A.D., on behalf of minor children, D.D., J.D., A.H., R.D., J.D., and K.D. v. Board of Education of the Township of Cinnaminson, Burlington County, 7/15/26 (#247-26)

247-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02031-25
Agency Dkt. No. 404-12/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
A.D., on behalf of minor children, D.D., J.D.,
A.H., R.D., J.D. and K.D.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Cinnaminson, Burlington County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Petitioner initially challenged a December 18, 2024, determination by respondent Board
of Education of the Township of Cinnaminson (Board) that she and her children were not
domiciled in the district and were therefore not entitled to a free public education in the district.
However, as explained in the Initial Decision, petitioner abandoned her appeal during the OAL
proceedings. 	Thereafter, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a hearing for purposes of
addressing the Board’s tuition claim in which she took testimony from Frank Goulburn, Ed.D.,
Director of Curriculum and Instruction, whose duties include overseeing Board residency
matters.

2
The ALJ made findings of fact based upon Goulburn’s testimony and exhibit R-20, which
contained information regarding the Board’s annual tuition rates for each grade level.
Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that petitioner owed the Board $250,329.25 in tuition for the 2024-
2025 and 2025-2026 school years for the periods of her children’s ineligible attendance. This
amount included the cost of special education placement tuition for two of the minor children,
J.D. and J.D.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has abandoned her
appeal and failed to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that she was domiciled in the
district during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years. Consequently, petitioner owes tuition
to the Board pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) and N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a)(1) for her children’s
ineligible attendance at school in the district. 	However, the Commissioner rejects the ALJ’s
method of calculating the tuition owed by petitioner and concludes that the total tuition owed—
as more fully explained below—is $152,523.60, not $250,329.25, because an individual student’s
special education costs must be excluded from the calculation.
Under New Jersey law, children are entitled to a free public education in the school district
in which they are domiciled. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a). “A student is domiciled in the school district
when the student is the child of a parent or guardian whose domicile is located within the school
district.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1). See Somerville Bd. of Educ. v. Manville Bd. of Educ., 332 N.J.
Super. 6, 12 (App. Div. 2000) (“A child’s domicile is normally that of his or her parents.”), aff’d,
167 N.J. 55 (2001). “Domicile” in this context means a “true, fixed, permanent home.” D.L. v.
Bd. of Educ. of Princeton Reg’l Sch. Dist., 366 N.J. Super. 269, 273 (App. Div. 2004). The parent

3
“’shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence’ to prove domicile in the
school district.” Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2)).
With respect to tuition, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a), if “petitioner does not sustain
the burden of demonstrating the student’s right to attend the school district . . . or abandons the
appeal by any means other than settlement agreeing to waive or reduce tuition, the
Commissioner may assess tuition for the period during which the hearing and decision on appeal
were pending, and for up to one year of a student’s ineligible attendance in a school district prior
to the appeal’s filing and including the 21-day period to file an appeal.” However, the Board’s
ability to recover tuition from petitioner is limited. 	N.J.-B. v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Union,
Commissioner Decision No. 112-20 (Apr. 24, 2020), at 2.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) provides that if the evidence does not support the parent’s claim of
residency, the Commissioner shall assess tuition “computed on the basis of 1/180 of the total
annual per pupil cost to the local district multiplied by the number of days of ineligible
attendance.” Ibid. “The statute does not specify that the assessed tuition be equal to the actual
costs incurred by the district for educating the student at issue. Instead, it uses the measure of
annual per pupil cost, which is based on the district’s overall costs and enrollment and is not
specific to any individual student.” N.J.-B., at 2. See N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3(a) (explaining that tuition
“shall be calculated on a per-student basis for the period of a student’s ineligible enrollment, up
to one year, by applicable grade/program category and consistent with the provisions of N.J.A.C.
6A:23A-17.1”); Bd. of Educ. of Bordentown Reg’l Sch. Dist. v. Marini, Commissioner Decision No.
202-23 (July 6, 2023) at 10 (citing N.J.-B. for the proposition that “tuition reimbursement is

