District subsequently appointed another individual to the position of
Director of Special Services.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
5
7. 	The individual currently holding the position of Director of Special Services
does not have tenure in any position in the District.
8. 	Petitioner began performing her duties as a Principal on July 1, 2020, as
she was directed by the District.
9. 	Petitioner did not experience a reduction in compensation beginning July
1, 2020.
10. 	Petitioner holds the following standard certificates issued by the New
Jersey Department of Education:
a. 	School Administrator;
b. 	Principal;
c. 	Supervisor; and
d. 	Teacher of Psychology.
The following is undisputed. I, therefore, FIND it as FACT. The job description for
director of special service lists the following qualifications:
1. 	New Jersey School Administrator or Principal Certificate
2. 	Regular or special education teaching experience.
3. 	Master’s Degree; Doctoral Degree preferred.
4. 	Successful 	experience in special 	education administration or supervision
preferred.
5. 	Required criminal history background check, physical proof of U.S. citizenship
or legal resident alien status.
6. 	Shall possess knowledge of budget development and fiscal review.
7. 	Strong interpersonal and communication skills.
[R-10.]
The job description provides that the “function” is “To provide leadership and direction for
the delivery and maintenance of a comprehensive program of special services which

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
6
includes child study team and related services, in-class support services, and medical
and health services.” Ibid.
ADDITIONAL FACTUAL FINDINGS
Testimony
For Petitioner:
Petitioner Theresa-Anne Lucas testified that, as assistant principal, she was
assigned to regular and special education students. She met with child study teams and
case managers on a biweekly basis to be familiar with the students’ needs; evaluate
whether those needs were being met; and ensure that the classrooms were properly
equipped.
She was required to successfully participate in the Principal Residency Program,
a one-year, mentored program that was required for a standard certificate. 	She had a
provisional certificate while she participated in the program. 	The program involved
training and participation in “required experiences.” P-6 at 16. One was “pupil personnel
services,” which referred to special education. Ibid. 	She met with guidance counselors;
worked with child study teams (CSTs); and attended CST meetings. P-6 at 19. 	She
reviewed departmental budgets and identified budget priorities; reviewed extracurricular
activities’ budgets; and identified methods to raise funds to support student activities. P-
6 at 20. She worked closely with the chairs of two departments to develop their budgets
after evaluating their staffing, resources, and other needs. 	She also worked with the
school banker to address the budgets of extracurricular activities and reported to the
comptroller 	who 	monitored 	spending. 	She 	also facilitated, with the Board policy
committee, the rewriting the school discipline policy, also called the code of conduct.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
7
Petitioner also attended a professional development program about the Individuals
With Disabilities Act (IDEA) in New Jersey. P-6 at 19. She monitored changes to special
education law and reviewed them with the Board’s policy committee and director of
special services to identify where policy changes should be made. In line with this, they
examined a new program that, with appropriate supports, would enable more students to
stay in the District. 	Petitioner’s mentor, who signed the Principal Residency Program
Formative Evaluation Form, wrote that petitioner exhibited “no areas of weakness and
[she] is extremely competent in all areas of the principalship.” R-6 at 17. 	All other
individuals who were required to approve her training and qualifications signed the form,
including District-level personnel. P-6 at 20.
As director of special projects, petitioner was responsible for early childhood for
disabled preschool students, who were “part of the special education department.” T1
29:3-4. Her supervisor, Dr. Dale Talbert, reviewed her performance as director of special
projects for the 2014-2015 school year. P-4. Petitioner received “excellent” evaluations
for all skill areas except for “staffing” for which the rating was “at standard.”2 Id. at 2.
Petitioner believed the rating for staffing was appropriate because she was new to the
position and “there were a number of areas that we needed to address . . . and I felt that
I wanted to build the program and grow myself[.]” T 27:22 to 28:1.
Petitioner 	was 	rated 	“excellent” 	in 	the 	“business 	acumen/organizational
knowledge” category. Her responsibilities included:
The development and oversight of the preschool education
grant, the Perkins Grant[,] . . . school-wide plans developed
by each individual school and following through to make sure
that the funding was . . . used by each school in accordance
with the school-wide plan and to make sure that we avoided
supplanting and that the funding for supplemental resources
were used . . . for improving our instruction and instructional
1 T refers to the transcript of the October 2, 2021, hearing. It is followed by the referenced page and line
numbers.
2 The evaluation included a “self-assessment.” P-4 at 2. Because this was the first time this evaluation form
was used, petitioner and Dr. Talbert “worked in the document together and discussed it.” T 27:14-15.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
8
support and programs for our students. Part of that included
working with the director of special services at the time to
make sure that we were creating programs on an equal
playing ground for special education students, that we were
building our instructional programs in terms of whether it’s
technology or a variety of instructional support resources that
they were in line with the regular education programs and to
make 	sure 	that 	the 	teachers 	in 	special 	education 	were
receiving the same resources and the same professional
development . . . at the same level with regular education. It
was looking at the inclusion classes in early childhood for
special education and making sure the inclusion classes were
receiving the same . . . resources and they were balanced with
regular education as well.
[T 29:5 to 30:8.]
She was also responsible for No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which is now called
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). 	She advised parents of their rights under NCLB
and the “supplemental resources and services that could be provided to children.” T
30:22-23. 	She worked with the director of special education in reviewing individualized
education plans (IEPs) for pre-K through third grade students, to “make sure that we had
the resources available within the classrooms.” T 31:5-6.
