Board of Education of the Township of Deptford, Gloucester County v. Board of Education of the Gloucester County Vocational School District, Gloucester County, 3/9/2023, (#65-23)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of Deptford,
Gloucester County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Gloucester County
Vocational School District, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioning school district (Deptford) sought an order relieving it of the obligation to pay the tuition and
transportation costs for its students to attend the Gloucester County Institute of Technology (GCIT),
which is operated by the Gloucester County Vocational-Technical School District (GCV-TSD). Petitioner
contended that it offers Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs that are equivalent to those
offered at GCIT and is therefore the functional equivalent of an approved vocational school; accordingly,
petitioner argued that it is exempt from paying tuition and transportation costs for its resident students
to attend GCIT when the same or similar courses are offered in the Deptford School District. The parties
filed cross motions for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; Deptford has created three CTE programs (Academy of Biomedical Science and
Nursing/Allied Health; Academy of Engineering and Computer Science; and Spartan School of Carpentry)
and received CTE program approval from the NJDOE; the Commissioner previously decided the issue of
whether operating approved CTE programs is the same as operating a vocational school (see, Board of
Education of the Delaware Valley Regional High School District, Hunterdon County v. Board of Education
of the Hunterdon County Vocational School District, Hunterdon County, et al., Commissioner’s Decision
No. 124-20, decided June 8, 2020, affirmed 2021 N.J. Super Unpub. 3090 (App. Div. 2021)) and
determined that approved CTE programs are not the equivalent of a vocational school; establishment of
a vocational school requires a separate application and approval process; there is no evidence in the
record that Deptford has applied for approval to establish a vocational school; accordingly, Deptford is
not exempt from paying the tuition and transportation costs for its students who apply and are accepted
to attend GCIT under N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1 and N.J.A.C. 6A:19-2.3. The ALJ granted GCV-TSD’s motion for
summary decision and dismissed Deptford’s petition.
Upon review the Commissioner, inter alia, concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion in this case.
Accordingly, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter and
dismissed the petition.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has been
neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
65-23

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05269-22
Agency Dkt. No. 102-5/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of Deptford,
Gloucester County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Gloucester County
Vocational-Technical School District, Gloucester
County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioner Deptford Township Board of Education (Deptford) seeks an order declaring that it
is not required to pay the tuition or transportation costs for its students to attend the Gloucester
County Institute of Technology (GCIT), which is operated by the Gloucester County Vocational-
Technical School District. Deptford argues that because it offers Career and Technical Education
(CTE) programs that are equivalent to those offered at GCIT, it is the functional equivalent of an
approved vocational school, and it is therefore exempt from paying tuition and transportation
costs.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Deptford’s CTE programs are not the
equivalent of a vocational school, and Deptford is not exempt from paying the tuition and
transportation costs for its students who attend GCIT under N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1 and N.J.A.C. 6A:19-
2.3. The ALJ cited to Board of Education of the Delaware Valley Regional High School District,
65-23

2
Hunterdon County v. Board of Education of the Hunterdon County Vocational School District,
Hunterdon County, et al., Commissioner’s Decision No. 124-20, decided June 8, 2020, affirmed 2021
N.J. Super Unpub. 3090 (App. Div. 2021), in which the Commissioner decided the same issue and
determined that operating approved CTE programs is not the same as operating a vocational
school, the establishment of which requires a separate application and approval process. The ALJ
found that the record does not reflect any correspondence between Deptford and the Department
seeking approval and establishment of a vocational school.
The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that Deptford is required to pay the tuition and
transportation costs for its students to attend GCIT. N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1 and N.J.A.C. 6A:19-2.3
establish that boards of education shall send and pay tuition for its resident students who are
accepted to attend a county vocational school district, unless the board of education maintains an
approved vocational school. The Commissioner is in accord with the ALJ’s determination that
Deptford does not have approval to operate a vocational school, nor is its CTE program the same as
a vocational school, so it is not exempt from the tuition and transportation requirement.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter,
and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
March 9, 2023
March 10, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION
GRANTING SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
AGENCY REF. NO. 102/5-22
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF DEPTFORD,
GLOUCESTER COUNTY,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
GLOUCESTER COUNTY VOCATIONAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
GLOUCESTER COUNTY,
Respondent.
