North Plainfield Education Association and Alexis Holbrook v. Board of Education of the Borough of North Plainfield, Somerset County, 4/28/26 (#147-26)

147-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 14056-23
Agency Dkt. No. 316-11/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
North 	Plainfield 	Education 	Association 	and
Alexis Holbrook,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of North
Plainfield, Somerset County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the petitioners pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the North Plainfield
Board of Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioners challenge the Board’s use of virtual instructors during the 2022-23 and 2023-
24 school years. 	During these years, the Board was unable to secure employees for certain
Spanish, American Sign Language (ASL), French, and Biology classes.1 	In light of these
circumstances, the Board contracted with Elevate, a private company that provides teachers to
instruct students virtually; students were present in the physical classroom, along with a North
Plainfield staff member who was not a teacher, but the instruction was provided remotely by an
Elevate teacher. 	The parties stipulated that the Elevate teachers did not all possess teaching
1 The Board represented in a letter to the ALJ that it did not receive any applications for the ASL position. It did
receive applications for the other positions, but of those applicants who were found to be qualified, none accepted
the Board’s offers of employment.

2
certificates issued by the New Jersey State Board of Examiners and were not all subject to
background checks by the New Jersey State Police; the Elevate teachers were also evaluated by
Elevate personnel according to their own standards.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that there were no material facts in dispute and
that the matter was ripe for summary decision. The ALJ concluded that the Board’s decision to
contract with Elevate was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and that it was within the
Board’s general powers to act in an emergency to ensure the education of its students. The ALJ
concluded that the Elevate teachers met the definition of “teaching staff members,” even though
they were not employed by the Board, because they were responsible for all aspects of student
instruction. 	As such, the Board’s use of the Elevate instructors violated N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2,
because teaching staff members are required to hold valid New Jersey certificates, and the
Elevate instructors did not. The ALJ also concluded that because the Elevate instructors were not
subject to criminal background checks by the New Jersey State Police, the Board violated N.J.S.A.
18A:6-7.1. Furthermore, the ALJ concluded that the Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1 because
while it voted to approve the use of Elevate instructors generally, it did not vote individually on
each instructor’s appointment, as required for teaching staff members; the ALJ noted that the
Board offered no explanation for its failure to review the credentials of, or conduct interviews
with, the individual teachers offered by Elevate.
The ALJ concluded that the Board did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1, which requires a
evaluations for non-tenured teaching staff members at least three times per year. The ALJ found
that the purpose of evaluations under N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1 is to assess candidates’ suitability for
tenure, and the Elevate instructors were not eligible for tenure, so these evaluations were not

3
required for them. However, the ALJ found that the failure to evaluate did violate the Teacher
Effectiveness and Accountability for Children of New Jersey (TEACHNJ) Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117 to
-129, which requires evaluations of teachers as part of the Board’s obligation to ensure that
instruction provided to its students was effective. The ALJ dismissed petitioners’ claim that the
use of Elevate instructors who were not residents of New Jersey violated the New Jersey First
Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14-17, concluding that jurisdiction over that statute does not lie with the
Commissioner. Finally, the ALJ denied petitioners’ request for the recovery of costs, finding that
petitioners presented no evidence of harm they allegedly suffered, and noting that no members
of the North Plainfield Education Association were laid off, denied tenure, or otherwise
supplanted by Elevate staff.
In their exceptions, petitioners argue that the ALJ erred in finding that the Board was not
required by N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1 to evaluate the Elevate instructors, because the purpose of the
statute is to ensure that teaching staff members are complying with curriculum requirements
and providing an effective education to students. Petitioners note that it is undisputed that a
number of Elevate instructions do not reside in New Jersey, in violation of N.J.S.A. 52:14-17, and
they contend that the Commissioner does have jurisdiction to find a violation of that law because
it is ancillary to a school law controversy that is properly before the Commissioner. 	Finally,
petitioners argue that no authority exists for the Board to contract with Elevate or to engage in
virtual instruction.
In response, the Board argues that the ALJ’s conclusions regarding evaluations under
N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1, the New Jersey First Act, and the Board’s authority to contract with Elevate
were correct and should be upheld. The Board also urges the Commissioner to reverse the Initial

4
Decision as to the other issues on which petitioners prevailed. The Board submits no argument
specifically addressing the issues of teaching certificates or background checks. With regard to
evaluations, the Board contends that it was inconsistent to hold that the Elevate instructors were
not required to be observed and evaluated because they were not employees, while also holding
that the Board was required to follow the TEACHNJ Act. 	The Board also argues that other
educational support vendors, such as food service and transportation vendors, are not subject to
the requirement of an individual roll call vote.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board’s action in
contracting with Elevate was not ultra vires, nor was it arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Petitioners rely on Remedial Educ. & Diagnostic Servs., Inc. v. Essex Cnty. Educ. Servs. Comm’n,
191 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 1983) for the proposition that the Board’s contract with Elevate
was ultra vires. 	In Remedial, the Appellate Division concluded that an educational services
commission could not contract with a third party to provide remedial services to public school
districts. 	The court explained, “From the enabling legislation before us we see only that [the
educational services commission] was brought into existence for the purpose of ‘providing’ the
education services to public school districts.” Id. at 527. Furthermore, while the Legislature had
expressly granted boards of education the power to contract with private agencies for the
provision of certain services for students with disabilities, it did not grant that power to
educational services commissions. Id. at 527-28. The Appellate Division viewed the distinction
as intentional and declined to afford the educational services commission a power that it had not
been granted. Id. at 528.

5
Here, petitioners have not identified any statute or regulation that expressly prohibits the
Board from contracting with a private entity for teaching services. Nor does this case present a
situation like in Remedial, where private contracts were expressly permitted for one type of
educational agency but the law was silent as to other types of agencies. 	Accordingly, the
Commissioner finds it appropriate to evaluate the Board’s authority to contract with Elevate
under its general powers. 	Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d), a board of education “shall . . .