Petitioner was rated “excellent” for “customer focus,” which was a key element of
the position. 	It required responding to the needs of students, by “understanding where
they are versus what the state requirements are for where they need to be and helping
them to move towards that goal.” T 32:10-13. For parents, it meant “understanding their
perspective and their needs for their children[;] . . . helping them to understand instruction
and programs and the supports[;]” and referring them to appropriate personnel for further
assistance. T 32:13-20. 	Petitioner also served her staff and district administrators to
“build capacity so I can help them grow professionally.” T 32:8-9. With respect to special
education students, her responsibilities included responding to corrective action plans;
working with the director of special education to ensure that students are in the least
restrictive environment; and facilitating mainstreaming of children in regular education
classes where appropriate. 	She met with the child study team “when we had situations

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
9
with early childhood children in regards to their placement and what was actually agreed
upon with the parents for their IEP.” T 35:15-18.
“Strategic insight,” for which petitioner received an “excellent” rating, involved
“think[ing] outside the box.” T 35:24-25. 	This included using alternative methods to
address children’s needs and help them engage in the learning process. 	For example,
use of playground designs that address fine motor skills and help develop social and
emotional skills, which was implemented during the 2017-2018 school year. 	Also,
“sensory rooms” can be used by students who need an opportunity to have “time away
just to transition.” T 36:8-9.
The “vision and purpose” skill category, also rated “excellent,” involved evaluation
of the “overarching goal” for all students and implementation of methods to help them
achieve long term success and “be equipped with . . . 21 st century learning skills.” T 37:21-
22. 	This required that staff and students expand their use of technology. 	In 2013, as
director of special 	projects, petitioner provided all 	classes, special 	education and
otherwise, with iPads and other technologies have also been incorporated, such as
interactive technology that is used by non-verbal special education students. 	The
technology 	provides 	feedback 	to 	the 	students 	and 	provides 	visual 	and 	auditory
stimulation.
With respect to the “values and ethics” skill category, also rated “excellent,”
petitioner discussed her commitment to her school district. 	She chose to work in
Willingboro, her home community, and dedicated her career to the District. 	As an
administrator, she conveyed to her staff her belief that “we should not be treating any
child with any less than we would want for our own. They are our children that the parents
are entrusting to us[.]” T 39:18-21. 	The skill also requires an “understanding that . . .
everyone learns differently.” T 39:25 to 40:1. 	Personnel and students “can have equal
levels of experience, but we’re all in different places at that time, so it’s respecting that,
it’s knowing that I have to go that extra mile to make sure that I’m meeting those needs.”
T 40:2-6. 	In line with this, she had “ongoing professional dialogue(s)” with her staff

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
10
“because it’s not a one woman show and it has to be an inclusive process if we’re going
to be successful, so I value what my staff brings to the table, what each child brings with
them and the parents as well[.]” T 40:6-11.
Petitioner also received an “excellent” rating for the “Action” rating category. She
evaluated programs and worked with the director of special services, principals and
assistant principals, for pre-K through twelfth grade, to learn each programs’ needs. For
example, the District’s English as a Second Language (ESL) program required review in
response to a State audit that found students were enrolled in the program longer than
the desired number of years. 	Recognizing that these students required additional time,
there was an analysis of the way the program would be conducted, such as teacher
training and technology and other tools that would “increase their chances for success.”
T 42:6. 	For special education, she collaborated with the director of special services to
allocate funds based on preschool disabled students’ needs and procure the necessary
resources. 	They also ensured that the special education teaches had the professional
development, tools and support they needed. She also addressed appropriate life skills
services, and other areas of assistance, for students through twenty-one years old who
had cognitive impairment.
The “innovation” skill set, also rated “excellent,” involved creating a learning
environment for the students, including those in special education, which helped them to
interact with their peers and “expand their interest in learning.” T 45:25. This is important
because of the students’ social and emotional challenges. 	Non-traditional settings are
used to facilitate this. With respect to the “staffing” and “developing people” categories,
both rated “excellent,” petitioner was required to know staff members’ individual strengths
and 	challenges 	and 	to 	collaborate 	to 	support 	and 	address 	their 	strengths 	and
weaknesses. 	A 	positive 	work 	culture 	is 	established 	through 	this 	type 	of 	peer
collaboration.
Petitioner was required to oversee the budget to ensure compliance with NCLB
requirements. 	This 	involved 	monthly 	meetings 	with 	the 	deputy 	superintendent,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
11
comptroller and a consultant. 	She received an “excellent” rating with respect to NCLB.
She also reviewed individual school’s budgets to ensure that they were aligned with the
State plan and provided for appropriate support programs. 	In conjunction with the New
Jersey Quality Single Accountability Continuum (NJQSAC), petitioner served as the
auditor of instruction for all regular and special education programs. Among other things,
this involved updating the special education curriculum, incorporation of special education
reading programs and teacher training.
“2014/2015 Performance Highlights” referenced petitioner’s work on budgetary
and fiscal issues. 	It included, “Continued to work with WHS Principal and Assistant
Principal and District Comptroller to identify and develop a budget for 2015-2016
courses[.]” P-4 at 10. 	Also, “Increased effectiveness of spending, communication with
schools and implementation of individual Schoolwide Plans[.]” Ibid.
In May 2015, petitioner received training about the Americans With Disabilities
Amendment Act of 2008 (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Rehabilitation
Act”). P-5. 	The amendment changed how the ADA was applied so that people would
have less difficulty proving that they are disabled. The Rehabilitation Act addressed the
need for accommodations for students with health needs. 	Both laws are relevant to
special education students, whose disabilities and health issues impact their learning.