Albert K. Marmero, Esq., for petitioner (Long, Marmero & Associates, LLP,
attorneys)
Caitlin Pletcher, Esq., for respondent (Florio, Perrucci, Steinhardt, Capelli, Tiption
& Taylor, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 8, 2022 	Decision: December 21, 2022
BEFORE TAMA B. HUGHES, ALJ:
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Board of Education of the Township of Deptford (“Deptford” or “petitioner”)
filed a “Petition of Appeal” seeking a declaratory ruling of a February 7, 2022, decision by
the 	Gloucester 	County 	Interim 	Executive 	County 	Superintendent 	(Superintendent)
holding petitioner responsible for the tuition and transportation costs of any resident
student 	admitted 	to 	the 	Gloucester 	County 	Vocational-Technical 	School 	District
(“GCVTD” or “respondent”). 	It is Deptford’s contention that they complied with the
applicable statutes and regulations when they created and instituted a State recognized
“Career 	and 	Technical 	Education” 	(CTE) 	program 	that 	was 	assigned 	the 	same
Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code as a vocational school. As such, they
should 	be 	exempt 	from 	the 	tuition 	and 	transportation 	costs 	of 	any 	of 	their
residents/student admitted to GCVTD’s program when the same or similar courses are
offered in their own district.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By letter, dated January 28, 2022, Deptford informed parents and guardians of
students in their district that commencing in the 2022/2023 school year, Deptford would
no longer pay the tuition and transportation costs for students enrolled in certain programs
at the Gloucester County Institute of Technology (GCIT) — GCVTD’s vocational school.
On February 7, 2022, the superintendent issued a decision rejecting Deptford’s plan to
stop tuition and transportation reimbursement.
On May 5, 2022, Deptford appealed to the Commissioner of Education seeking a
declaratory ruling in its favor. 	On May 26, 2022, GCVTD filed its answer and a cross-
petition for a declaratory ruling. On June 20, 2022, Deptford filed its answer to GCVTD’s
cross-petition.
On June 23, 2022, the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Education
transmitted the matters to the Office of Administrated Law (OAL) to be heard as a
contested case. 	N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	An initial call was

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
3
held on August 24, 2022, at which time the parties were provided dates to file cross
motions for summary decision and their respective oppositions. 	Upon receipt of the
parties moving papers, the record closed on November 8, 2022.
FINDING OF FACT
1. 	GCVTD was established in 1970 as the county vocational school for
Gloucester County and pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:54-6, the Commissioner
of Education (“Commissioner”) approved the establishment and operation
of GCIT.
2. 	GCVTD provides multiple CTE programs at GCIT, which include among
other things, programs in: Health Sciences/Allied Health/Health Sciences,
General; Engineering Technology, General; and Carpentry/carpenter.
3. 	Deptford 	operates 	the 	Deptford 	Township 	School 	District 	located 	in
Gloucester County and pays the tuition and transportation costs for its
resident students who attend GCIT.
4. 	Starting in 2018 to 2021, Deptford created and instituted three CTE courses
of study: (1) Academy of Biomedical Science and Nursing/Allied Health
Sciences, (2) Academy of Engineering and Computer Science, and (3)
Spartan School of Carpentry. The CTE courses were approved by the New
Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:19-3.1
and 3.2 and assigned the appropriate CIP codes. 	(Petitioner’s brief,
Exhibits A–D.)
5. 	GCVTD offers the same CTE programs at GCIT, all of which are approved
by the NJDOE.1 (Respondent’s brief, pages 3–4.)
