Egenolf Early Childhood Center v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, 5/30/25 (#280-25)

280-25
OAL Dkt. No. 08889-21
Agency Dkt. No. 190-10/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Egenolf Early Childhood Center,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner Egenolf Early Childhood Center (Egenolf) pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto filed by respondent Elizabeth Board of Education (Board) have
been reviewed and considered. 1
Egenolf challenges (1) the Board’s policy that permits private providers to deliver
preschool programming to three-year-olds but not four-year-olds, and (2) the Board’s preschool
recruitment efforts and enrollment process.2 It is undisputed that Elizabeth is a former Abbott
district, and as such, is required to offer preschool programs to all three and four-year-old
1 Following the filing of petitioner’s exceptions and the Board’s reply thereto, the parties submitted
additional correspondence. These submissions are improper per N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4. Therefore, this material
was not considered.
2 The allegations contained in paragraphs ii and iv under “Relief Requested” in the Petition have been
resolved through settlement by the parties. Paragraphs i and iii remain and are the subject of this matter.
Petition at 8.

2
children living in the school district. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:13a-2.1(a). 	The preschool program may be
provided by the district itself, through Head Start, and/or through a licensed private provider.
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.1(a). 	Elizabeth utilizes a mixed-delivery model to implement its preschool
program.
Egenolf is a private state-licensed daycare center providing preschool services in
Elizabeth. In 2002, the Board decided to limit private preschool providers to serve only three-
year-olds.3 In accordance with the Board’s policy, Egenolf’s preschool program includes only
three-year-old children. Egenolf argues that the New Jersey Preschool Program Implementation
Guidelines4 and early childhood research agree that mixed-age groupings in preschools
(classrooms with both three-and four-year-olds) are the best practice. Egenolf further argues
that the Board’s policy defies best practices and creates unnecessary stress and harm for
students and families who, after one school year, must transition from a private provider to the
Board’s preschool program for four-year-olds. Egenolf seeks an update to the Board’s policy,
permitting it to serve both three- and four-year-olds.
As a former Abbott district, the Board is required to participate in continuous quality
improvement through the self-assessment and validation system (SAVS), which reviews certain
policies to validate if school districts are in compliance with applicable regulations. SAVS includes
a validation visit by the State every three years and a NJDOE-required improvement plan that
3 Elizabeth does not have a written policy regarding its decision to limit private preschool providers to
serving only three-year-olds.
4 The New Jersey Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines is a document from the New Jersey
Department of Education (NJDOE) that provides guidance to school districts, local Head Start agencies,
and contracted providers in planning and implementing high-quality preschool programs.

3
identifies the program areas in need of improvement, detailed steps to be taken by the district,
and a timeline for implementation. N.J.A.C. 13A-8.1(a). Annually, the SAVS program requires the
Board to collect data, self-evaluate, and submit said data to the NJDOE for review.
The NJDOE monitors the Board’s recruitment efforts for preschool enrollment under the
SAVs program and in the Board’s annual operational plan. The Board is required to demonstrate
to the NJDOE its efforts to enroll at least 90 percent of the universe of eligible preschool children
in the district. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3. The universe is calculated by multiplying the number of first
graders reported on the Application for State School Aid by two. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(d). 	If a
district does not meet the 90% eligible universe enrollment, it may be required to submit to the
State a corrective plan. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(c). To reach the eligible universe, a district is required
to establish procedures for the recruitment, enrollment, and placement of children into the
preschool program. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(g). Egenolf argues that the Board’s outreach efforts to
eligible families are insufficient, and that the Board has failed to appropriate the proper resources
to enroll 90% of the universe of eligible preschool children, resulting in Egenolf not filling its
classes.
At the OAL hearing, Egenolf called the following witnesses: the Director of the Office of
Preschool Education (OPE) at the NJDOE, Kimberly Friddell; Superintendent Olga Hugelmeyer;
Director of Early Childhood Programs for the Board, Tracy Crosby; and Executive Director of
Egenolf, Dr. Lorraine Cooke. Cooke testified as both a fact and expert witness. The Board did not
call any witnesses. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the testimony of Friddell “credible
inasmuch as the same is supported by the NDOE regulations she recited.” Initial Decision at 13.
The ALJ also found Hugelmeyer’s, Crosby’s, and Cooke’s fact testimony to be credible.

4
In contrast, the ALJ rejected Dr. Cooke’s testimony as an expert in best practices in early
childhood education, deeming it inadmissible net opinion. Specifically, the ALJ found Dr. Cooke’s
testimony to be devoid of empirical analysis to support Egenolf’s claim that the Board’s decision
to limit private providers to preschool programming for three-year-olds exclusively is harmful to
the education or psychological makeup of children. 	The ALJ further found that Dr. Cooke’s
testimony failed to establish within a reasonable degree of educational certainty that the Board’s
decision to retain four-year-olds poses transitional problems for four-year-olds in Elizabeth.
As to the first issue raised in the petition, the ALJ determined that Egenolf had not
presented evidence establishing that the Board’s policy of limiting private providers exclusively
to three-year-olds was in violation of NJDOE regulations. The ALJ concluded that the testimony
of Friddell, Crosby, and Hugelmeyer all revealed that the Board has ultimate authority on how it
will execute its state-funded preschool program, called “local rule.” The ALJ further concluded
that the regulations governing the implementation of free high-quality preschool, codified at
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1 and N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.2, do not prohibit the Board’s policy of limiting private
providers to three-year-olds. Citing to N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.2, the ALJ agreed with the Board that
the State guidelines are not mandatory, but rather are guidance to school districts and contracted
private providers in planning and implementing high-quality preschool programs for children.
Lastly, the ALJ concluded that Egenolf had failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Board is required to place four-year-olds with private providers, or that the
Board’s policy has resulted in problems for children transitioning from the three-year-old to four-
year-old program, or from the kindergarten program to grade three.

