Leonor Alcantara, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for E.A.; Juana Perez, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Y.P.; Tatiana Escobar; Henry Moro; AND Ira Schulman, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for A.S. v. Angelica Allen-McMillan, Acting Commissioner of Education, New Jersey State Board of Education and New Jersey Department of Education, 8/4/2023, (#234-23)

OAL Dkt. No. 11069-14
Agency Dkt. No. 156-6/14
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Motion for Clarification
Leonor Alcantara, individually and as Guardian
ad Litem for E.A.; Leslie Johnson, individually
and as Guardian ad Litem for D.J.; Juana Perez,
individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Y.P.;
Tatiana 	Escobar; 	Henry 	Moro 	and 	Ira
Schulman, 	individually 	and 	as 	Guardian 	ad
Litem for A.S.,
Petitioners,
v.
Angelica Allen Mc-Millan, Acting Commissioner
of the New Jersey Department of Education;
New Jersey State Board of Education; and New
Jersey Department of Education,
Respondents.
The motion for clarification filed by petitioners has been reviewed and considered.
In a 2014 petition1 filed against the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, the New
Jersey Department of Education (Department), and the New Jersey State Board of Education
(collectively, “respondents”), petitioners alleged that the 	Lakewood Township Board of
Education (Lakewood) is unable to provide its public school students with a thorough and
efficient education (T&E) because it does not receive sufficient funding under the School
Funding Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-43 to -70 (SFRA). 	Following proceedings at the Office of
1 Petitioners amended their petition on September 4, 2018.
234-23

2
Administrative Law (OAL), the Commissioner issued a decision concluding that petitioners failed
to meet the threshold inquiry of establishing Lakewood’s failure to provide T&E; accordingly,
the Commissioner did not reach the issue of the constitutionality of the SFRA. 	Alcantara v.
Hespe, Commissioner Decision No. 149-21 (July 16, 2021). 	Petitioners appealed, and the
Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter with instructions for the Commissioner
to consider petitioners’ substantive arguments pertaining to the SFRA. 	Alcantara v. Allen-
McMillan, 475 N.J. Super. 58 (App. Div. Mar. 6, 2023). 	On May 1, 2023, petitioners filed a
motion for emergent relief, seeking an Order that the Commissioner would issue a final
decision on the remand from the Appellate Division no later than May 15, 2023.
On May 12, 2023, the Commissioner issued a letter directing the Department to
expedite the comprehensive review of the Lakewood school district referenced in Alcantara v.
Hespe, supra. 	The Commissioner indicated that the information that comprised the record
before the OAL, the Commissioner, and the Appellate Division is now outdated and found that
an updated record is required in order to make an appropriately informed decision about the
SFRA and its application to Lakewood. The comprehensive review, as well as an opportunity for
petitioners and Lakewood to respond to the resulting report and recommendations, will occur
prior to the issuance of a final agency decision on the as-applied constitutionality of the SFRA.
Also on May 12, 2023, the Commissioner denied petitioner’s motion for emergent relief,
finding that it was moot in light of the May 12, 2023 letter. 	Alcantara v. Allen-McMillan,
Commissioner Decision No. 142-23 (May 12, 2023). 	Petitioners sought leave to appeal the
Commissioner’s May 12, 2023 decision; the motion was denied by the Appellate Division by
Order dated June 9, 2023.

3
On July 7, 2023, petitioners filed a motion for clarification of the Commissioner’s May
12, 2023 decision denying their motion for emergent relief.
Upon review, the Commissioner concludes that petitioners’ motion for clarification must
be denied, as it is untimely. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.15, a motion for clarification must be
made within ten days of the filing of the Commissioner’s decision. As the decision denying the
motion for emergent relief was issued on May 12, 2023, that deadline expired on May 22, 2023.
Petitioners’ motion for clarification was not filed until July 7, 2023, fifty-five days after the
Commissioner’s decision was issued and forty-five days past the deadline. 	While petitioners
argue that the deadline should be relaxed because they have effectively been attempting to
pursue clarification of the May 12, 2023 decision through other means, including through a
motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal with the Appellate Division and various
correspondence, the Commissioner does not find that the circumstances warrant relaxation of
the deadline. Petitioners chose their course of action following the May 12, 2023 decision, and
the fact that they were not satisfied with the result of those efforts does not excuse the
significantly late filing of their motion for clarification.
Accordingly, petitioners’ motion for clarification is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
August 4, 2023
August 4, 2023