Petitioner was appointed assistant superintendent in December 2016. 	The
Superintendent of the Easton Regional School District served as her mentor, which was
required for a certificate of eligibility. 	Together, they met with the Superintendent’s
business administrator and superintendents from other districts on a quarterly basis. In
2018, 	petitioner 	successfully 	completed 	training 	sessions 	provided 	by 	the
Superintendent’s Academy, a prerequisite to receipt of her standard certificate. 	The
Academy addressed multiple issue areas including board of education dynamics and
relations, financial resources and business operations, personnel management including
staff 	hiring, 	evaluation 	and 	development, 	improving 	student 	performance 	through

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
12
collaborative labor management partnerships, staff and community relations, “special
populations, equity and excellent” and strategic planning. R-11 at 34.
Her training in “special populations, equity and excellence” was “extensive.” T
85:23. It addressed the ADA, students with 504 plans pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act,
the IDEA and students with IEPs, the CST and its duties, the intervention and referral
services team that supports students and addresses their needs, extraordinary aid
available for special education, communication with and support of parents; and parents’
rights.
As assistant superintendent, petitioner was responsible for the operations of all of
the schools, including principals’ evaluations, supervisors, instruction and programming.
She was involved with “realignment of instructional” time, which referred to identifying and
providing addition services to at-risk children, special education eligible and otherwise,
who needed extra support. 	She was also involved with the professional development
evaluative tool that was used for school counselors and child study team members. She
also worked with the director of special services and program administrator to address
standardized testing accommodations required for students with IEPs and she reviewed
IEPs to determine where needs existed.
Petitioner worked with the ESSA grant administrator and director of special
projects to monitor grant expenditures at each school. 	This required ensuring that the
“expenditures were aligned with the school wide plans . . . that they weren’t supplanting
and that we were expending” funds prior to the deadline. T 77:14-17.
In 	February 	2018, 	petitioner 	was 	evaluated 	in 	her 	capacity 	as 	assistant
superintendent for the 2017-2018, school year. P-7. The same rubric that was used for
her 2015 evaluation was used. Again, the self-evaluation was performed collaboratively
with Dr. Talbert and she received a rating of “excellent” for all categories. Her evaluation
for the 2017-2018 school year summarized her strengths, in part, as:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
13
Knowledge and in-depth understanding of the District, school
administrators and program needs, 	as evidenced by 	(1)
development 	of 	common 	instructional 	schedules 	and
realignment of instructional time to include intervention and
enrichment 	for 	students 	at 	the 	middle 	and 	elementary
schools; (2) Planned professional development for Principals,
Assistant Principals and teachers at all grade levels[.]
[P-7 at 28.]
She received “excellent” ratings with respect to interpersonal and presentational
skills, as evidenced by her “effective conveyance of program, information/data to school
administrators and parents, in addition to the positive rapport with parents, faculty, staff
and colleagues[.]” P-7 at 29. 	She also received “excellent” ratings for “strong research
and communication skills[.]” Ibid.
When the 2017-2018 evaluation was issued, petitioner was working to schedule
budget roundtable discussions with principals, the comptroller and department heads.
The discussions would address each school’s needs and budgets in advance of
presentation of the final proposed budgets to the business administrator.
Petitioner currently she works with special education programs and is responsible
for “meeting those needs and working with individuals in the department of special
services and to make sure that our programs are properly aligned with the student IEPs
and we’re meeting their needs.” T 90:6-11.
Petitioner explained that she meets the requirements listed in the job description
for director of special services. R-10. 	She holds both required certificates: School
Administrator and Principal; taught psychology to regular and special education students;
holds a master's degree and is close to obtaining her doctoral degree.
With respect to the requirement of “successful experience in special education or
supervision preferred,” petitioner “had a significant number of years working with child
study 	teams” 	as 	a 	principal, 	director 	of special 	projects 	“and 	then [as] 	assistant

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
14
superintendent with oversight for operations.” T 88:10-15. Petitioner noted, however, that
the job description did not specify that this experience was mandatory.
Petitioner satisfied the requirement that she “shall possess knowledge of budget
development and fiscal reviews.” R-10 at 31. She has “practical experience in both” areas
from having worked in a variety of District administrative positions and also while
administering grants for the Newark Housing Authority. T 89:4. She highlighted that her
strong interpersonal and communication skills were rated excellent in her evaluations.
She reported to the superintendent and their designee while serving as principal, director
of special projects, assistant superintendent and in her current position.
Petitioner enumerated her experience with respect to each of the position’s specific
job duties:3
1. 	Having served as a principal for pre-K through twelfth grade, she met with the
case manager and members of the child study team a few times each week to
monitor their programs; review resources; and determine whether students’
needs are being met, including supports, related services and medical and
health requirements.
2. 	As 	director 	of 	special 	projects 	and 	assistant 	superintendent, 	petitioner
coordinated 	special 	services 	among 	departments. 	As 	assistant
superintendent, she was “responsible for all operations.” T 92:2.
3. 	Petitioner was a member of the superintendent’s cabinet from 2013 through
2020. 	As assistant superintendent, she was responsible for supervising
principals. 	She was involved with all components of operations including
planning, 	supervision 	and 	budget 	development. 	This 	included 	special
3 The duties are listed on the job description at R-10. They are numbered 1 through 33 and are incorporated
here by reference to R-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
15
education 	as 	auditor 	for 	NJQSAC, 	which 	involved 	reporting 	concerning
curriculum budget shortfalls, including for special services.
4. 	As assistant superintendent, her daily role involved oversight of special
education programs. 	She collaborated with the principals in reviewing the
“effectiveness of teaching and learning what was taking place on a regular
basis and meeting . . . with the program administrator” and the director of
special projects. T 93:18-21. 	As principal, she collaborated with child study
teams “in regards to student programs and needs[.]” T 93:23-24. 	This work
was done with all departments, including student guidance counseling.