5
As to the second issue raised in the petition regarding recruiting and enrollment, the ALJ
determined that Egenolf failed to present any evidence to establish that the Board conducts
inadequate outreach to enroll the requisite percentage of eligible preschool children. The ALJ
reasoned that the testimony of Crosby and Hugelmeyer demonstrated that the Board was in
compliance with SAVs for recruitment and outreach. Furthermore, the ALJ pointed to Elizabeth’s
2021-2022 SAVS (R-10), and concluded that the record establishes that the NJDOE found that the
Board had programs including child find, recruitment and outreach, and a plan for chronic
absenteeism, and that the Board maintained accurate enrollment data that was frequently
updated.
In its exceptions,5 Egenolf contends that typographical errors in the Initial Decision
indicate a lack of attention to the issues raised in this matter that supports a reversal of the ALJ’s
decision.6 Egenolf further contends that the Initial Decision omitted the following portions of
Ms. Friddell’s testimony: “looping,” which is when a teacher of three-year-olds stays with them
as they move to four-year-old preschool, which Ms. Friddell testified is a best practice; the NJDOE
Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines from 2015 (P-5), which states that mixed-age
classes are a best practice, unnecessary transitions are harmful, and includes research
references; that the NJDOE provides a contract between districts and private providers that
refers to offering preschool services to three- and four-year-olds, and the Board has not sought
5 Petitioner’s inclusion of a weblink to the Early Education Research website is improper per N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.4(c). Therefore, this material was not considered.
6 Petitioner also contends that the issuance of the Initial Decision in this matter was delayed in violation
of N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.1(e) and, as such, warrants dismissal. Petitioner also suggests that the ALJ’s delay has
caused harm to children attending Egenolf. Petitioner has provided no evidence to support this claim,
and has failed to identify any impropriety on the part of the ALJ.

6
permission from the NJDOE to modify that contract; and that the NJDOE has not been asked to
approve the Board’s policy of restricting private providers to only three-year-olds.
Egenolf takes exception to the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Cooke’s expert testimony, particularly
Dr. Cooke’s opinion that the Board’s decision to limit private providers to educating only three-
year-olds is harmful to the psychological and educational make-up of said children. 	Egenolf
argues that Dr. Cooke’s expert witness testimony was within “the scope of the special knowledge,
skill, experience or training possessed by the witness” and therefore admissible under N.J.A.C.
1:1-15.9, the regulation governing expert testimony in matters at the OAL. In addition, Egenolf
contends that the New Jersey Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines iterate that mixed-
age groups are optimal and serve to minimize unnecessary transitions. 	Egenolf argues that
absent good reason, the guidelines should be implemented.
Regarding the second issue, Egenolf takes exception to the ALJ’s conclusion that Egenolf
has not presented any evidence to establish that the Board conducts inadequate outreach to
enroll the required percentage of students. Egenolf reiterates its contention that the Board’s
outreach practices are outdated and requests that the Commissioner reject the Initial Decision,
direct the Board to update its procedures, and oversee the updating process.
In response, the Board argues that there exists no mandate in the New Jersey
Administrative Code, the Commissioner’s directives, New Jersey statutes, or case law, that
requires the Board to assign four-year-old preschool students to private providers. Turning to
the witness testimony, the Board emphasizes that Dr. Cooke acknowledged that the guidelines
are recommendations, not mandates, and that through SAVS, the State validated and
determined that the Board met the requirements of the preschool program. 	Regarding Dr.

7
Cooke’s expert witness testimony, the Board asserts that Dr. Cooke admitted that she had no
evidence of any student being harmed by the Board’s policies or procedures regarding its
preschool program. Furthermore, the Board contends that Dr. Cooke did not present research
to the ALJ for his review. 	Lastly, the Board argues that its preschool program results in the
successful transition of students, as evidenced by the district receiving the highest rating of fully
meeting the standards set forth by the State on all three criteria examining student transitions in
the SAVS.
Regarding the second issue, the Board contends that Egenolf has not presented any
evidence that the Board’s recruitment method for preschool is inefficient or not in accordance
with the NJDOE’s recommendations or guidelines. 	It further contends that the Board’s
recruitment process for preschool has resulted in the district exceeding the 90% eligible universe
goal. Ultimately, the Board requests that the Commissioner uphold the Initial Decision.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ – for the reasons stated in the Initial
Decision – that the NJDOE regulations regarding state-funded preschool programs do not
prohibit the Board’s policy of limiting private provider preschools to three-year-olds. 	The
Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ that Egenolf has not presented evidence establishing
that the Board’s current policy violates NJDOE regulations.
The Commissioner is not persuaded by petitioner’s exceptions. Egenolf argues that the
ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Cooke’s opinions that (1) the Board’s policy of limiting private providers
to educating only three-year-olds is harmful to the educational and psychological makeup of said
children in Elizabeth and (2) that the Board’s policy causes transitional problems in four-year-olds
in Elizabeth. N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.9 provides that expert testimony is admissible if such testimony will

8
assist the fact-finder to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue, and the fact-finder
determines whether the expert opinion or inferences are based “on facts and data perceived by
or made known to the witness at or before the hearing; and within the scope of the special
knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness.” The net opinion rule allows
exclusion of expert opinion if it is not based on “facts or data.” 	See N.J.R.E. 702. An expert’s
opinion is construed as net opinion and therefore inadmissible when the expert makes bare
conclusions, unsupported by factual evidence. Creanga v. Jardal, 185 N.J. 345, 360 (2005).
Here, the ALJ correctly deemed Dr. Cooke’s conclusions to be net opinion. 	While Dr.
Cooke testified as an expert in best practices in early childhood education, her testimony failed
to include any evidence or data supporting Egenolf’s claim that children in Elizabeth have
experienced harm due to the Board’s policy. Furthermore, Dr. Cooke acknowledged that she did
not have statistical data regarding any student facing problems due to the Board’s policy. Egenolf
did not present any evidence or witnesses to substantiate Dr. Cooke’s conclusions that the policy
causes harm to and transition problems for children in Elizabeth.
Moreover, the record does not support Dr. Cooke’s expert testimony or the conclusion
that the Board’s policy violates NJDOE regulations. Section 7 of the Board’s SAVs for 2021-2022
is titled “Transition” and analyzes the Board’s efforts to prepare children and their families for
transition between educational programs. (R-10). The evaluation focuses on three criteria. The
Board received the highest rating of “fully met” in each category, including Criterion 3 which deals
with transition of children from preschool to grades K-3. Also, the Board was validated in each
criterion, meaning that the Board and the NJDOE agreed regarding the rating of each criterion.
In her testimony, Crosby acknowledged that if the NJDOE had concerns regarding a three-year-

9
old’s transition from a private provider to a district school, that would have been addressed in
Criterion 3. Crosby further acknowledged that the Board received no criticism from the NJDOE
concerning this criterion. She also acknowledged that the Board had received no criticism from
the State regarding their policy of limiting private providers to educating exclusively three-year-
olds.
As to the second issue, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that Egenolf has not
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board was not in compliance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(b) concerning a plan for outreach and recruitment of children ages three and
four. Egenolf argues that the Board’s recruitment strategies are insufficient and unreasonably
difficult, thereby hindering the Board from serving the requisite universe of eligible preschool
children. The Commissioner is not persuaded by Egenolf’s arguments. The record indicates that
the Board is in compliance with the regulations. Section I of the Board’s SAVS for 2021-2022
analyzes the Board’s recruitment and outreach efforts in two criteria: 1) multiple recruitment
strategies are being used, and 2) accurate enrollment data is collected, maintained, and updated
frequently (R-10). The Board received the highest rating of “fully met” in both criteria and was
validated. 	Specifically, the NJDOE found that the Board had programs including child find,
recruitment and outreach, and a plan for chronic absenteeism, and that the Board maintained
accurate enrollment data that was frequently updated. Furthermore, Crosby testified that the
Board’s total universe of preschool students to be served for the 2021- 2022 school year was
94.1%, and for the 2022-2023 school year was 93.4%, both of which exceeded the regulatory
minimum of 90%.