1 Some of the courses may be listed under different titles and a different CIP code.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
4
6. 	By letter, dated January 28, 2022, Deptford informed parents and guardians
of students in their District that commencing in the 2022/2023 school year,
it would no longer pay the tuition and transportation costs for students
enrolled in the following programs at GCIT:
GC Vo-Tech Program 	Deptford 	High 	School
Equivalent Program
Health Science 	Academy 	of 	Biomedical
Science and Nursing/Allied
Health
Engineering Technology 	Academy 	of 	Engineering
and Computer Science
Carpentry 	Spartan 	School 	of
Carpentry
Deptford also advised parents/guardians that “We are also required by law
to cover tuition and transportation costs of any resident student enrolled in
a county vocational program, unless we offer the same program within our
district. 	The law defines “the same” as being Department of Education
approved, assigned the same Classification of Instructional Program (CIP)
code, and meeting or exceeding all applicable program 	performance
standards.” (Petitioner’s brief, Exhibit F.)
7. 	By letter, dated February 7, 2022, the superintendent issued a decision
rejecting Deptford’s plan to stop tuition and transportation reimbursement
citing to N.J.A.C. 6A:19-2.3 and N.J.A.C. 18A:54-5 et seq. and the fact that
Deptford did not maintain a vocational school. (Petitioner’s brief, Exhibit F.)
8. 	Deptford is not an approved vocational school and has not applied for such
status with the State Department of Education.
LEGAL ARUGMENT AND CONCLUSION
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5 provides that summary decision should be rendered “if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
5
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.” Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c), which provides
that “the judgment or order sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, 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 a judgment or order as a matter of law.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the 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 fact finder to resolve the allegedly disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party. 	Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party offers . . .
only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, ‘fanciful
frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the court grants
summary judgment.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (citing
Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Brill at 540 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505,
2511, 91 L. Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986)). When the evidence “is so one-sided that one party
must prevail as a matter of law,” the trial court should not hesitate to grant summary
judgment. Liberty Lobby at 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L. Ed.2d at 214.
Based upon the facts in the present matter as set forth more fully above, I
CONCLUDE that this matter is ripe for summary decision.
There are no genuine issues of material fact in this matter. 	The respondent
provides a vocational program at GCIT. Petitioner has District students who attend this
program and pays their tuition in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(a). The petitioner
has created three programs (Academy of Biomedical Science and Nursing/Allied Health,
Academy of Engineering and Computer Science, Spartan School of Carpentry) and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
6
received CTE program approval from the NJDOE. 	However, the petitioner does not
operate a vocational school and has not applied or received approval to run a vocational
school.
Petitioner argues that in each of its course offerings, it has demonstrated that they
meet all requirements for a CIP classification under N.J.A.C. 6A:19-2.3, satisfied all
program requirements for a CTE program outlined under N.J.A.C. 6A:19-3.1 and
therefore its courses are the same as those offered by respondent. Moreover, petitioner
avers it has received for the Fiscal Year 2023, an allocation of $27,654,595 in Perkins
Grant Funds, for the advancement of its CTE program. 	Taken collectively, petitioner
believes that its good faith efforts to create and obtain NJDOE approval of its CTE
courses, is the functional equivalent of an approved vocational school that offers the same
courses as the regional vocation school, in this case, GCIT. 	Therefore, it satisfies the
two-part test for exemption of tuition and transportation cost payments under N.J.A.C.
6A:19-2.3(a)(1).
Respondent’s argument focuses on the fact that the Commissioner of Education
has never declared petitioner a vocational school under N.J.S.A. 18A:54-6. Nowhere in
petitioner’s motion or supporting documents is there the Commissioner’s approval for
petitioner to establish and maintain its own vocational school. 	Likewise, in review of
petitioner’s papers, is there any evidence that petitioner has considered or voted on a
resolution to create a vocational school. 	While there is evidence that petitioner has
created 	and 	sought 	approval 	for 	vocational 	courses 	which 	they 	self-labeled 	as
“Academies” or the like, there are no letters or applications to the Commissioner seeking
actual approval as a vocational school pursuant to the statute. 	As such, summary
decision is the appropriate remedy as a matter of law because petitioner does not meet
the 	statutory 	or 	regulatory 	requirements 	for 	exemption 	from 	paying 	tuition 	and
transportation costs for their resident students currently enrolled at GCIT.