5. 	While she did not develop procedures for identification, referral, evaluation,
classification, 	and 	placement 	of 	educationally 	handicapped 	pupils 	in
accordance with state and federal regulations and timelines “in depth,” she
worked with the director of special services on the referral process because too
many students were referred with a “progressive process in place[.]” T 94:12-
16. 	They 	needed to ensure “that schools were trained appropriately for the
intervention and referral service process . . . [and] we weren’t just arbitrarily
referring a student[.]” 	T 94:16-18. 	For preschool students, they established
the 	“preschool 	intervention 	and 	referral 	team” 	and 	incorporated 	monthly
meetings with parents to address needs for additional supports. T 94:24.
6. 	Petitioner organized, staffed, supervised, managed and evaluated clerical and
support functions of the office of special services every year since she became
an administrator.
7. 	As assistant superintendent in charge of operations, she worked with the family
liaison to homebound students. 	She ensured that teachers and necessary
services were provided for home instruction and hospitalized students. 	She
did this for regular and special education students.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
16
8. 	Petitioner developed procedures to maintain, update and safeguard pupil
records every year since she became an administrator.
9. 	Petitioner maintained an inventory of purchased equipment every year since
she became an administrator, particularly as a principal, for all classrooms,
including special education.
10. As a member of the superintendent’s cabinet, she was responsible for working
with the Board policy committee and curriculum and instruction committee. She
would review and present policy and legal change recommendations to the
committees. The recommendations would next be made to the superintendent
and presented to the Board of Education.
11. As assistant superintendent, petitioner monitored the students in special
education with an eye toward retaining them in-district. 	With the director of
special services, she reviewed “the actual needs of the student and have that
dialogue as to whether or not it’s really warranted to send them out of district,
what’s 	best 	suited 	for 	them[.] 	. 	. 	. 	[T]hat 	was 	an 	ongoing 	part 	of 	my
responsibilities.” T 99:17-22.
12. 	She did not have a lot of experience with SEMI, which concerns Medicaid.
13. She monitored special education services and reviewed student progress,
including IEP compliance, while assistant superintendent, as discussed above.
14. 	Recognizing 	that 	special 	education 	personnel 	may 	be 	involved 	with
evaluations, reevaluations and case management meetings, schedules must
be coordinated to ensure teacher coverage.
15. Continuous staff development is and was a regular obligation of petitioner’s
current and past positions. As assistant superintendent, she was involved with
monthly professional development meetings with principals; planned “ongoing
professional development with staff based on staffing needs and student

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
17
needs;” and professional development was incorporated into the monthly
faculty meetings. T 101:16-18.
16. Petitioner has experience selecting special education and special services
staff. At the time of the hearing, she was in the process of interviewing special
education teachers, autism teachers and others. 	While director of early
education, she served on the director of special services’ hiring committee.
17. Petitioner previously discussed her experience with departments’ budgetary
requirements.
18. While petitioner has been involved in the supervision and evaluation process
for special education, she has not “done the formal supervision.” T 103:3. 	It
was a collaborative process when she was a member of the superintendent’s
cabinet.
19. As principal and assistant superintendent, petitioner planned, organized and
presided over meetings with special services staff.
20. Petitioner worked on the procedural handbooks, including the 2017 code of
conduct, while serving in all her positions.
21. As a member of the Board of Education’s curriculum instruction committee, she
reviewed and approved recommendations for improvements to regular and
special education curriculum.
22. She submitted monthly reports on multiple subjects, including but not limited
to grants, NCLB and ESL, to her supervisors and staff. She initiated “monthly
operations meetings for principals with department heads to work with them
and provide reporting[.]” T 107:3-5.
23. Petitioner previously discussed her experience with interviewing prospective
special services staff.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
18
24. Petitioner worked with “child study teams over the years as a principal” to
understand their caseloads. She reviewed this with the program administrator
or director of special services “to understand how we were balancing and
meeting the needs of students and . . . based on work assignments . . . that
were there.” T 107:16-24.
25. Petitioner previously discussed her experience ensuring effective planning and
communication.
26. Petitioner previously discussed her experience supervising and coordinating
ordering and use of materials for the special services area.
27. Petitioner reviews multiple publications for and by educators, such as those
published by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and
New Jersey Association of School Administrators. She is aware of professional
development opportunities.
28. Petitioner previously discussed her experience with budget preparation and
monitoring.
29. Petitioner 	has 	evaluated 	staff 	every 	year 	since 	she 	became 	a 	school
administrator. She has collaborated with the director of special services in this
regard.
30. All administrators are required to ensure implementation of State and federal
regulations, including those requiring free and appropriate education and age
appropriate instruction for early childhood students,
31. As 	director 	of 	special 	projects 	and 	early 	childhood, 	petitioner 	prepared
applications for federal and state aid, including the preschool expansion grant.
She worked on the preschool program plan update, which led to additional
funding, and Perkins Grants for technical education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
19
32. Petitioner 	attends 	professional 	development 	workshops 	required 	by 	the
superintendent, including those addressing social and emotional learning for
children who attended school remotely. She also continues to work toward her
doctorate.
On cross-examination, petitioner was asked several questions concerning the
provision of special education. 	She acknowledged that she has not written an IEP;
however, she “sat in on the IEP process.” T 143:4. When asked how she would evaluate
whether case managers are writing appropriate IEPs, petitioner replied that she would
consult the statute and regulations that govern special education, which are in her office.
As a seasoned school administrator, you can’t possibly know
every code under 6A or 18A[.] . . . [Y]ou know that there has
to be a balance between regular ed and special ed. You know
that there has to be the least restrictive environment. 	You
know that the criteria that has to be set that a child can’t just
be classified at will, we have to go through the process of the
intervention and referral services team and so on, so you
follow all of these components and you know the basic
guidelines that are there, but if I want to be specific to a code
. . . I would open that book, I would look at the code and then
have a conversation with my staff.