[p]erform all acts and do all things, consistent with law and the rules of the state board, necessary
for the lawful and proper conduct, equipment and maintenance of the public schools of the
district.” The parties do not dispute that the Board is required to provide curriculum offerings to
its students. 	The Board’s failure to provide required courses to its students would certainly
violate the law. Faced with its inability to secure teachers for those courses,2 and knowing that
it had the general mandatory power to do all things necessary to operate its schools, the Board’s
action in contracting with Elevate was not ultra vires, nor was it arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
However, the Board’s ability to contract with Elevate as an emergency measure to provide
instruction in required courses may not override the standards mandated by the Legislature for
the teachers hired in public schools. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2, “No teaching staff member
shall be employed in the public schools by any board of education unless he is the holder of a
2 For purposes of the analysis in this section, the Commissioner accepts the Board’s representation that it was unable
to secure local, qualified teachers for the courses. It is unnecessary to conduct an in-depth analysis of whether the
Board truly experienced an emergency that necessitated a third-party contract because the use of Elevate instructors
violated the law for other reasons, as described herein. Nonetheless, the Commissioner cautions any board of
education seeking to enter into a contract similar to the one at issue here that, in addition to complying with the
other requirements of the law regarding requirements for teachers, any third-party contract will be reviewed with
close scrutiny to assess the Board’s efforts to secure employees in the usual course, or to use other emergency
certification procedures that may be available to districts, prior to contracting with a third party.

6
valid certificate . . .”. “Teaching staff member” is defined as “a member of the professional staff
of any district . . . holding office, position or employment of such character that the qualifications
for such office, position or employment require him to hold a valid and effective . . . certificate,
appropriate to his office, position or employment.” N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1. The Commissioner rejects
the Board’s argument that the Elevate instructions were not members of the district’s teaching
staff because they were not directly employed by the Board. The Commissioner has previously
found that unpaid volunteers providing instruction in a public school district’s alternative school
must hold New Jersey teaching certificates, noting that the volunteers assumed “the full
responsibility for instructing a class of pupils for a designated course of study for credit.” Jones
v. Bd. of Educ. of Leonia, 1976 S.L.D. 495, 507 (Comm’r, May 4, 1976). This conclusion does not
change when a board of education uses paid instructors provided through a third-party contract,
rather than unpaid volunteers; if anything, the Elevate instructors hold positions significantly
closer to direct employment than the volunteers in Jones.
Furthermore, the definition of teaching staff member includes individuals holding a
“position or employment.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 (emphasis added). 	The use of the disjunctive
demonstrates that direct employment is not the only criteria for an individual to be considered
a teaching staff member. 	The Elevate instructions were responsible for every aspect of the
instruction provided to the Board’s students, with the exception of being physically present in
the classroom with them. This position is of such character that the Commissioner finds that it
warrants categorizing the Elevate instructors as members of the Board’s teaching staff.
The decision of the State Board of Education (State Board) in Guttenberg Ed. Ass’n v. Bd.
of Educ. of Guttenberg, Dkt. No. 11-98 (Mar. 3, 1999), while not directly on point, is also

7
instructive on the issue of certification.3 	In Guttenberg, the board of education sought an
equivalency to allow individuals with a substitute teaching certificate to provide world language
instruction because they could not find candidates with the proper world language certificates.
The Commissioner initially granted the equivalency, but the State Board reversed, finding that
the Commissioner was not permitted “to set aside certification requirements that would
otherwise apply.” Id. at 4. The State Board noted, “Since a county substitute certificate is not a
teaching certificate and does not constitute appropriate certification issued by the State Board
of Examiners . . . the equivalency granted by the Commissioner operates to set aside the
certification requirements for service as a foreign language teacher.” Id. at 5. The State Board
further indicated that the district’s need to develop a world language program could not justify
setting aside certification requirements that are “critical to assuring the provision of a thorough
and efficient education” and “at the core of the current structure governing the delivery of all
education programs.” Id. at 6-7.
Here, while the Board argued before the ALJ that its situation is distinguishable from the
circumstances of Jones and Guttenberg because all of the Elevate instructors were certified by
other states in the subjects they taught, the Board’s argument ignores the fact that certification
requirements may vary from state to state. The New Jersey Legislature has charged the State
Board of Examiners with the responsibility of determining the appropriate certification
requirements for individuals teaching New Jersey’s students; those requirements cannot be set
aside on the grounds that another state found the instructors qualified for certificates under its
own requirements.
3 Prior to July 7, 2008, decisions of the Commissioner were appealable to the State Board of Education.

8
For all of these reasons, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Elevate
instructors were members of the Board’s teaching staff and that they were required to hold valid
New Jersey certificates appropriate to the courses they taught. 	The Board’s use of Elevate
instructors who did not hold New Jersey certificates was in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2.
Similarly, because the Elevate instructors were members of the Board’s teaching staff, the
Board was required to appoint them by a recorded roll call majority vote, but the Board failed to
do so, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1. The Commissioner does not find the Board’s argument
that the Elevate instructors were educational support vendors, similar to food service or
transportation vendors, to be persuasive; the instructors were clearly responsible for educational
content provided to students.
With regard to evaluations, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the Board’s
failure to evaluate the Elevate instructors violated the TEACHNJ Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117 et seq.
Under the TEACHNJ ACT and its implementing regulations, the Board is required to evaluate
teaching staff members using an approved rubric for the purpose of “improving instruction.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-118; N.J.A.C.6A:10-2.1. As the ALJ noted, “It is not enough to provide instruction;
the board had the legal obligation to ensure that the instruction – even by alternate means – was
effective.” Initial Decision at 18. The Board’s failure to evaluate the Elevate instructors based on
an approved rubric was therefore in violation of the TEACHNJ Act.