10
To support its claim that the Board is not compliant with outreach and enrollment
requirements, Egenolf references the 2019-2020 school year, where the projected universe of
preschool students in Elizabeth was 84%. 	However, petitioner’s argument overlooks Crosby’s
and Hugelmeyer’s testimony that all preschool seats were full. Crosby further explained that the
90% goal is based on general education students alone. Special education preschool students
are removed from the calculation, even though they are in the classrooms. Crosby testified that
the reason for the exclusion is due to funding; the preschool budget funds general education
students, whereas the Office of Special Services funds inclusion students.
Crosby testified to the recruitment efforts that the Board implements for its preschool
program. 	She noted that preschool registration is ongoing throughout the school year, but
February marks the registration kickoff, when the Board begins registration for the following
school year. 	Crosby testified that the Board creates brochures and mails them out to every
resident in the district. The Board also posts its registration information on its website, as well
as information on when the registration kickoff will begin. 	Crosby testified that the Board
includes in the local newspaper an ad listing registration information, including registration dates.
She also stated that preschool providers from the Early Childhood Advisory Council pass out flyers
throughout the community in areas like doctors’ offices and stores. She further testified that the
Board utilizes flexible hours for a four-to-five-week period which includes evening hours for
registration twice a week, registration on Saturdays, and registration Monday through Friday
from 8:30am – 3pm. In light of this information, the Commissioner finds that Egenolf has not
presented any evidence establishing that the Board is in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(b) in its
outreach and recruitment of preschool children.