. . .
I am proficient as an administrator because I know my job and
I know it well, which also includes all the components[.] [S]o
for the basics of the dos and the don’ts and what should and
should not be done in the best interest of the child and the
duty of care that I have to each child that enters my building,
I know it and I know it well. 	If it’s something outside of that
scope I am not . . . embarrassed to say that, yes, I would flip
open the code to double check. 	Like I know in an autistic
kindergarten class I shouldn’t have more than six children, but
guidelines change all the time, so if I have a child study team
member saying I can add number seven in there with an
additional paraprofessional, I’m going to check in that case
just to make sure nothing has changed and I have other
checks in place that I would do beyond that[.]
[T 157:24 to 159:12.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
20
In response to several substantive questions about special education, petitioner
testified that she would need to research the law and regulations for guidance. 	These
included when scoring would support the classification of specific learning disability; the
“discrepancy model” in the context of learning disability classifications; all criteria for
eligibility for special education and related services; and “Naples placements.” She also
provided substantive responses to questions about specific special education issues. For
example, she discussed the process for manifestation determinations when a child
exhibits behaviors that result in suspension or removal. The child study team and others
must meet “to determine if the child’s behaviors that they are exhibiting is part of the
child’s diagnosis of what’s written in the IEP. 	That will determine how you can proceed
with the child.” T 134:12-15. 	She knows when parental consent is required to take an
action, including issuance of annual IEP reviews, and that the District can file a due
process petition under certain circumstances to take action without consent. 	She is
familiar with the “intervention model” for classification and explained that students are
categorized “based on their needs or however they test[.]” T 121:13-14. “[R]esponse to
intervention refers to helping students based on what is accessed for the specific skill
level and identifying interventions for that individual student in order to meet their needs.”
T 121:14-18. While she is not an expert on student testing, she is familiar with how the
testing process is implemented and evaluated by the CST and other professionals to
determine a student’s qualification for a disability classification. 	She “worked with
directors of special services and program administrators of special services and so on for
a number of years and . . . a child’s classification [is] based on the overall scoring[.]” T
122:21-25.
Petitioner was not familiar with a Department of Education memorandum that
addressed failures to provide all IEP-required services due to COVID-19 restrictions. She
explained, “it’s not an area that I supervised, so it wouldn’t be sent to me,” T 140:3-4.
However, she noted that the District is obligated to provide the services mandated by
IEPs and it “did extremely well despite the challenges that we were faced with[,]” including

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
21
the corrective action plans that were in place when the director of special services was
appointed. T 136:6-8.
Petitioner noted that she is responsible for evaluating “special education teachers
to determine if they’re effective in their classroom[s].” T 155:22-23. If she were appointed
director of special services, she would use the methodology she currently uses to
evaluate special education teachers. 	She utilizes a guidebook and rubric developed
under the guidance of Dr. Hackett that provides the criteria for evaluation of all staff. She
explained, “I don’t have to be a math expert to evaluate a math teacher. 	I know what
good instruction looks like. I can go into that classroom with the appropriate rubrics and
the guidelines that the state sets forth through the Danielson model and determine
whether the instruction is effective.” T 156:20-156:25.
On redirect examination, petitioner testified that, as director of special services,
she would be able to consult with the attorneys retained by the District. The position did
not require a law degree, memorization of or familiarity with the law, or certification as a
school psychologist, guidance counselor or learning disabled teacher. She clarified that
IEPs are tailored to each student, based on their individual abilities. They include “goals
and objectives that are specific to that student’s abilities and projected timetable for
growth.” T 165:16-18. 	Multiple students with the identical classifications could have
different IEPs and accommodations.
For respondent:
Dr. Neely Hackett has been the District Superintendent of Schools since April
2020. 	Shortly after she began working as superintendent, Director of Special Services
Dr. Melody Alegria advised that she intended to leave the District. Dr. Hackett understood
that almost 20 percent of the District’s students were in special education and there were
“many corrective action plans dealing with non-compliance with IEPs, due dates and
parent consent, services, there were about three to four major court cases where parents
were asking for thousands and thousands of dollars[.]” T 170:11-16. 	Parents were

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
22
dissatisfied with the program and its curriculum and the department was “separated from
everyone else” with respect to staff interviews and supply procurement. T 170:18. They
did not “engage in the overall climate of the district” or “let everyone know that these are
our kids and not their kids[.]” 170:23-25. 	This was a “major problem” and improvement
was a “herculean task.” T 171:1, 175:12.
The position was posted immediately. Dr. Hackett assembled a diverse interview
team of experienced staff members who “knew the culture of the district and who were
expert in their particular areas[.]” T 171:22-24. 	The business administrator, the human
resources director, three principals from elementary and high schools and petitioner were
on the team.
Dr. James Nesmith was selected because he had experience as a supervisor of
student services. Dr. Hackett “believe[d] that he knew how to run a department [and] that
he would be familiar with running a special services department[.]” T 173:16-18. The skill
sets listed on his resume indicated that “he had experience in working with child study
team 	members 	and 	dealing 	with 	the 	coordination 	of 	curriculum and 	professional
development.” T 173:20-23, R-29. 	Also, Dr. Nesmith worked as a school social worker
for approximately ten years, which indicated that he has experience working on a child
study team, being a case manager, and developing and implementing IEPs. 	He, thus,
would also “have familiarity with the law and timelines regarding the IEP process, which
was one of the major issues in Willingboro that we were not 	meeting the legal
requirements for IEPs.” T 174:9-13.