Conversely, the ALJ found that the Board’s failure to evaluate the Elevate instructors three
times per year did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1, because the purpose of evaluations under that
statute is to assess candidates for tenure, for which the Elevate instructors were not eligible. The
Commissioner finds that the ALJ’s reading of the purpose of this statute is too narrow. 	The

9
statute indicates, “The purpose of this [evaluation] procedure is to recommend as to
reemployment, identify any deficiencies, extend assistance for their correction and improve
professional competence.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1. 	These purposes exceed mere assessment for
tenure. 	Correcting deficiencies in teaching performance does not only improve a candidate’s
suitability for tenure, but also serves to improve student instruction. Had the Board used this
evaluation procedure for the Elevate instructors in their first year, it would have had the
opportunity to determine whether a particular instructor should return for instruction in the
following school year, when the Board again contracted with Elevate. 	Using the required
procedure would have also allowed the Board to address any deficiencies in the instruction
provided each year, to the benefit of students. Accordingly, the Board’s failure to conduct at
least three evaluations per school year was in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1.
With regard to criminal history background checks, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 requires such
checks not only for teaching staff members but also for “any other person serving in a position
which involves regular contact with pupils.” There can be no dispute that the Elevate instructors
had regular contact with pupils, and there is no provision in the statute limiting it to individuals
who only have in-person contact with students. Moreover, the disqualifying offenses listed in
the statute are not limited to those of a physical nature; the inclusion of crimes such as threats,
perjury, and bias intimidation demonstrate that the Legislature’s concern regarding individuals
with a criminal history was not limited only to individuals who might pose a physical danger to
students. 	The Commissioner therefore agrees with the ALJ that the Board’s use of Elevate
instructors who had not been subject to the specific background check required by New Jersey
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.

10
The Commissioner declines to exercise jurisdiction over petitioners’ claim that the use of
Elevate instructors who were not residents of New Jersey violated the New Jersey First Act,
N.J.S.A. 52-14.7. 	As the ALJ noted, the New Jersey First Act is not a school law within the
jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and complaints alleging violations of it are brought in Superior
Court. While petitioners correctly argue in their petition that the Commissioner may exercise
jurisdiction over issues that do not arise under the school laws but are ancillary to a school law
issue that is properly before the Commissioner, given that the Board’s use of Elevate instructors
has been found herein to violate multiple provisions of the school laws, the Commissioner does
not find it necessary to reach an issue over which she does not have primary jurisdiction.
Finally, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioners have provided no
evidence of harm to justify their request for the recovery of costs, and that this request must
therefore be denied.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is rejected as to the ALJ’s finding that the Board did not
violate N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1; the Commissioner concludes that the Board did violate the statute.
In all other respects, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	April 28, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	April 29, 2026
4 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
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 316-11/23
NORTH PLAINFIELD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
AND ALEXIS HOLBROOK,
Petitioners,
v.
BOROUGH OF NORTH PLAINFIELD BOARD
OF EDUCATION, SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
Richard A. Friedman, Esq., and Sheila Murugan, Esq., for petitioners (Zazzali, PC,
attorneys)
Dennis McKeever, Esq., for respondent (Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC,
attorneys)
Record Closed: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 13, 2025
BEFORE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners, North Plainfield Education Association and Alexis Holbrook, challenge the
use by respondent, the Borough of North Plainfield Board of Education (Board), of virtual

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
2
instructors instead of in-person teachers in the North Plainfield School District (District)
schools during the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years. Petitioners request an order
declaring null and void the contract between respondent and the company which provided
virtual educators; requiring respondent to employ only teachers with New Jersey
certifications; requiring all instruction to take place in person in the District schools, absent
weather or health emergencies; and awarding costs to petitioners. By cross-motions, the
parties request summary decision.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 21, 2023, petitioners filed a petition of appeal with the Commissioner of
the Department of Education (DOE). On December 5, 2023, respondent filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to the petition. On December 12, 2023, this matter was transmitted by the
DOE to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), for hearing as a contested case pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23.
The matter was assigned to the Honorable Sarah Surgent, ALJ, but the hearing was not
scheduled, as the parties were engaged in settlement discussions. When settlement was not
reached, the parties stated their intention to file cross-motions for summary decision, and Judge
Surgent issued a briefing schedule. Prior to the filing deadline, notice of the proceedings was
sent to the third-party virtual educator, Elevate K–12 (Elevate), and briefing was delayed pending
the anticipated participation of the third party.1
On July 21, 2025, the parties filed cross-motions for summary decision and a joint
stipulation of material facts. Judge Surgent retired on July 31, 2025, and the case was
reassigned to me. The parties participated in a status conference on September 5, 2025, and a
final briefing schedule was issued. On September 26, 2025, the parties filed reply briefs. On
October 30, 2025, respondent submitted a letter addressing specific questions I raised regarding
the background facts, to which petitioners did not object. The cross-motions are ripe for review.
1 To date, no response from Elevate has been received at the OAL.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
By joint stipulation filed July 21, 2025, the parties agreed to the following FACTS and I
therefore FIND:
1. The District is a pre-K through twelfth grade public school district located in North
Plainfield, Somerset County, New Jersey.
2. The District consists of a high school, a middle school, an intermediate school,
and three elementary schools.
3. On or about August 13, 2020, Governor Philip Murphy signed Executive Order
(EO) 175, which permitted public schools to offer remote instruction during the
pendency of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
4. On or about June 4, 2021, Governor Murphy signed EO 244, which ended the
COVID-19 public health emergency, and P.L. 2021, c.103, which provided for the
expiration of certain executive orders, including EO 175.