11
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.7
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 30, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	June 2, 2025
7 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
AGENCY DKT NO. 190-10/21
EGENOLF EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
__
Denise Lanchantin Dwyer, Esq., for petitioner (Law Office of Denise Lanchantin
Dwyer, LLC, attorneys
Robert F. Varady, Esq., for respondent (La Corte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella,
attorneys)
Record Closed: March 3, 2025 	Decided: March 11, 2025
BEFORE JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Egenolf Early Childhood Learning Center challenges the respondent,
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth’s decision to end preschool enrollment of
three- and four-year-old students; failure to provide timely notice of contract renewal;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
2
failure 	to have an appropriate enrollment system, and 	failure to review quarterly
expenditure reports.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 11, 2021, petitioner, Egenolf Early Childhood Center (Egenolf) filed a
verified petitioner (Petition) with the New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of
Controversies and Disputes (the Department). On October 22, 2021, respondent, Board
of Education of the City of Elizabeth the Board (the Board) files its answer. The Petition
contained the following allegations:
i. 	the District's refusal to allow EECC [the Board] to provide preschool
programming to both three and four-year-old children living in the
district 	by 	limiting 	EECC's 	classes 	to 	three-year-olds, 	thereby
unreasonably requiring its students to change schools in order to
continue attending preschool as a four-year-old;
ii. 	the District's failure to comply timely with the provisions of N.J.A.C.
6A:13A-9.3 and the state-approved form contract between EECC
and the District (hereinafter collectively 11the Parties" which requires
the District to notify EECC in writing, on or before May l of each
contract year, of its intent to renew the preschool program contract,
or to proffer a renewal contract in a timely fashion;
iii. 	the District consistently fails to do sufficient outreach to enroll the
percentage of eligible preschool students required of a former Abbott
district and does not provide enough resources or staff to register
students that EECC refers to the District resulting in EECC not filling
its classes; and
iv. 	the District consistently fails to review in a timely manner the
quarterly expenditure reports EECC is required to submit to it and
has improperly withheld payments from EECC without justification
for years.
[Petition, ¶3]
The case was referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), as a contested
matter where it was filed on October 27, 2021. After the Petition was filed and the matter
transferred to the OAL, on or about May 3, 2023, the parties resolved by settlement
paragraph 3, subsections ii and iv of the Petition. 	Subsections i and iii of the Petition
remained the subject of this case.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
3
This matter was heard at the OAL on June 20, 21 and October 2, 2023. Post
hearing briefs were submitted by January 24, 2024. After a thorough review of the
exhibits, hearing transcripts and post hearing briefs, I closed the record on March 3, 2025,
following the parties confirmation of exhibits admitted in evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following are not in dispute, and I FIND the same as FACT herein:
1. 	The Board is one of the original “Abbott Districts”. The Abbott Districts are
school districts in New Jersey that are required to have high quality
preschool programs for the entire eligible universe of three-year-old and
four-year-old children in their district. 	Abbott Districts are required to
provide high quality preschool programs in accordance with the New Jersey
Administrative Code 6A:13A, (see generally, N.J.A.C. 6A:13A Subchapters
1 and 2), but can choose how to implement those requirements on a local
basis. 	Implementation of high-quality preschool programs may be in-
district, through Head Start programs, and/or through licensed private
providers. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.1(a).
2. 	The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) Office of Preschool
Education (OPE) issues guidelines for best practices implementation of the
programs. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.2.
3. 	OPE also issues a template for school districts to contract with private
providers for these programs. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-9.1. That contract requires
private providers to “offer a Program that shall meet the educational needs
of the eligible three-and four-year-old preschool children of the District as
set forth in this agreement….” (P-25).
4. 	Egenolf is a private state licensed daycare center providing preschool
service that has no age restrictions in its daycare program, while preschool
starts with age three.
5. 	Egenolf has contracted with the Board from the inception of the Abbott
program and provides a preschool program to approximately 150 children.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
4
6. 	Egenolf has been providing preschool and childcare services to the City of
Elizabeth community for over 100 years.
7. 	Egenolf contracts with the Board using the OPE template (P-25).
8. 	The Board has never requested a modification to OPE’s form contract to
limit private providers to having only three-year-olds. 	Instead, it puts the
limitation in in a letter notifying Egenolf that it intends to renew the contract
for the following school year. (P-10).
9. 	Sometime in 2002 the Board decided to limit private daycare providers to
serve only three-year-old children in the Board’s state-funded preschool
program. 	The Board does not have a written policy regarding its decision
limiting private daycare providers to serve only three-year-old children.
10. The Board and the private preschool provider are jointly responsible for
recruitment of children. 	All public schools receiving Abbot funding must
demonstrate to the State their efforts to enroll the “eligible universe”, which
is required to be 90% of the eligible 3- and 4-year-olds within the public
school district.
11. The 	eligible 	universe 	is 	calculated 	by 	a 	formula 	(in 	the 	regulations):
enrollment of first grade students x 2 = eligible universe. N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-
2.3(d)(1).
12. If the Board does not meet the 90% eligible universe enrollment, it is
required to develop a new recruitment/outreach plan.
13. During the 2018-19 and 2019-2020 school years, the Board received letters
from NJDOE that it was not meeting 90% of its projected universe and had
to implement a corrective action plan for each of those years. (P-11 and P-
12).
14. As part of its recruitment of the eligible universe of preschool students, the
Board sends out a brochure to every resident in the City of Elizabeth.
Information is also posted on the Board’s website and in an ad in La Voz, a
Spanish-language 	newspaper. 	A 	majority of 	parents 	registering 	their
children for preschool come to Board’s offices to complete registration by
appointment. However, the ad in La Voz for 2022 and 2023 was in English
and was the only advertisement in the paper that was not in Spanish.
15. Egenolf advertises on its website, Facebook and by posting on its font door.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
5
16. Egenolf does not participate in the Board’s preschool enrollment process.
TESTIMONY AND ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
In the evidentiary hearing Egenolf called the following witnesses to testify; Kimberly
Ridell, Director of Preschool Education at the New Jersey Department of Education, Olga
Hugelmeyer, Superintendent of Schools for the Board, Tracy Crosby, Director of Early
Childhood for the Elizabeth Public Schools and Dr. Lorraine Cooke, the Director of
Egenolf.
The Board did not present any witnesses and was given the opportunity to question
Egenolf’s four witnesses during the presentation of Egenolf’s case and relied on that cross
examination to rebut Egenolf’s arguments.
Kimberly Ridell
Kimberly Ridell (Ridell) is the current Director of the Office Preschool Education
(OPE) at the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). 	Ridell testified that her
department is responsible for developing the regulatory requirements for the high-quality
preschool program, specifically N.J.A.C. 6A:13A. She confirmed that the NJDOE expects
local school districts develop their own policies to comply with the state regulations. Ridell
testified that OEP does not review local policies, but they do provide the school districts
with a Self-Assessment Validation System (SAVS) which reviews certain policies to
validate if school districts are in compliance during site visits. She stated that if a school
district is not in accordance with the regulations, then her department would discuss that
with the district to address the discrepancies.
Ridell stated that she is familiar with Egenolf from her time in the Division from
1998-2001. 	Most of the rest of her testimony dealt with explaining the program, the
regulations, and the Preschool Implementation Guidelines which are issued by the OPE.
Ridell testified as to the term “Looping”, which is when a teacher of a group of three-year-
olds stays with them as they move to the four-year-old program.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
6
Ridell testified that the relationship between a local school district and private
preschool provider is contractual. 	She stated that OPE provides a template for the
contract that districts can use with private providers. 	Ridell testified that the reason the
template is offered by OPE is because there is funding related to the contract and the
contract language used in the template tracks the language in the regulations. 	Ridell
testified that any changes or modifications to the OEP contract template must be
submitted to the OPE for approval before implementation of the same. OPE does receive
modifications from some districts, but not the majority.
Ridell identified the school year 2021-2022 OPE contract template (P-25), but she
was not sure if the Board submitted modifications of the same to her department. Ridell
testified that she was not aware if the Board had asked to modify its contract with private
providers to limit the program to only 3-year-olds. She stated that the OPE contract only
asks for how many children are served, not ages, and that public schools are required to
offer the program free to both 3- and 4-year-olds. 	However, Ridell affirmed how the
school districts implement said programs is up to them so long as they are in compliance
with the state requirements.
On cross examination, Ridell stressed that there exists no statute, administrative
regulation or Abbott decision that would require public school districts place three and
four-year old preschoolers in a private provider setting. Specifically, Ridell testified that
that in New Jersey, school districts have local control or local rule, in other words, the
local district decides how to implement the guidelines set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A: 13-A, (
Olga Hugelmeyer
Olga Hugelmeyer (Hugelmeyer) has been the Superintendent of the Board, which
serves the Elizabeth City school district since 2013. 	Hugelmeyer has been employed by
the Board for over twenty-eight years. Hugelmeyer testified that the Board has preschool
programs in its elementary schools, private providers, and Head Start. 	She stated the
Board has two-hundred twenty-seven (227) classrooms total for preschool including three
early childhood centers. 	Hugelmeyer stated early childhood centers are standalone

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
7
buildings that house twenty early childhood classrooms serving three- and four-year-old
children, totaling sixty (60) classrooms.
Hugelmeyer testified that since 2005, the Board had seven or eight private
preschool providers. 	Hugelmeyer testified that in 2005, she was Supervisor of Early
Childhood and was responsible to monitor all classrooms and provide support to ensure
proper implementation of the curriculum. 	Hugelmeyer stated that her job also involved
collaboration (communication) with the private provider directors to ensure they were
being properly run in accordance with the regulations and the requirements of the
NJDOE.
Hugelmeyer testified that in 2002-2003, former Superintendent Dunn made the
decision on behalf of Board that private providers would only serve three-year-old
students and that the same was communicated to the NJDOE, and that has been Board’s
policy ever since and she supports that decision.
Hugelmeyer testified that the Board has a central registration process and places
the students in the school district first, and then once that is at capacity, they place them
with private providers. She testified that she was unable to provide any documents that
the NJDOE approved the Board’s decision restricting private providers to only three-year-
old students. Hugelmeyer also explained that all children (three and four-year-olds) are
placed in district and then the overflow of three-year-olds are placed with private
providers. 	She also stated that the reason for this policy is to ensure continuity for the
four-year-old children, as this allows for “vertical articulation” meetings where preschool
teachers 	are 	working 	collaboratively 	with 	the 	kindergarten 	teachers, 	ensuring 	an
alignment 	between 	the 	Pre-K 	Program 	and 	the 	district’s 	Kindergarten 	Program.
Hugelmeyer stated that this approach has for the past twenty years resulted in a very
successful high quality early childhood program and a very positive experience where
children transition.
Tracy Crosby