Since 	becoming 	director 	of 	special 	services, 	Dr. 	Nesmith 	addressed 	every
corrective action plan and the State has advised that the “corrective action measures”
have been met. T 175:17-18. He also resolved a majority of the pending litigation, many
without requiring monetary payments, and suggested creating a new teacher trainer
position. 	Teachers have received training about students who do not engage in the New
Jersey Student Leaning Standards and the laws and timelines. Training concerning the
laws and timelines was necessary because staff could not rely upon the attorney hired by

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
23
the District for daily matters. 	Also, a special education manual was developed—
previously, there was not a single manual that explained the law and timelines—and a
specific evaluation protocol was developed for the first time for child study team members.
Dr. Nesmith’s knowledge of procedures, the law, timelines and mandates enabled
him to take the above steps and then to direct his staff to “improve on those corrective
action plans[.]” T 178:20-23. He had to “delegate and inform and educate to made sure
we were all on the same page[.]” T 178:24-25.
Dr. Hackett acknowledged that Dr. Nesmith did not have a standard certification
as a school administrator. She did not know whether he had a standard certification as
a principal. She was aware that “whatever certifications he needs for this particular job,
he has the provisional and he has to go through the one year mentoring program.” T
181:21-23. Dr. Hackett did not know if he obtained standard certificates by the day of the
hearing.
Dr. Hackett proposed that petitioner’s position should be eliminated for budgetary
reasons. Although Dr. Hackett had “listen and learn meetings” with petitioner, she did not
have much in the way of interactions with petitioner. T 184:24.
Dr. Hackett appreciates petitioner’s experience. However, given the problems with
the District’s special services department, “there’s no room for a learning curve.” T
179:24-25.
Document Review
Dr. Nesmith’s resume does not list experience as a regular or special education
teacher. 	Rather, he worked as a school social worker from 2001 through 2011 and as
Supervisor of Student Support Services from 2012 until he was hired by the District. The
resume lists no other work experience. R-9. His resume indicated that he had principal
and administrator certificates of eligibility. R-9.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
24
Additional Factual Findings
It is the obligation of the fact finder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. 	Credibility is the value that a fact finder gives to a witness’ testimony.
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence that makes it worthy
of belief. “Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself. 	It must be such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.” 	In re Estate of
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). To assess credibility, the fact finder should consider the
witness’ interest in the outcome, motive, or bias. 	A trier of fact may reject testimony
because it is inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or
with common experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony. 	Congleton v.
Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958). 	In addition to
considering each witness’ interest in the outcome of the matter, I observed their
demeanor, tone, and physical actions. I also considered the accuracy of their recollection;
their ability to know and recall relevant facts and information; the reasonableness of their
testimony; 	their 	demeanor, 	willingness, 	or 	reluctance 	to 	testify; 	their 	candor 	or
evasiveness; any inconsistent or contradictory statements; and the inherent believability
of their testimony.
I had the ability to observe the demeanor, tone, and physical actions of the
witnesses during the hearing. 	Both testified clearly, directly and professionally. 	Each
sought to provide thorough answers to questions and full explanations for their decisions
and actions. Neither was hesitant or evasive. I find their testimony to be credible.
Based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, and having had the
opportunity to observe the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, I FIND the
following as FACT:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
25
The Job Description for Director of Special Services lists seven qualifications for
the position. 	Qualifications number one, two, five, six and seven are mandatory.
Qualification number three provides that a master’s degree is required while a doctorate
degree is “preferred.” Qualification number four provides that “successful experience in
special education administration or supervision is preferred.” 	Thus, the latter two
qualifications are not mandatory.
Based upon petitioner’s credible testimony, her performance reviews and other
documentation of her training and experience, I further FIND as FACT that petitioner
satisfies the five remaining mandatory qualifications:
• 	She 	holds 	New 	Jersey 	School 	Administrator 	and 	Principal 	Standard
Certificates.
• 	She has experience with regular education, having taught psychology. 	She
holds a New Jersey Standard Certification as teacher of psychology.
• 	She has undergone the required criminal history background check and
provided proof of citizenship.
• 	In her prior positions, she engaged in budget development and fiscal review.
Her performance reviews document that she received excellent scores with
respect to her work in this regard.
• 	Her 	performance 	reviews 	highlight 	her 	exemplary 	interpersonal 	and
communication skills.
As noted, petitioner holds a master’s degree and the job description does not
require a doctorate degree.
While special 	education administration or supervision is only preferred, the
evidence in the record supports a finding that petitioner has had an administrative and
supervisory role with respect to special education. For example, as principal, director of
special projects and assistant superintendent, she engaged with and supervised child
study teams. As director of special projects, she was responsible for early childhood for

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
26
disabled preschool students who were involved with special education. 	She was also
involved with special education teachers’ professional development. She worked with the
director of special services to address funding for special education students’ needs and
for life skills programs for cognitively impaired students. 	She has received training in
relevant areas of the law including the IDEA, Rehabilitation Act and ADA. 	While this
evidence does not permit a finding that petitioner is fluent in the area of special education,
neither fluency nor experience at a high level is a prerequisite. I, therefore, FIND as FACT
that petitioner satisfied all the mandatory qualifications for the position of Director of
Special Services as well as the optional qualification concerning successful experience
in special education administration or supervision.
I further FIND as FACT that Dr. Nesmith did not possess a New Jersey School
Administrator or Principal Standard Certificate at the time he was appointed. 	He also
does not have experience as a teacher of regular or special education.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
The law governing tenure was discussed at length in the Order partially granting
summary decision. 	It is restated here. 	The purpose of the teaching staff tenure laws,
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-1 to -18, is “to aid in the establishment of a competent and efficient
school system by affording teaching staff members ‘a measure of security in the ranks
they hold after years of service.’” 	Carpenito v. Rumson Bd. of Educ., 322 N.J. Super.