5. For the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years, the Board was not able to
secure employment for an adequate number of teachers to provide live instruction
in all class offerings for all students. For the 2022–2023 school year the District
posted job announcements for middle school Spanish and Somerset Intermediate
School Spanish. For the 2023–2024 school year the District posted job
announcements for ASL, French, and Biology.
6. In or around October 2022, for the 2022–2023 school year, the Board contracted
with Elevate, a private company that provides teachers to instruct students
remotely, while the students are present in the physical classroom.
7. On or about August 28, 2023, for the 2023–2024 school year, the Board again
contracted with Elevate to provide teachers to instruct students remotely.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
4
8. For the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years, the Board contracted with
Elevate to provide teachers for those class offerings for which no qualified (in-
person) teacher could be secured.
9. For the 2022–2023 school year, Elevate provided teachers for Spanish.
10. For the 2023–2024 school year, Elevate provided teachers for ASL, Biology,
and French.
11. The Board did not vote to approve the teachers provided by Elevate.
12. Teachers provided by Elevate were not physically present in the classroom
with the students; however, a North Plainfield staff member was present in
each classroom.
13. Teachers provided by Elevate did not all possess teaching certificates issued
by the State of New Jersey.
14. Some of the teachers provided by Elevate were subject to background checks
conducted by states and agencies other than the New Jersey State Police.
15. Teachers provided by Elevate were evaluated by Elevate personnel according
to their own rubric and/or standards.
16. The curriculum for each course taught by an Elevate teacher was provided by
North Plainfield. For the 2022–2023 school year, the District utilized the
following curricula: Spanish Enrichment K–5 and Spanish I. The curricula
were created by the District and cross-referenced with curricula provided by
Elevate. Some aspects of the curricula were modified due to the virtual
component that was necessary. The curricula were approved by the Board.
For the 2023–2024 school year the District utilized the following curricula:
Biology, French I, and ASL. The Biology and French curricula were created by
the District and cross-referenced with curricula provided by Elevate. The

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
5
curricula were approved by the Board. For ASL, the District utilized the
curriculum provided by Elevate.
17. Students’ assignments and tests were graded by Elevate staff and entered into
the student information portal by North Plainfield staff.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Summary decision is the well-recognized administrative counterpart to summary
judgment, a procedure for resolving cases in which the facts that are crucial to the
determination of the matters at issue are not actually in dispute. By applying the
applicable law and standard of proof to the undisputed facts, a decision may be reached
in a case without the necessity of a hearing at which evidence is presented and testimony
is taken. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5.
The regulations provide that the decision sought by the movant “may be rendered
if the papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party
is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). The rule further provides
that an adverse party must respond by affidavit setting forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue that can only be determined at an evidentiary hearing. Ibid. The
OAL rule is modeled on New Jersey Court Rule 4:46-2. The New Jersey Supreme Court
has explained that when deciding a motion for summary judgment under R. 4:46-2,
a determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational
factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
[Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540
(1995).]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
6
Besides the above-listed facts, which were stipulated by the parties, petitioners
characterize as “facts” statements to which respondent specifically objects. First, petitioners
claim that the use of virtual teachers “caused confusion and miscommunication that renders
student instruction ineffective.” Br. of Pet’rs’ in Support of Motion for Summary Decision (July
22, 2025) (Pet’rs’ Br.), at 4 (citing Certification of Theresa Fuller (undated), ¶ 22). Second,
petitioners claim as fact that if the Board contracts with Elevate are set aside, those contracts
shall be deemed illegal and then the local taxpayers “should not be required to fund virtual
instruction provided by Elevate within this school district.” Ibid.
Respondent objects to these statements on the grounds that petitioners failed to raise
these claims in their petition and, therefore, they may not be considered here. Ltr. Br. of
Resp’t in Reply to Motion for Summary Decision (Sept. 26, 2025) (Resp’t’s Reply Br.), at 3. I
agree that the above statements must be disregarded, but not for the reason given by
respondent. (I also note that only the latter statement appears to raise a new claim, that a
tax refund is owed to the North Plainfield taxpayers.) Rather, I disregard these statements
because they do not raise a dispute as to facts material to the issues before me. “The mere
existence of disputed facts is not conclusive. An agency must grant a plenary hearing only if
material disputed adjudicative facts exist.” Frank v. Ivy Club, 120 N.J. 73, 98 (1990) (citations
omitted).
The issues here are whether the contracts entered into by respondent and Elevate
are authorized by law or unlawful and therefore void; whether orders must be issued
requiring the Board to employ only teachers with New Jersey certifications and mandating
in-person instruction absent emergencies; and whether the costs of this action are
recoverable by petitioners. Neither the quality of instruction provided by Elevate nor the
right of local taxpayers to demand refunds will factor in whether the Board had the
authority to enter into contracts for virtual instruction. I CONCLUDE that there is no
dispute as to the material facts and the issues raised by the cross-motions for summary
decision can be decided as a matter of law. Petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating
that the decisions of the Board to contract with Elevate for the 2022–2023 and 2023–
2024 school years were arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or in violation of law.
Titusville Acad. v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ., EDU 00651-06, Initial Decision (May 21, 2007),
adopted, Comm’r (July 6, 2007), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
7
By their petition, petitioners charge respondent with seven counts, each of which will
be addressed, starting with Count VII.
Count VII
Petitioners contend that the Board does not have the authority to contract with a
private entity for educational services and, therefore, the contracts the Board entered into
with Elevate are unauthorized and ultra vires. Pet’rs’ Br. at 7 (citing Remedial Educ. &
Diagnostic Servs., Inc. v. Essex Cty. Educ. Servs. Comm., 191 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div.
1983) (public bodies may only make contracts within their express or implied authority)).