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
8
Tracy Crosby, (Crosby) is the present Director of Early Childhood Programs for the
Board. 	Crosby testified that she is responsible for creating the preschool budget,
providing oversight for monitoring the budget, oversight for the implementation of the
preschool curriculum and the New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards,
and oversight of the support services that are provided through Preschool Intervention
and Referral teams working with the preschool providers and Head Start directors.
Crosby testified as to the recruitment issue and the state recommendation that the
school district’s projected universe of registered preschool students should be ninety
percent (90%). Crosby stated that using statistics from 2018, it showed that the projected
universe of registered students was at 84% and it did not reach the State recommendation
of 90%, and showed the Board was short in recruitment for school year 2018-2019.
Crosby testified that the projected number is calculated by the Board but there is a
discrepancy [i.e. the formula wasn’t used properly, which is 2x times actual enrollment.]
Crosby testified as to the recruitment and the registration of students within the
school district. 	She stated that in February of the preceding school year, registration
starts for the next school year. Crosby testified that prior to registration, the Board
distributes a brochure about preschool registration that is mailed out to every resident in
the City of Elizabeth. Crosby stated that information is also posted on the Board’s website
and an ad placed in the local newspaper. Crosby testified that a majority of parents
registering come personally to the Board’s offices to complete the registration by
appointment.
Crosby testified that all public schools receiving Abbott funding must demonstrate
to the NJDOE their efforts to enroll the “eligible universe”, of students in their school
district, which is required to be ninety percent (90%) of the eligible universe of three- and
four-year-old students. 	Crosby testified that the Board did not recruit the 90% eligible
universe in the 2018-2019 school year. Crosby testified that when the NJBOE was
predicting that the Board would not meet its 90% eligible universe, it was using the
October 15, 2018 data.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
9
Crosby recalled that on February 10, 2020, “Dr. Rodney”, a member of OPE’s and
Ridell wanted to speak with her about the issue of Egenolf wanting to serve four-year-old
students and to discuss the Board’s pre-school outreach. Crosby testified that the Board
sends out brochures to families residing in the Elizabeth school district and they place an
ad in La Voz, a Spanish-language newspaper, the only newspaper that the Board uses
for this purpose. Crosby testified that the information provided to parents is the dates and
times of registration for free preschool; parents make an appointment to come in and
register. 	Crosby stated that parents are seen by one of Board’s early childhood staff
(social worker, master teacher, school psychologist, or secretary). Crosby described the
procedures and documentation parents must present in order to register their child in the
pre-school program.
Crosby then testified as to a “lottery school process” where parents choose a
preschool program location, selecting 1 st through 4 th choices. The 4 lottery schools have
themes, e.g. leadership, science, and technology, etc. 	Crosby stated that only entering
three-year-old students can register for lottery schools, i.e. not if they enter as a four-year-
old. Crosby explained how the Board runs the lottery, and that the first sixty (60) students
are randomly selected within the lottery to go to a particular school. 	The remaining
students are on the wait list and will be placed in another school, a provider site, or
elsewhere in the program. 	Crosby testified that some parent input helps decide
placement, e.g. where the parent or babysitter lives.
Crosby stated that during registration process is when the parents learn about
lottery schools and their choices, and parents can voice their preference. Crosby stated
that parents have requested Egenolf, and if the student is three years old, they will be
placed at Egenolf. Crosby testified that new families that move into the Elizabeth school
with a four-year-old are assigned a preschool that is closest to their neighborhood school
that has a preschool classroom. 	She stated that if their neighborhood school does not
have a preschool classroom, they will be placed at the next closest school, which may
not be the school they go to from K-8, which they will have to transition.
Crosby testified that the transition of the three-year-old from the private provider to
the Board program is the responsibility of the private provider. She stated that the Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
10
provides an orientation for the parents after the four-year-old is placed in the Board’s
program.
Crosby testified that the Board has placed four-year-old students at one out of
district facility in Union, New Jersey, and that the Board has had to place pre-school
students in temporary classroom units because they did not have capacity in a school
building. 	Crosby testified that she has never received any directive or communication
from the NJDOE requiring the Board to place four-year-olds in private provider schools
and that no other private provider ever complained to the Board about not having four-
year-olds.
Dr. Lorraine Cooke
Dr. Lorraine Cooke (Dr. Cooke) is the Executive Director of Egenolf and has been
at Egenolf for 30 years. Dr. Cooke was admitted as a fact and expert witness in the field
of best practices of Early Childhood Education, specifically the education of preschool
students in low-income communities. 	Dr. Cooke testified that Egenolf has provided
preschool services in the community of Elizabeth for over one hundred years. Dr. Cooke
discussed Egenolf's philosophy in helping children “transition” from home to a day-care
setting, and that Egenolf focus is to help both the parent and child to understand of about
the experience and process of the early childcare setting.
Dr. Cooke testified that prior to Abbot, Egenolf provided early education study for
mixed age groupings of three- and four-year-old students but is now limited to three-year-
old students because of the Board’s policy that it only allows community providers to have
three-year-olds.
Dr. Cooke then testified that she was chosen to work on the state committee that
drafted an initial report on Early Childhood Education, policy and law and that Tom Dunn
Jr., (Dunn) then the Superintendent of the Board was also an integral part of that
committee which implemented the Abbott in the Elizabeth City school district. Dr. Cooke
stated that Dunn was part of the decision on behalf of the Board in the early 2000’s to
only allow private providers to have three-year-old students. 	Dr. Cooke stated that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
11
NJDOE Abbot Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines (the Guidelines) dated
February 2003, (P-3), provided a bibliography containing the research references that the
committees relied upon to develop the guidelines. “It was our charge to make sure that
the recommendations that we were making were based in research.” (Tr. 10/2/23, 52:9-
11: P-3).
Dr. Cook testified that private providers had a meeting with Dunn and wanted to
present Dunn with studies as to why such limitation was a bad idea, but Dunn rejected
the idea. Dr. Cooke testified that the group of private providers disbanded, but parents
raised the issue with Board and at one point picketed outside the Board offices to voice
their objection to the Board’s decision.
Dr. Cooke testified that there were “intensive study” showing the consensus that
children staying together for two years in three- and four-year-old early learning is better
because it supports secure attachments with the adults in their school and with their
school. 	The effect of transitions, multiple transitions, is, as I said before, children
experience distress, insecurity that parents (10/2/23, T43:24–44:10)
When cross-examined about the Guidelines report from February 2003 and the
updates of July 20025 (P-4) and 2015 (P-5), Dr. Cooke made the following admissions:
• 	The Guidelines are only recommendations and not mandates (
• 	What is contained in the Guidelines isn’t required.
• 	The NJDOE regulations do not require that three and four-year olds be
together
• 	No mandates or orders from the Department of Education that require three
and four-year-olds be placed together
• 	The NJDOE has validated, and the Board has satisfied the requirements of
the preschool Guidelines
• 	In her expert opinion, the placement of three and four-year-olds together is
not required by the NJDOE
• 	Ellen Frede, from NJDOE, told her before the year 2010 that the decision
as to placement of three and four-year-olds was a district decision and the
NJDOE would not interfere
• 	Dr. Cooke is not aware of any other private providers making complaints
about the Board’s policy