522, 528–29 (App. Div. 1999) (quoting Viemeister v. Prospect Park Bd. of Educ., 5 N.J.
Super. 215, 218 (App. Div. 1949)). 	Our courts have held that “the widest range should
be given to the applicability of the [tenure statutes] law.” Sullivan v. McOsker, 84 N.J.L.
380, 385 (E. & A. 1913). See also Barnes v. Bd. of Educ. of Jersey City, 85 N.J. Super.
42, 45 (App. Div. 1964). “[B]ecause of its remedial purpose, the Tenure Act should be
liberally construed to achieve its beneficent ends.” Spiewak v. Bd. of Educ., 90 N.J. 63,
74-75 (1982). 	The employee has the burden of proving an entitlement to tenure
protection. Canfield v. Pine Hill Bd. of Educ., 51 N.J. 400 (1968), rev’d on dissent 97 N.J.
Super. 483, 493 (App. Div. 1967).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
27
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 governs the requirements for tenure. 	It provides in pertinent
part:
[t]he services of all teaching staff members employed . . . in
the positions of teacher, principal, other than administrative
principal, 	assistant 	principal, 	vice-principal, 	assistant
superintendent, and all school nurses including school nurse
supervisors, head school nurses, chief school nurses, school
nurse coordinators, and any other nurse performing school
nursing 	services, 	school 	athletic 	trainer 	and 	such 	other
employees as are in positions which require them to hold
appropriate certificates issued by the board of examiners . . .
shall be under tenure during good behavior and efficiency and
they shall not be dismissed or reduced in compensation
except for inefficiency, incapacity, or conduct unbecoming
such a teaching staff member or other just cause and then
only in the manner prescribed by subarticle B of article 2 of
chapter 6 of this Title, after employment in such district or by
such board for:
(1) 	Three 	consecutive 	calendar 	years, 	or 	any 	shorter
period which may be fixed by the employing board for such
purpose; or
(2) 	Three 	consecutive 	academic 	years, 	together 	with
employment 	at 	the 	beginning 	of 	the 	next 	succeeding
academic year; or
(3) 	The equivalent of more than three academic years
within a period of any four consecutive academic years.
Section (c) of the above statute provides that “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 and nothing herein shall limit or restrict tenure rights

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
28
which were or may have been acquired pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28–64 in a position in
which the individual actually served.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2 provides that teaching staff members shall hold a “valid
certificate to teach, administer, direct or supervise the teaching, instruction, or educational
guidance of, or to render or administer, direct or supervise the rendering of nursing service
to, pupils in such public schools and of such other certificate, if any, as may be required
by law.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.3 provides for three categories of educational certificates:
instructional, administrative, and educational services. 	The regulations enumerate
endorsements under each certificate and identify the categories of positions for which
each endorsement is required. 	The endorsements under the administrative certificate
are 	school 	administrator, 	principal, 	supervisor 	and 	school 	business 	administrator.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.3.
New Jersey’s courts and the State Board of Education have addressed tenure
rights in the context of administrative and supervisory positions that are not enumerated
in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5. 	“Tenure is achieved in either one of the positions specifically
designated N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, which are separately tenurable, or in ‘positions which
require them to hold appropriate certificates.’” 	Perri v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of
Belleville, 	Essex County, 	2008 	N.J. 	AGEN 	LEXIS 380, 	*15, 	modified, 	Comm. 	of
Education, 2008 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1016 (September 10, 2008)(quoting Duva v. State
Operated School District of the City of Jersey City, 2002 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1373 (State
Board of Education) (March 6, 2002)).
In Duva v. State Operated School District of the City of Jersey City, the petitioner
held a director position, which required an administrative certificate with an endorsement
as either a principal or supervisor. When his director position was abolished, he argued
that “by virtue of his service of the position title of ‘director’ he had acquired tenure rights
4 Concerning tenure upon transfer or promotion with consent of the employee.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
29
entitling him to employment as a supervisor over any individuals who had not achieved
tenure.” 2002 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1373 at *3. The State Board of Education found, “Since
neither ‘supervisor’ nor ‘director’ are among the positions enumerated in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-
5, the scope of petitioner’s tenure protection under his Administrative Certificate extended
to all assignments for which he was qualified by virtue of possessing a supervisor’s
endorsement. Hence, upon abolishment of his director’s assignment, the petitioner was
entitled 	to 	be 	employed 	in 	assignments 	requiring 	a 	supervisor’s 	endorsement 	in
preference to any non-tenured individuals.” Id. at *28.5 See also Nelson v. Bd. of Educ.,
148 N.J. 358 (1997)(addressing the Legislature’s intention to distinguish specifically
enumerated position categories from those not listed with respect of the application of
tenure rights).
In Galbraith v. Bd. of Educ. of the Lenape Regional High School District, Burlington
County, 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 396, 1996 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 91 (Final Agency Decision
January 12, 1996), a tenured supervisor who was subject to a reduction in force (RIF)
claimed she should have been assigned to another supervisor position to which a non-
tenured supervisor was appointed. 	The Commissioner of the Department of Education
agreed that the tenured supervisor was entitled to the other supervisory position. 	He
wrote:
The law is well settled that a supervisor endorsement is
generic and authorizes the holder to supervise any subject
matter and any grade level. 	. . . 	Moreover, while there is
nothing to prevent a local board from establishing additional
instructional certification requirements, absent a showing that
instructional certification is necessary to perform the duties of
the position at issue, such requirements cannot sidestep the
educator’s 	tenure 	rights 	on 	a 	preferred 	eligibility 	list 	of
supervisors. [Id. at *54-55.]