To begin, New Jersey law and regulations impose relevant—and here, competing—
obligations on the Board. Under N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1, the Board is required, in pertinent part,
to
develop, adopt, and implement local graduation requirements
that . . . include the following:
1. Participation in a local program of study of not
fewer than 120 credits in courses designed to meet all of
the [New Jersey State Learning Standards], including,
but not limited to, the following credits:
. . . .
iii. At least 15 credits in science, including at
least five credits in laboratory biology/life science
or the content equivalent effective with the 2008–
2009 grade nine class;
. . . .
viii. At least five credits in world languages2 or
student demonstration of proficiency[.]
In 1996, the State Board of Education adopted the New Jersey Core Curriculum
Content Standards (CCCS), “the benchmark for providing a thorough and efficient
2 The term “world languages” is not defined in the statute, but the parties acknowledge that Spanish,
French, and ASL are considered world languages. There is no requirement that ASL be offered.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
8
education.” Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332, 470 (2011). Also referred to as the “New Jersey
Student Learning Standards” or “NJSLS,” the CCCS “describe the knowledge and skills all
New Jersey students are expected to acquire by benchmark grades in the following content
areas: English language arts; mathematics; science; social studies; visual and performing
arts; comprehensive health and physical education; world languages; computer science and
design thinking; and career readiness, life literacies, and key skills.” N.J.A.C. 6A:8-1.3. The
CCCS are reviewed and revised every five years and, by 2020, the NJSLS for world
languages required all districts to offer K–12 instruction; the District revised its curricula in
accordance with these standards and the Board approved the changes on December 21,
2022. See Certification of Dr. Michelle Aquino (June 5, 2025) (Aquino Cert.), ¶ 8.
As the parties acknowledge, by 2022, though the COVID-19 public health emergency
had abated, a shortage of teachers persisted and the Board was unable to find qualified
applicants to fill open positions for teachers of Spanish, French, ASL, and Biology. Petitioners
argue that after the COVID-19 emergency, no law authorized the Board to contract with virtual
instructors. Petitioners are correct in that no law specifically authorized the Board to contract
with virtual instructors, but at the same time, no law addresses the situation in which the
Board was placed.3 The Board contends that due to these circumstances, under N.J.S.A.
18A:11-1, it was authorized to “take action in such a way that furthers the lawful and proper
conduct of the District’s schools[,]” including entering into contracts with a private entity to fill
teaching positions that would otherwise go vacant. Resp’t’s Br. at 9; Reply Br. of Resp’t at 4.
The Board cites two cases “to support the maxim that the Board had managerial
prerogative to contract with Elevate” under the circumstances, those being its inability to
secure qualified local teachers. Ibid. The first, Local 195, IFPTE v. State, 88 N.J. 393 (1982),
involves the permissible scope of collective bargaining agreements. The Court found that
state agencies must be permitted to subcontract certain functions, and “whether or not to
contract out a given government service” should not be subject to mandatory negotiations
3 The regulations adopted by the DOE anticipate shortages of qualified, certified teaching candidates,
providing for emergency certification by the county superintendent. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.12(c). There is no
evidence that North Plainfield had such local candidates lacking only certification. Note also that in 2024,
the Legislature passed a concurrent resolution which recognizes “the existence and current utilization of
virtual or remote instruction” and, therefore, directed the DOE to collect data on such in the public schools.
ACR 192/SCR 152 (Sen. Gopal, Jan. 8, 2024).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
9
between the public employer and public employees. Id. at 407. “The decision to contract
out work [does not] necessarily concern merely the technical means of implementing policy.
The decision can be an important policy choice in its own right.” Id. at 408–09. Further, the
Court distinguished between the use of subcontractors “for purely economic reasons” and to
achieve other policy goals, finding that only in the former case “does the employee interest
in discussion of alternative solutions become dominant.” Id. at 410.
Second, respondent cites In re Vineland Board of Education & Vineland Education
Association, 2024 NJ PERC LEXIS 27, *4 (Mar. 28, 2024), which involves a challenge under
the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act, §§ 34:13A-1 to -64 (the Act), to the school
board’s use of private entities to fill teaching and nursing positions that could not be filled
through the regular hiring process. As here, in Vineland there was no evidence that any
employees were “displaced by the Board’s subcontracting to fill vacant teaching positions or
to provide health services.” Ibid. The unfair labor practice charge was dismissed, as the
Commission found that the Act serves to “only to restrict subcontracting that affects the
employment of an employer’s current represented employees, such as through replacement
or displacement,” and no current employees were affected using private subcontractors. Id.
at *14; see also In re Howell Twp. Bd. of Educ. & Howell Twp. Educ. Assn., 2021 NJ PERC
LEXIS 101, *15 (Oct. 28, 2021) (arbitration ordered because there was “insufficient evidence”
of an emergency to support claimed “managerial prerogative to respond to emergent
circumstances and deviate from negotiated contractual procedures”).
While I agree that the cited cases would protect the Board from a challenge based
on the collective bargaining agreement entered into with petitioners and/or as a violation
of the Act, petitioners here challenge the Board’s action as a violation of the school laws.
In other words, the allowances made for public employers to achieve economic or other
policy goals through the hiring process may not override the standards mandated by the
Legislature for the teachers hired in public schools.4
Petitioners claim that the decision of the Appellate Division in Remedial Educ.
makes clear that a public entity cannot enter into a public contract with a private vendor
4 There do not appear to be any cases on this specific point.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
10
for goods and services. Pet’rs’ Br. at 7. Respondent’s view of the case is, however, more
persuasive. See Resp’t’s Br. at 10–11. The court did say that the powers of a public
entity are limited to those that are found in its enabling legislation, but it also said the
same legislation that prevented the plaintiff educational services commission from
subcontracting with private entities gave school boards the authority to subcontract with
private entities. Remedial Educ., 191 N.J. Super. at 528. Without express limitation or
authorization, as were found in Remedial Educ., the question then is whether the school
laws authorize the Board to use virtual instructors under its general powers to operate the
District’s schools.