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
12
Credibility Determination
I must weigh the credibility of the witnesses to determine the ultimate issues.
Credibility is the value that a factfinder gives to a witness’s testimony. An ALJ’s findings
of fact as to issues of credibility of lay witness testimony may not be rejected or modified
unless 	the 	record 	demonstrates 	that 	the 	findings 	are 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	or
unreasonable, or not supported by sufficient, competent, credible evidence in the record.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c).
“Credibility involves more than demeanor. It [contemplates] the over-all evaluation
of testimony in the light of its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which
it hangs together with other evidence.” 	Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9th
Cir. 1963). “‘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.’” State v. Taylor,
38 N.J. Super. 6, 24 (App. Div. 1955) (quoting In re Perrone’s Estate, 5 N.J. 514, 522
(1950)).
A fact finder is expected to base credibility decisions on their common sense and
life experiences. 	State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80, 99 (2004). 	Credibility is not dependent
on the number of witnesses who appeared, State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 411 (1971),
and a fact finder “is not bound to believe the testimony of any witness, in whole or in part,”
State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551, 577 (2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather,
they “may reject what in their conscientious judgment ought to be rejected and accept
that which they believe to be credible.” Ibid. “The interest, motive, bias, or prejudice of a
witness may affect [their] credibility and justify the [trier of fact] . . . in disbelieving [their]
testimony.” 	State v. Salimone, 19 N.J. Super. 600, 608 (App. Div. 1952) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Ridell, 	Hugelmeyer, 	and 	Crosby, 	have 	appeared 	and 	provided 	testimony
concerning the requirements of the NJDOE regarding the program requirements for pre-
school students, and how the same has been implemented by the Board since 2002

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
13
I FIND that Ridell has provided testimony concerning the NJDOE requirements
concerning 	preschool 	education 	and 	specifically, 	the 	requirements 	of 	Preschool
Implementation Guidelines, which is credible inasmuch as the same is supported by the
NDOE regulations she recited.
As to Hugelmeyer, I FIND that she has provided credible testimony concerning the
Board’s history of the preschool programs dating back to 2002-2003 where the decision
to have private providers serve only three-year-old children was communicated to the
NJDOE. 	I FIND that Hugelmeyer’s testimony was consistent with the information
provided by Ridell in her testimony, and the record herein, concerning petitioner’s
challenges to the Board’s private preschool programs, and I therefore FIND Hugelmeyer’s
testimony as FACT herein.
As to Crosby I FIND her testimony credible as well, in providing testimony
concerning the Board’s preschool budget, providing oversight for monitoring the budget,
oversight for the implementation of the preschool curriculum and the New Jersey
Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards, oversight of the support services that are
provided through Preschool Intervention and Referral teams working with the preschool
providers and Head Start directors.
I FIND that Crosby, like Hugelmeyer, has provided testimony that was consistent
with the information provided by Ridell concerning petitioner’s challenges to the Board’s
private preschool programs. I FIND Crosby’s testimony to be FACT herein.
Dr. Cooke has testified as both a fact and expert witness in this matter. With regard
to her expert testimony, it is necessary to be mindful of the net opinion rule. An expert's
conclusion is considered to be a "net opinion," and therefore inadmissible, when it is a
bare conclusion unsupported by factual evidence. Creanga v. Jardal, 185 N.J. 345, 360
(2005). The expert must give the "why and wherefore" of his opinion rather than a mere
conclusion. Ibid. Another aspect of the net opinion rule is that the expert must articulate
an appropriate standard, e.g., Kaplan v. Skoloff & Wolfe, P.C., 339 N.J. Super. 97, 102-
103 (App. Div. 2001) (finding net opinion where expert failed to reference any written