5 In so holding, the State Board of Education observed that, when N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 was amended to
require service in specifically-enumerated positions, it initially included director and supervisor positions in
the amendment. However, these positions were deleted before the amendment was adopted, underscoring
the Legislature’s intention to not apply the service requirement to these positions. Id. at *16, fn.3.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
30
See also Annecchino v. Board of Education of the Township of Irvington, Essex County,
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13415-12, adopted, Comm. of Education, 2014 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 173
(seniority analysis is inapplicable when tenured employee replaced by non-tenured
employee after RIF; tenured employee had greater right to supervisory position than non-
tenured positions); Herbert v. Board of Education of the Township of Middletown,
Monmouth County, 1990 S.L.D. 1759 (State Board of Education July 25, 1989), A-318-
90T1 (App. Div. Unpub. May 22, 1991); Rogers v. Board of Education of Highland Park,
Middlesex County, OAL Dkt. No. Edu 5850-89, aff’d, State Board 1990 S.L.D. 691 (May
10, 1990)(“having achieved tenure in the separately tenurable position of ‘supervisor,’
petitioner was entitled to tenure protection following a reduction in force in any supervisory
assignment for which he was qualified by virtue of his certification as against individuals
with no tenure as supervisors”).
Here, petitioner seeks appointment to the position of director of special services.
She contends that, having obtained tenure in the position of director within the respondent
District, she should have been reassigned to the newly available director position when
her prior director-level position was eliminated. 	I previously ordered that petitioner’s
tenure protection extends to other director-level positions, notwithstanding the absence
of prior service in those positions. This order will not be revisited here.
Despite this determination, respondent contends that petitioner is ineligible for the
position because she does not possess an adequate knowledge of special education law
and practice. The evidence in the record suggests that she does not possess the degree
of substantive knowledge that a person who has worked in the area on a full-time basis
may have. 	However, a specific degree of experience and substantive knowledge is not
a job requirement and respondent has not demonstrated that a prerequisite of this sort is
necessary. 	Nonetheless, petitioner has demonstrated that she has experience in the
special education area, which she obtained while serving as an administrator and
principal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
31
It is noteworthy that the job description for director of special services highlights
the importance of administrative and supervisory experience, given the requirement of a
certificate in at least one of these areas. In Dennery, the Court discussed the significance
of an administrator certificate. 	It explained that certificates “represent distinct and
separate areas spanning the entire field of public education, and the different certificates
relate to discrete and distinctive categories of functions, duties, and responsibilities of
educators.” 131 N.J. 626, 637. 	“The endorsements listed under the administrative
certificate . . . relate to the administration or supervision of a school and its staff. 	Such
endorsements 	include 	positions 	such 	as 	principal, 	superintendent 	and 	school
administrator.” Ibid.
Here, 	the 	District 	requires 	an 	administrator 	or 	principal 	certificate 	and 	not
demonstration of experience in special education. It is thus reasonable to conclude that
the District determined that the position requires and demands broad supervisory or
administrative experience, and that it prioritized this over a specific area of expertise. It
is undisputed that petitioner has ample experience as an administrator and principal and
that her performance in these capacities was reviewed quite favorably.
For the foregoing reasons, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has established by a
preponderance 	of 	the 	credible 	evidence 	that 	she 	satisfies 	each 	of 	the 	eligibility
prerequisites for the director of special services position. She has also demonstrated that
she has a degree of experience with special education as an administrator or supervisor,
which is not a mandatory requirement for eligibility. 	Therefore, I CONCLUDE that
petitioner’s tenure entitled her to appointment to the director of special services position
over the non-tenured appointee.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, I ORDER that petitioner be placed into the position of
Director of Special Services immediately with all salary, benefits and other emoluments

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
32
to which she is entitled, retroactive to the date the current director of special services was
appointed.6
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.
6 On April 8, 2022, after the record was closed, petitioner advised that respondent failed to pay her dues for
membership in the New Jersey Association of School Administrators. In response, respondent reiterated
that it did not reduce or change petitioner’s compensation and benefits when she was placed in the principal
position and it advised that it pays her dues for the professional association for which she is currently
eligible, the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association. This issue was not addressed during the
hearing and was raised after the initial decision was drafted. As this appears to be a matter that the parties
can address and resolve as they evaluate the retroactive compensation and benefits to which petitioner is
entitled, it is not necessary to reopen the record to address it.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
33
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 4, 2022
DATE 	JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
mph

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
34
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner
Teresa-Anne Lucas
For respondent
None
List of Exhibits
For petitioner
P-1 	Supervisor Standard Certificate
P-2 	Teacher of Psychology Standard Certificate
P-3 	Principal/Supervisor Certificate of Eligibility, Standard Certificate
P-4 	2014-2015 Evaluation
P-5 	Training Certificate of Completion
P-6 	Principal residency Program Evaluation Form
P-7 	Executive and Middle Management Level Evaluation Form
For respondent
R-1 	Petition
R-2 	Answer
R-3 	Joint Stipulation of Facts from Motion for Summary Decision
R-4 	Assistant Principal Job Description
R-5 	Principal Job Description
R-6 	Director of Special Projects Job Description
R-7 	Assistant Superintendent – Chief of Schools Job Description
R-8 	Director of Early Childhood Education Job Description

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08601-20
35
R-9 	Resume of current Director of Special Services
R-10 	Director of Special Services Job Description
R-11 	Petitioner’s curriculum vitae
R-12 	Petitioner’s responses to discovery requests
R-13 	Respondent’s responses to discovery requests