Respondent is correct.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
7
In this matter, N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1 and the corresponding code N.J.A.C. 6A:19-
2.3 are controlling.
N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1 states in pertinent part:
a. The board of education of each school district or regional
school district in any county in which there is a county
vocational school district shall send to any of the schools
of the county vocational school district each pupil who
resides in the school district or regional school district and
who has applied for admission to and has been accepted
for 	attendance 	at 	any 	of 	the 	schools 	of 	the 	county
vocational school district. 	The board of education shall
pay tuition for each of these pupils to the county vocational
school district pursuant to subsection c. of this section.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to the board
of education of a school district or regional school district
maintaining a vocational school or schools pursuant to
article 2 of chapter 54 of Title 18A of the New Jersey
Statutes. [emphasis added]
N.J.A.C. 6A:19-2.3, which mirrors, N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1 states in pertinent part:
(a) Each resident district board of education shall ensure that
resident students may apply to and, if accepted, attend a
county vocational school pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:54-
20.1. 	The existence of the same career and technical
education 	program 	at 	the 	resident 	district 	board 	of
education shall not negate a student's right to apply to and,
if accepted, attend a county vocational school, subject to
the following limitations:
1. 	The 	resident 	district 	board 	of 	education 	shall 	be
responsible for the tuition and transportation costs of
any resident student admitted to the county vocational
school in which the school district is located, unless the
resident 	district 	board 	of 	education 	maintains 	a
vocational school pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:54-5 et
seq., and such school offers the same program as the
county vocational school where the student has been
admitted. 	A program shall be deemed the same, for
purposes of 	this 	section, if 	it is 	approved 	by the
Department in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:19-3.1 and
3.2, is assigned the same Classification of Instructional

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
8
Programs 	(CIP) 	code, 	and 	meets 	or 	exceeds 	all
applicable 	program 	performance 	standards 	. 	. 	.
[emphasis added]
N.J.S.A. 18A:54-5 provides that “the board of education of any school district or
regional school district may establish and maintain vocational schools.” Id. That authority
however is qualified under N.J.S.A. 18A:54-6 which states:
Before any such school shall be established, the location and
rules for the management of the school, the course, or
courses of study to be pursued therein, and all changes in
such courses shall be approved by the commissioner, subject
to the advice and consent of the state board. Id.
Thus, it is critical to determine whether the approval for a CTE program is the
equivalent to being an approved vocational school, and if this relieves a board of
education from the obligation to pay for resident students who are enrolled at a regional
vocational school as set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.
This exact issue was recently addressed in Delaware Valley Regional High School
District, Board of Education v. Hunterdon County Vocational School, EDU 13276-19, Final
Decision (June 8, 2020), affirmed Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division,
Docket No. A-3927-19, 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3090 * | 2021 WL 5872879.
In Delaware Valley, the same issue of law and similar facts were raised. 	Similar
to the petitioner in this matter, Delaware Valley had state approved CTE programs of
study which were assigned CIP codes. 	Delaware Valley sought a determination that
because it had state approved CTE programs, it was the equivalent of being a vocational
school so that it could qualify for tuition and transportation exemption. The Commission
adopted the ALJ’s findings and confirmed that “operating a CTE program is not the same
as operating a vocational school” and concluded that a Board of Education “does not fall
into the exception outlined in N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(a) because it does not operate a
vocational school since it never applied or been approved to do so.” 	(Final Decision at
page 5.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
9
In affirming the Commissioner’s Final Decision, the Appellate Division determined
that:
[I]t was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable for the
Commissioner to conclude Delaware Valley Board does not
operate 	a 	vocational 	school. 	The 	relevant 	Department
regulations 	consistently 	differentiate 	the 	terms 	school,
program, and program of study. 	See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 6A:19-
2.1. 	Thus, approval to administer a CTE program is not the
equivalent of approval to operate a vocational school. As the
ALJ aptly noted, Delaware Valley Board “does not have an
approved ‘school[,]’ . . . only . . . an approved ‘program.’”