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
14
document in support of duty of care in legal malpractice action). 	An expert opinion that
is not based on reliable facts and data reasonably relied on by experts in the field is an
inadmissible “net opinion.” The net opinion rule has its genesis in the failure of a medical
expert to provide testimony regarding causation between an act of negligence and a
plaintiff’s injuries or damages. Parker v. Goldstein, 78 N.J. Super. 472 (App. Div. 1963)
(failure of plaintiff’s expert to explain how defendant physician’s delay in ordering
cesarean section for decedent caused pulmonary embolism that resulted in death was
net opinion).
The concerns related to the net opinion rule are addressed in N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.9(b).
The net opinion rule currently derives from the requirement of N.J.R.E. 702 that expert
opinions be based upon facts and opinions reasonably relied upon by experts in a
particular field. Therefore, an expert’s failure to provide any facts or basis for an opinion
will result in finding an inadmissible net opinion. Nolan v. First Colony Life Ins., 345 N.J.
Super. 142 (App. Div. 2001) (doctor’s certification on motion for summary judgment that
stated opinion based upon reasonable medical probability was net opinion as no facts or
basis for opinion were provided, only conclusory statements).
As a fact witness, I FIND Dr. Cooke’s testimony to be credible and as FACT herein
concerning Egenolf’s procedures in soliciting parents and their children to enroll at their
facility and Egenolf’s philosophy in early learning programs, and the Board’s current policy
limiting Egenolf’s preschool programming to three-year-olds. I FIND Dr. Cooke’s fact
testimony is corroborated by the record and by the testimony of Ridell, Hugelmeyer, and
Crosby. We now turn to Dr. Cooke’s expert testimony.
I FIND Dr. Cooke’s testimony as expert witness in the area of Best Practices in
Early Childhood Education is devoid of empirical analysis to substantiate Egenolf’s claim
that the Board’s decision limiting private providers, such as Egenolf, to provide preschool
programing to three-year-olds exclusively is harmful to the psychological or educational
make up of said children. Moreover, I FIND that Dr. Cooke’s testimony fails to establish
within a reasonable degree of educational certainty the Board’s decision to retain four-
year-old preschoolers exclusively, poses any “transitional problems” for said four-year-
olds in the Elizabeth school district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
15
Moreover, I FIND that Dr. Cooke’s expert testimony fails to establish within a
reasonable degree of educational certainty that the laws and regulations implemented by
the NJSBOE that allows the Board to implement its current preschool program to four-
year-old students results in said preschoolers having any psychological, educational and
transitional problems as students. 	Therefore, I FIND that Dr. Cooke’s expert testimony
has no bearing on the merits of this case.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
New Jersey has a long history of supporting early learning through New Jersey
Supreme Court decisions, legal regulations, financial investment, and state leadership.
However, that support was greatly expanded by a landmark legal decision that initiated
major changes and provided a foundation for progress over the past twenty (20) years.
In 1981, New Jersey Supreme Court filings initiated the landmark Abbott v. Burke
litigation. 100 N.J. 269 (July 1985). 	The Abbott case may be the most educationally
significant litigation for low-income and minority children since Brown v. Board of
Education. 	The Abbott remedies were strikingly detailed and comprehensive, and the
mandates broke new ground in school finance and education policy in the United States.
After several iterations, in 1998, groundbreaking New Jersey Supreme Court
rulings ordered a set of entitlements for children in 28 (later expanded to 31) of the state’s
school districts with the highest concentrations of poverty, including a high-quality
preschool program for all 3- and 4-year-olds. (Abbott V, 153 N.J. 480 (May 1998)). 	In
1999, the first Division of Early Childhood Education (Office of Early Childhood) in the
New Jersey Department of Education was created and charged with designing and
implementing the court-ordered New Jersey preschool program in the 31 Abbott school
districts and overseeing kindergarten in said districts.
Under the Abbott rulings and regulations, the Office of Early Childhood established
a comprehensive full-day preschool system with an age-appropriate curriculum based on
student learning standards, a maximum class size of fifteen (15), certified teachers,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
16
assistant teachers, support services, and enrollment levels of at least 90 percent of the
universe of all age-eligible children in the community. 	Several state Supreme Court
rulings were required to secure full implementation of the Court’s intent in 1998’s Abbott
V ruling, including Abbott VI, 163 N.J. 95 (Mar. 2000); Abbott VIII, 164 N.J. 84 (May 2000)
and Abbott XII. 180 N.J. 444 (June 2004).
In addition to fully funding preschool education in the Abbott districts, the state
provided partial funding, programmatic support, and guidance to 96 non-Abbott Early
Childhood Program Aid districts (ECPA) where 20-to-40 percent of children qualified for
free or reduced-price lunch. 	A new Early Launch to Learning Initiative (ELLI) added 24
districts to the total number of districts funded by the state to provide preschool education
to children in low-income families. 	Both ECPA and ELLI programs allowed non-
Abbott districts to apply for state funds to expand enrollment, extend program hours, and
improve quality.
The Abbott “model” that developed through this series of Abbott Supreme Court
decision and legislative initiatives arguably has resulted in the setting of high standards
for preschool education. 	Those standards include; licensed teachers with a four-year
degree and certification in early childhood, pay parity with public K-12 personnel,
maximum class size of 15, a research-based curriculum, a full 6-hour day, two years
beginning at age 3, specialized personnel to support parents and teachers, and a
continuous improvement system. The program is delivered in a mixed delivery system—
in public schools, Head Start, and private child-care centers. Head Start and private
programs are funded through contracts with districts that ensure all providers meet the
same rigorous standards.
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1, concerning the applicability of the rules regulating Abbott
districts provides:
(a) State-funded preschool programs in each school district
shall include the elements established in this chapter as
essential for the implementation of a high-quality preschool
program as a condition of receipt of Preschool Education Aid,
which 	shall 	include, 	but 	not 	be 	limited 	to, 	all 	positions,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
17
supports, services, materials, and supplies. The school district
shall ensure that preschool programs offered in-district and by
contracted private providers and local Head Start agencies
receiving preschool funding meet all applicable requirements.
(b) The purpose of this chapter is to implement high-quality
preschool programs pursuant to P.L. 2007, c. 260.
(c) The district board of education shall ensure the inclusion
of preschool children with disabilities in general education
settings to the maximum extent possible, as set forth at
N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2(A)1.
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.2, provides the following definitions applicable herein:
The following words and terms shall have the following
meanings when used in this chapter, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
"Age-eligible" means a child who turns three or four years old
by the enrollment date determined by the district board of
education pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-5 and 6 and 18A:44-1.
"Comprehensive curriculum" means a preschool curriculum
that addresses all domains of learning and is aligned to the
New Jersey Preschool Teaching and Learning Standards of
Quality. The comprehensive curriculum is articulated in the
Department-approved three-year preschool program plan and
is implemented within the school day.
"Comprehensive preschool educational program" means the
delivery of the school district's comprehensive curriculum
articulated in the Department-approved three-year preschool
program plan that occurs within the school day and that
provides 	the 	comparable 	teacher/child 	contact 	time 	in
contracted private provider and local Head Start agencies as
is provided in-district.
"Districtwide" means the school district's entire preschool
program as implemented across all in-district, contracted
private provider, and local Head Start agency settings.
"Early childhood advisory council" or "ECAC" means an
advisory group of community stakeholders interested in the
education and welfare of children in preschool through grade
three that is convened by the school district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
18
"Early Childhood Program Aid" or "ECPA" means State aid
that was authorized pursuant to repealed N.J.S.A. 18A:7F-16
and 	was 	distributed 	to 	all 	school 	districts 	with 	high
concentrations of low-income students for the purpose of
providing preschool, full-day kindergarten, and other early
childhood programs and services.
"Improvement plans" means the school district's plans for
improvement 	in 	areas 	of 	relative 	weakness 	within 	its
preschool 	programs 	as 	identified 	through 	the 	self-
assessment and validation system.
"New Jersey Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines"
means a Department document that provides guidance to
school districts, contracted private providers, and local Head
Start agencies in planning and implementing high-quality pre
School programs for age-eligible children.
"Preschool Education Aid" means State aid provided to district
boards of education to implement preschool programs for
age-eligible general education students.
"Private provider" means a childcare center licensed by the
Department of Children and Families pursuant to N.J.S.A.
30:5B-1 et seq.
"Self-assessment and validation system" or "SAVS" means an
annual assessment process conducted districtwide by school
districts to provide the Department with an analysis of the
school 	district's 	strengths 	and 	weaknesses 	relative 	to
preschool program implementation and the school district's
plans for continuous quality improvement.
"Transition" means an organized system of interactions and
transactions that takes into account the relationships among
home, 	school, and 	community 	as the child 	moves from
preschool to kindergarten through grade three.
"Universal 	preschool" 	means 	a 	specialized 	preschool
program for all age-eligible resident three- and four-year-old
children.
"Universe of eligible preschool children" means all three- and
four-year-old general education children eligible for preschool
in a public school district that receives Preschool Education
Aid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
19
For school districts receiving state funding as a former “Abbott District”, “the district
board of education shall provide free access to full-day preschool for all three- and four-
year-old children.” N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.1(a).
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-6.1(a)] provides that school districts participating in the program
must provide an annual update of “transition initiatives from [preschool] program entry to
kindergarten through grade three” that describe:
1. 	The process for collaborating with other preschool through
grade three administrators in the school district;
2. 	Implementation 	of 	a 	comprehensive, 	developmentally
appropriate kindergarten entry assessment within the first six
to eight weeks of school to measure children's knowledge,
skills, and behaviors at the beginning of kindergarten;
3. 	Methods for communicating to a child's new kindergarten and
elementary teachers information about the child, including the
results of the kindergarten entry assessment;
4. 	The process for identifying the curriculum and pedagogical
information about the preschool program and communicating
it to the kindergarten and elementary teachers; and
5. 	The process for providing information to parents about the
kindergarten program and the transition plan from preschool
through grade three.
All school districts shall participate in a process of continuous quality improvement
either through the annual self-assessment and validation system (SAVS) or site visits.
N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-8.1(a).
The SAVS shall include the following:
1. 	A validation visit by a State team at least once every three years;
and
2. 	A Department-required improvement plan in a Department-provided
format that shall include:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
20
i. 	Identification of the program area(s) in need of improvement;
ii. 	A detailed explanation of the steps to be taken by the district
board of education; and
iii. A timeline for implementation.
iv.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-8.1(a)]
All private providers must have “appropriate licensure pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10:122
and 	adhere[ 	] 	to 	the 	requirements 	of 	this 	chapter 	for 	programmatic 	and 	fiscal
accountability to provide preschool children with services that meet the elements of a
high-quality preschool program.” N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-9.1(b).
There remain two issues that must be addressed in this matter:
1. 	Whether the Board should be allowed to limit private providers to having
only three-year-old children enroll in their state-funded preschool programs;
and
2. 	Whether the Board does an adequate job of outreach to enroll the required
percentage of students.
As to the first issue, I CONCLUDE that Egenolf has not presented any evidence
to establish that the Board’s current policy of limiting enrollment of three-year-olds in
private provider state funded preschool programs is in violation of NJDE regulations, and
their guidelines therein. 	The testimony of Kimberly Ridell, Director of Preschool
Education 	at 	the 	New 	Jersey 	Department 	of 	Education, 	Olga 	Hugelmeyer,
Superintendent of Schools for the Board, and Tracy Crosby, Director of Early Childhood
for the Elizabeth Public Schools, all confirm that the New Jersey Department of Education
do not mandate that the Board must enroll four year olds in private providers state-funded
preschool programs. 	The testimony of said witnesses all reveal that the Board has
ultimate authority on how it will implement its state funded preschool program, called
“local rule.”
In addition, to the testimony of Ridell, Hugelmeyer and Crosby, I CONCLUDE that
the NJDE regulations regarding State-funded preschool programs do not provide for a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
21
prohibition of the Board’s current policy of limiting private providers to three-year olds.
(N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1; N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.2).
The testimony of Egenolf’s expert witness, Dr. Cooke, also failed to establish that
the Board’s preschool policy at issue was in contravention of NJDE regulations. 	Dr.
Cooke testified that the Board’s preschool program is not the “best practices” as it is not
in compliance with the NJDE guidelines (P-3), regarding the transitioning of children from
preschool. However, I CONCLUDE that it is undisputed that the state guidelines are not
mandatory but “guidance to school districts, contracted private providers, and local Head
Start agencies in planning and implementing high-quality pre-School programs for age-
eligible children.” (N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-1.2). 	Moreover, I have already determined that Dr.
Cooke’s expert testimony failed to establish within a reasonable degree of educational
certainty the Board’s decision to retain four-year-old preschoolers exclusively, poses any
“transitional problems” for said four-year-olds in the Elizabeth school district.
I CONCLUDE that Egenolf has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Board is required to place four-year-olds with private providers. It is also
just as clear that Petitioner has failed to prove that the EBOE preschool program has
resulted in any problem with its preschool students in transitioning either from three-year-
old to four-year-old programs or from kindergarten to grade three.
Regarding the second issue, I CONCLUDE that Egenolf has not presented any
evidence to establish that the Board does not conduct an adequate outreach to enroll the
required percentage of students.
Egenolf states that as part of the state-funded high quality preschool programs,
school districts must have a plan for outreach to the community and recruitment of
children ages three and four. Said plan shall document the school district's strategies to
serve at least 90 percent of the universe of eligible preschool children in the three-year
preschool program plan and/or annual update. The plan shall include annual preschool
enrollment targets that coincide with the school district's projected initiation and/or
expansion of preschool. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(b). If a school district doesn’t meet its