Respondent argues persuasively that it acted responsibly rather than without authority
and/or in violation of law because while the Legislature sets standards for classroom
teachers, it also mandates instruction for which the Board—despite its efforts—was unable
to find qualified candidates.5 The Board acted within its general powers, as stated below, to
address an unusual and unexpected situation:
The board shall—
. . . .
d. Perform all acts and do all things, consistent with
law and the rules of the state board, necessary for the
lawful and proper conduct, equipment and maintenance
of the public schools of the district.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1.]
By the undisputed facts, the Legislature mandated certain curriculum offerings, and
the Board was unable to secure teachers in those subjects who met New Jersey’s
certification requirements and were otherwise qualified. The Board was faced with Hobson’s
choice: to educate its children with virtual instructors who may not meet the specific New
Jersey requirements or to not educate its students in certain subjects at all. Once the Board
5 In its supplemental letter, the Board explained that it received applications from candidates for the Biology,
Spanish, and French openings, but of those applicants who were found qualified, none accepted the
Board’s offers of employment. Resp’t’s Suppl. Ltr. (Oct. 30, 2025), at 2. The Board received no applicants
for the ASL opening. Ibid.; see also Aquino Cert, ¶¶ 11, 15.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
11
was able to find the teachers needed to offer the curriculum mandated by the Legislature,
they faced a lawsuit challenging their action as beyond their statutory authority and violating
the New Jersey school laws dedicated to teacher hiring, certification, evaluation, and
retention. Respondent complains that petitioners neither acknowledge the efforts of the
Board to find qualified teachers nor recommend alternative measures the Board could have
taken to comply with all its statutory obligations. Resp’t’s Reply Br. at 1, 2.
I CONCLUDE that petitioners have not proved that the action of the Board in filling
vacancies for teachers in CCCS subjects during a teacher shortage in two consecutive
school years with remote educators was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and have not
proved that the contracts entered into with Elevate were beyond the general powers of the
Board to act in an emergency to ensure the education of its students consistent with the
CCCS.
The inquiry does not end here. Even if the Commissioner agrees that the Board acted
within the authority given to it by the Legislature in entering into the Elevate contracts,
petitioners also allege that the Board violated the school laws in its implementation of those
contracts, as described in Counts I through VI.
Count I
Petitioners allege that Elevate teachers do not hold New Jersey teaching certificates
or endorsements, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2, et seq.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2:
No teaching staff member shall be employed in the public
schools by any board of education unless he is the holder of 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
12
Petitioners contend that the teachers provided by Elevate fall within the definition of
“teaching staff member”:
“Teaching staff member” means a member of the professional
staff of any district or regional board of education, or any board
of education of a county vocational school, holding office,
position or employment of such character that the qualifications,
for such office, position or employment, require him to hold a
valid and effective standard, provisional or emergency
certificate, appropriate to his office, position or employment,
issued by the State Board of Examiners and includes a school
nurse and a school athletic trainer.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1.]
Respondent, however, contends that the standards by which teachers are hired,
evaluated, and tenured do not apply because the Elevate instructors were not members
of the North Plainfield “teaching staff.” Resp’t’s Br. at 15.
A strict reading of the above statutory provisions supports the Board, as the Elevate
teachers were not directly employed by the Board. Caselaw, however, supports petitioners,
beginning with the decision of the Commissioner in a case in which community volunteers
were teaching without New Jersey certification (or pay) in an alternative high school. Jones
v. Bd. of Educ. of Leonia, 1976 S.L.D. 495, Comm’r (May 4, 1976). Finding that the
volunteers, “who write course descriptions, choose topics and projects, lecture, test, lead
discussions, make assignments and evaluate pupils,” were “teaching staff members,” the
Commissioner concluded that “a person who assumes the full responsibility for instructing a
class of pupils for a designated course of study” must hold a New Jersey certificate. Id. at
501, 507.
In response, the Board notes that “in each of the classrooms where an Elevate
teacher was instructing virtually, a North Plainfield staff member was physically present in the
room to assist and monitor students.” Resp’t’s Br. at 13. In Jones, the State Board of
Education appeared to encourage the use of community volunteers if monitored by teachers:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
13
Certified teachers must be assigned responsibility for the
instruction of all courses offered by community resource
personnel for credit . . .[,] shall regularly monitor classroom
activities, shall confer regularly with the [volunteers], shall retain
the ultimate authority to recommend the removal of community
resource persons and thereby resume direct teaching
responsibilities[.]
[Jones v. Bd. of Educ. of Leonia, State Bd. (July 6, 1978), at
1024.]
In both its briefs, the Board refers to the school employees who were present in the
classroom to supervise the Elevate teachers as “North Plainfield staff member[s],” but not as
teachers. See Resp’t’s Br. at 13; Resp’t’s Reply Br. at 6. By its supplemental filing, the Board
confirmed that such staff members were not teachers and, therefore, the allowance that may
have been offered by the State Board in Jones is not available here.
In Guttenberg Education Association v. Board of Education of Guttenberg, Dkt. No.
11-98 (Mar. 3. 1999), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/, the State Board considered the use
of the equivalency waiver process to permit the local school board to contract a private
company for foreign language teachers when no qualified candidates were available. (The
emergency certification process described in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-5.12(c), and footnote 3,
above, is different.) The teacher employed by the private company was not certified and,
therefore, the Guttenberg Board sought an equivalency of the regulation “which permits
substitutes (certified) to replace academic classroom teachers.” Id. at *3. The
Commissioner permitted the equivalency for three years, but the State Board found it
invalid because the Commissioner effectively “set aside certification requirements that
would otherwise apply.” Id. at *4.