Delaware Valley Board asserts that contrary to legislative
intent, 	current 	Department 	regulations 	do 	not 	provide 	a
mechanism 	for 	a 	regional 	board 	of 	education 	to 	obtain
approval to operate a vocational school. However, Delaware
Valley Board has not sought the Commissioner's approval to
operate a vocational school as authorized by statute; it only
requested authorization to offer a CTE program, which was
approved.
N.J.S.A. 18A:54-5 declares that district and regional school
boards “may establish and maintain vocational schools,” and
N.J.S.A. 18A:54-6 conditions the establishment of district and
regional 	vocational 	schools 	on 	Commissioner 	approval.
Consequently, on this record, we have no basis for concluding
Delaware Valley Board operates a vocational school or that
the Commissioner denied it the opportunity to establish a
vocational school contrary to legislative intent.
Id. at 11-12.
Petitioner argues that it has satisfied the various pieces and parts of the regulatory
framework to be a vocational school when it was granted NJDOE approval to offer various
CTE courses. 	Petitioner cites to Delaware Valley, for the proposition that when the
controlling statute and implementing regulations as to vocational schools are unclear, a
Court should not defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statutory language and
regulatory scheme because to do so would be “plainly unreasonable.” 	This is a
misreading of Delaware Valley.
The Appellate Division in Delaware Valley provided an in-depth analysis of
N.J.S.A. 18A:54-20.1(a) and what was necessary to qualify as a vocational school
pursuant to the applicable regulations. Citing to N.J.S.A. 18A:54-6, the Court determined

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
10
that the Commissioner must approve the location, management rules, and courses of
study of all district and regional vocational schools. 	Citing to N.J.A.C. 6A:19-2.1(c) the
Court also noted that boards of education cannot label their schools and programs “career
and technical” or “vocational-technical” without NJDOE approval. Id. at 11.
Similar to Delaware Valley, petitioner in this case is not a NJDOE approved
vocational school. 	While it has several NJDOE approved CTE course/programs, that
alone does not qualify it to be a vocational school. See N.J.S.A. 18A:54-5 et seq. There
is nothing in the record to reflect any board minutes, letters or other correspondence by
the petitioner to the NJDOE consistent with the statutory requirements, seeking approval
and establishment of a vocational school.
As succinctly stated in Delaware Valley, approval to administer a CTE program is
not the equivalent of approval to operate a vocational school. 	For all of the foregoing
reasons, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s CTE courses/program as approved by the
NJDOE, is not the equivalent to approval as a vocational school. 	I further CONCLUDE
that petitioner is not exempt from paying tuition and transportation costs of its students
who apply for and are admitted to the CTE program at GCIT.
ORDER
I hereby ORDER that the Board of Education of the Gloucester County Vocational
School District’s Motion for Summary Decision is hereby GRANTED and that the Board
of Education of the Township of Deptford’s Cross-Motion for Summary Decision is
DENIED, and their petition is DISMISSED.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
11
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
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.
December 21, 2022
DATE 	TAMA B. HUGHES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TBH /gd

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05269-22
12
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
• 	Petitioner’s Brief for Motion for Summary Decision
• 	Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision
• 	Letter brief in support of Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Decision and
Respondent’s Opposition to Petitioners Motion for Summary Decision
For respondent
• 	Respondent’s Brief for Motion for Summary Decision
• 	Respondent letter brief in Opposition to Petitioner Motion for Summary
Decision