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
22
projected enrollment targets, it “may be required to submit a corrective action plan to the
Department.” N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-2.3(c).
Egenolf takes the position that the Board has not appropriated the proper
resources and services to enroll the proper percentage of universe of students. I
CONCLUDE that the testimony of Crosby and Hugelmeyer establishes that the Board
was in compliance with SAVS (R-10). 	The evidence presented herein establishes that
the NJDE found the Board had met its criterion for recruitment and outreach. Specifically,
the record establishes that NJDE found there existed Board programs including child find,
recruitment and outreach and that it had a chronic absenteeism plan, and the Board
maintained accurate enrollment data and updated it frequently.
I CONCLUDE that the Egenolf has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that the Board was not in compliance with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:13A-
2.3(b), concerning a plan for outreach to the community and recruitment of children ages
three and four.
ORDER
It is therefore ORDERED that the relief sought by Egenolf in the Petition filed herein
is DENIED.
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 08889-21
23
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.
March 11, 2025
DATE 	JULIO C. MOREJON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	March 11, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	March 11, 2025
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
24
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
Kimberly Ridell
Olga Hugelmeyer
Tracy Crosby
Dr. Lorraine Cooke
For Respondent:
None
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-2 	2023-04-12 OAL subpoena - NJDOE DECS for May 2, 2023
P-3 	2003 NJDOE Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines
P-4 	2005 Update NJDOE Implementation Guidelines-Continuity & Transition
P-5 	2015 NJDOE Preschool Program Implementation Guidelines
P-6 	2018-2019 preschool provider contract-Elizabeth – Approved
P-7 	2021-01-14 & 02-07 & 02-10 email correspondence NJDOE & T. Crosby re: call
about EECC
P-10 	2018-2021 Letters of intent to renew contract
P-11 	2019-04-01 NJDOE letter to EBOE re: CAP for underserving universe of eligible
children & absenteeism
P-12 	2020-04-01 NJDOE letter to EBOE re: CAP for underserving universe of eligible
children
P-14 	2020-11-02 email correspondence NJDOE & T. Crosby re: universe of eligible
children
P-25 	2021-2022 SY Contract to L. Cooke re: final quarterly

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08889-21
25
For Respondent:
R-7 	Preschool Universe Documents (Bate Stamped 000296-000323)
R-10 	Registration Staff Docu