The regulation involved in Guttenberg was N.J.A.C. 6:29-3.3(c),6 which permitted
“the holder of a county substitute certificate to serve as an athletic coach in the district in
which he or she is employed when there is no ‘qualified and certified’ applicant.” Id. at
*5. The Guttenberg Board sought to use the equivalency process intended for athletic
coaching candidates to supply teachers in world languages because the school district
6 This section of the regulations, pertaining to Health, Safety, and Physical Education, was repealed in
2001.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
14
was trying to develop the program but was unable to find certified candidates. Instead of
finding the process used to find coaches inapplicable to classroom teachers, the State
Board focused on the effect of using the equivalency, which was “to set aside the
certification requirements for service as a foreign language teacher specified [in the
applicable regulations].” Id. at *5.7
Here, the Board did not use Elevate instructors in an attempt to “set aside
certification requirements,” but only because certified teachers were not available. In
other words, the problem in North Plainfield was the same as that faced by the Board in
Guttenberg, but the North Plainfield Board relied instead on its general authority under
the school laws to operate its schools.
More recently, the Commissioner considered a case very similar to this one and
petitioners contend that it forecloses the use of virtual teachers without New Jersey
certification even if supported in the classroom by a teacher with proper certification. Neptune
Twp. Educ. Ass’n. v. Neptune Twp. Bd. of Educ., EDU 00392-99, Initial Decision (Mar. 23,
2000), aff’d, Comm’r (May 22, 2000), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. In Neptune,
the school board contracted with a private company to provide distance learning instruction
in Latin, supervised in the classrooms by Neptune department chairpersons who did not
possess foreign language certifications. On review, the Commissioner stated that virtual
Latin instruction “could not lawfully be delivered by a person not in possession of appropriate
New Jersey certification.” EDU 00392-99, Comm’r (May 22, 2000),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.
Two differences between this case and Neptune may be significant. First, the ALJ
found that Neptune could not claim emergent circumstances, as the District had “a properly
certified teacher of Latin [who] the Board decided not to employ.” EDU 00392-99, Initial
Decision (Mar. 23, 2000), https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. In other words, the virtual
Latin instructor supplanted a properly certified teacher from the Neptune staff, a very different
7 In a footnote, the State Board noted that a separate petition was pending with the Commissioner regarding
whether the school district could legally subcontract with a private vendor for foreign-language instruction.
Id. at 3, n.3. The parties could not find a ruling on this issue.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
15
circumstance than that which occurred in Guttenberg, or here in North Plainfield, where the
school board could not find qualified instructors.
Second, the Neptune case involved a very different kind of virtual learning, circa 1999,
than was involved in the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years in the North Plainfield
schools. In Neptune, the ALJ stated:
Pupils who want to study Latin at Neptune High School meet at
a designated time and watch television programs containing
Latin instruction presented by a person not the holder of a New
Jersey teacher certificate, let alone a foreign language
endorsement on a New Jersey teacher certificate. The pupils in
the room are supervised or monitored by Department
chairpersons who do not hold foreign language endorsements
on their teaching certificates. It is not known if either or both of
these persons ever studied Latin. Obviously, the television
instructor cannot be asked questions. There is no interactivity.
[EDU 00392-99, Initial Decision (Mar. 23, 2000),
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/ (emphasis added).]
Much of the criticism of televised instruction as it existed in 1999, appears to no longer
apply; instruction by Zoom has changed (and improved) remote education. The
Commissioner’s statement in Neptune that virtual instruction could not be lawfully delivered
by a person without proper New Jersey certification may leave open whether virtual
interactive instruction would be permissible if the instructor were New Jersey certified. But,
even if such were permissible, the facts here do not support the Board’s position.
I CONCLUDE that there is no evidence that employees of North Plainfield had full
responsibility for the classrooms in which students received virtual instruction. The Elevate
instructors were responsible for all aspects of student instruction and, therefore, the Elevate
instructors met the definition of “teaching staff members.” I further CONCLUDE that even
though there is ample evidence that the Board contracted with Elevate only because it could
not hire New Jersey-certified teachers and Elevate instructors did not supplant New Jersey-
certified teachers, the “North Plainfield staff persons” in the classrooms were not teachers,
meaning that any leeway offered by the decisions in Guttenberg and Neptune is inapplicable.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
16
I therefore CONCLUDE that the Elevate instructors were members of the North Plainfield
teaching staff but did not have New Jersey certification, in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:26-2.
Count II
Petitioners allege that the Elevate instructors were not subject to a criminal
background check in compliance with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1, which provides:
A facility, center, school, or school system under the supervision
of the Department of Education and board of education which
cares for, or is involved in the education of children under the
age of 18 shall not employ for pay or contract for the paid
services of any teaching staff member or substitute teacher,
teacher aide, child study team member, school physician, school
nurse, custodian, school maintenance worker, cafeteria worker,
school law enforcement officer, school secretary or clerical
worker or any other person serving in a position which involves
regular contact with pupils unless the employer has first
determined consistent with the requirements and standards of
this act, that no criminal history record information exists on file
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Identification Division, or
the State Bureau of Identification which would disqualify that
individual from being employed or utilized in such capacity or
position.
[Emphasis added.]
There is no dispute that only some of the Elevate instructors were subject to criminal
background checks. There is no evidence that the Board confirmed – or considered –
whether the criminal background checks that were conducted of Elevate instructors adhered
to the same “requirements and standards” of the New Jersey school laws, including review
of name, address, and fingerprints, and the exchange of the same with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the appropriate state police. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.2.8 Given that the Elevate
teachers were never physically present in the room with their New Jersey students, and there
is no evidence that the teachers had access, virtual or otherwise, to the students outside of
the classroom, the Board may have reasonably relied on the background checks conducted
8 Respondent described the background checks performed by companies hired by Elevate. See Resp’t’s
Suppl. Ltr., at 2-3.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
17
by Elevate, if such were performed. The parties only stipulated, however, that some, but not
necessarily all, the Elevate instructors were subject to background checks.
I CONCLUDE that as teaching staff members, the Elevate instructors were subject to
background checks. Based on the evidence submitted, I CONCLUDE that the Board did not
comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 and -7.2.
Count III
Petitioners claim that the Elevate instructors were not approved by a majority vote of
the full membership of the Board in violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1, which provides that “no
teaching staff member shall be appointed, except by a recorded roll call majority vote of the
full membership of the board of education appointing him.”
While the Board did approve the use of Elevate instructors generally, it concedes that
it did not approve the individual teachers assigned by Elevate to instruct North Plainfield
students. Here, the Board offers no explanation for its failure to review the credentials and/or
to interview—even virtually—the individual teachers offered by Elevate. By the summer of
2022, the COVID-19 emergency had passed and there is no reason to believe that the Board
learned that it was short teachers within just days of the new school year. I CONCLUDE that
respondent violated N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1.
Count IV and Count V
Petitioners claim that because respondent did not observe and evaluate the Elevate
instructors, which the Board admits it did not do, the Board violated N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1, and
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117, et seq. With respect to both counts, the Board argues that because the
Elevate employees were not Board employees, the Board had no obligation to observe
and/or evaluate them as if they were nontenured teaching staff. Resp’t’s Br. at 15.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
18
Specifically, the laws provide, in pertinent part:
Every board of education in this State shall cause each
nontenure teaching staff member employed by it to be observed
and evaluated in the performance of her or his duties at least
three times during each school year but not less than once
during each semester. . . . The purpose of this procedure is to
recommend as to reemployment, identify any deficiencies,
extend assistance for their correction and improve professional
competence.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1.]
A school district shall annually submit to the Commissioner of
Education, for review and approval, the evaluation rubrics that
the district will use to assess the effectiveness of its teachers,
principals, assistant principals, and vice-principals and all other
teaching staff members. The board shall ensure that an
approved rubric meets the minimum standards established by
the State Board of Education.
[N.J.S.A. 18A:6-122(a).]
In defense of Count IV – the failure to observe and evaluate nontenured staff -- the
Board argues that Elevate instructors were not employed by the Board nor were they
members of the North Plainfield “teaching staff.” Having previously concluded that the
Elevate instructors were members of the North Plainfield teaching staff, I instead consider
the purpose of observation and evaluation procedures in N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1, which is to
assess candidates for tenure and address professional deficiencies that may otherwise
prevent tenure. The Elevate teachers were not eligible for tenure and therefore were unlikely
to expect the review and opportunity for professional guidance mandated for local teachers
who intend to make their careers in the North Plainfield district. I CONCLUDE that
respondent did not violate N.J.S.A. 18A:27-3.1.
Under Count V, petitioners allege respondent violated the Teacher Effectiveness and
Accountability for the Children of New Jersey Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:6-117 to -129, the goal of
which “is to raise student achievement by improving instruction through the adoption of
evaluations that provide specific feedback to educators[.]” Here, the Board is required to
evaluate the effectiveness of all teaching staff members using a rubric adopted by the Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
19
and approved by the Commissioner. See N.J.A.C. 6A:10-2.1(a). It is not enough to provide
instruction; the Board had the legal obligation to ensure that the instruction – even by
alternate means -- was effective. Even though the Elevate instructors were continuously
monitored by North Plainfield staff, the District did not formally evaluate their effectiveness
using the rubrics approved by the Commissioner and therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board
violated N.J.S.A. 18A:6-122(a).
Count VI
Petitioners allege that the virtual instructors provided by Elevate are not residents of
New Jersey, in violation of the New Jersey First Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14-7. This claim, however,
is not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner and, therefore, I CONCLUDE that it must
be dismissed. See N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9 (Commissioner’s jurisdiction extends only to
controversies and disputes arising under the school laws); N.J.S.A. 52:14-7(d) (complaints
filed under the New Jersey First Act shall be brought in the Superior Court of New Jersey);
Robbinsville Educ. Ass’n v. Bd. of Educ. of Robbinsville, EDU 12760-23, Comm’r, Final
Decision (Mar. 17, 2025), https://www.nj.gov/education/legal/.
Finally, petitioners seek recovery of costs but have presented no evidence of the harm
they allegedly suffered. No members of the association were laid off, denied tenure, and/or
otherwise supplanted by the Elevate staff. Despite petitioners’ late claim that the taxpayers,
of which class petitioner Alexis Holbrook is a member, were unduly charged to cover the
Elevate contracts, there is no evidence that the amounts paid by the Board under those
contracts met or exceeded the costs that the Board would have incurred in salary and
benefits for local teachers.
The teacher shortage crisis in North Plainfield has passed, and the Board has filled
all positions with local, qualified, New Jersey-certified teachers. As is apparent from ACR
192/SCR 152, the Legislature is aware of the use of virtual instructors in the public schools,
may be aware of the hiring problems faced by public schools in the state, and has directed
the DOE to provide it with data. A solution to the problem that resulted in this matter may be
forthcoming.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 14056-23
20
ORDER
For the above reasons, I ORDER that the cross-motion for summary decision of North
Plainfield Education Association and Alexis Holbrook is GRANTED with respect to Counts I,
II, III, and V, and DENIED with respect to Counts IV, VI, and VII, and the cross-motion of
respondent Borough of North Plainfield Board of Education is GRANTED with respect to
Counts IV, VI, and VII, and DENIED with respect to Counts I, II, III, and V. Finally, I ORDER
that costs shall not be awarded to either party.
As provided at N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.7, disposition of the cross-motions for summary
decision leaves no issues in dispute, concluding this case, and, therefore, 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 14056-23
21
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
November 13, 2025
DATE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TMC/kl