4
limited to 1/180 of the per pupil cost and does not include the assessment of special education
and related costs”).
Based upon the ALJ’s undisputed findings of fact and the tuition information supplied by
the Board within exhibit R-20, the Commissioner concludes that petitioner’s obligation to pay
tuition for each child is as follows:
2024-2025
annual per
pupil cost
# of days
ineligible
attendance
2024-2025
tuition
owed
2025-2026 annual
per pupil cost/per
diem cost
# of days
ineligible
attendance
2025-2026
tuition
owed
TOTAL
D.D.1 (high
school)
$18,741 	180 	$18,741 	$18,465
($102.58/day)
180 	$18,465 	$37,206
J.D. (high school) 	$18,741 	180 	$18,741 	$18,465
($102.58/day)
45 	$4616.10 	$23,357.10
J.D. (middle
school)
$18,350 	180 	$18,350 	$18,500
($102.77/day)
45 	$4624.65 	$22,974.65
A.H. (middle
school)
$18,350 	180 	$18,350 	$18,500
($102.77/day)
45 	$4624.65 	$22,974.65
R.D. (middle
school)
$18,350 	180 	$18,350 	$18,500
($102.77/day)
45 	$4624.65 	$22,974.65
K.D. (elementary
school)
$18,384 	180 	$18,384 	$18,611
($103.39/day)
45 	$4652.55 	$23,036.55
TOTAL DUE 	$110,916 	$41,607.60 	$152,523.60
Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified for the reasons explained herein with respect
to the tuition owed, is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition of appeal is
dismissed. 	The Board is entitled to payment of tuition from petitioner in the amount of
1 According to the record, the Board permitted D.D., a high school senior, to attend school in the district
through the end of June 2026. Petitioner withdrew the other children from the district on November 3,
2025.

5
$152,523.60 for her children’s periods of ineligible attendance during the 2024-2025 and 2025-
2026 school years.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 15, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	July 15, 2026
2 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 02031-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 404-12/24
A.D. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN
D.D., J.D., A.H., R.D., J.D., and K.D.,
Petitioners,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF CINNAMINSON BOARD OF
EDUCATION, BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________________
A.D., petitioner, pro se
Alicia D’Anella, Esq., for respondent (Gorman, D’Anella & Morlok, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 17, 2026 Decided: May 5, 2026
BEFORE MAMTA PATEL, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, A.D., did not appear for her residency appeal hearing and failed to
demonstrate that her children have the right to a free public-school education in the
Cinnaminson School District, thereby abandoning her appeal. Is A.D. responsible for
tuition? Yes. Tuition may be assessed during the hearing and appeal period, covering

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
2
up to one year of ineligible attendance before filing, including the twenty-one-day period
to file an appeal. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a)(1).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 27, 2024, A.D., petitioner mother of minor children D.D., J.D., A.H.,
R.D., J.D., and K.D., filed a petition of appeal from respondent Cinnaminson Township
Board of Education’s (Board) determination dated December 18, 2024, which found that
she was not domiciled in the school district and, therefore, her children were ineligible to
attend the Cinnaminson Township public schools. On January 21, 2025, the Board filed
an answer, including a request for an order requiring A.D. to pay tuition for each minor
child for each day of ineligible attendance.
On January 27, 2025, the Office of Controversies and Disputes of the Department
of Education (DOE) transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law under the
Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the
Office of Administrative Law, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
After several delays based on A.D.’s representation that she was retaining
counsel, which she never did, I advised the parties to begin exchanging discovery. During
several case-management conferences with the parties, the Board’s counsel advised me
that A.D. was not adequately responding to the Board’s discovery requests. A.D. was
advised several times to respond to those requests. Finally, I set a deadline of August
21, 2025. By that deadline, A.D. failed to provide the Board with sufficient discovery,
including answers to interrogatories and responses to document requests. On August
25, 2025, the Board moved for sanctions, seeking either dismissal of A.D.’s appeal or
exclusion of any information not provided during discovery at the hearing. On September
10, 2025, I ordered that A.D. be precluded from introducing any evidence at the hearing
that was not previously disclosed to the Board by the August 21, 2025, deadline, under
N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.14.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
3
On September 18, 2025, I issued an Amended Prehearing Order that incorporated
the August 21, 2025, order and scheduled hearing dates for October 28 and 29, 2025,
with hearing binders due October 14, 2025. A.D. did not submit a binder.
On October 23, 2025, A.D. advised this tribunal and counsel for the Board that she
was relocating, including signing a lease in another school district, and that she would be
withdrawing her children from school on November 3, 2025. On that same date, A.D. and
a Board representative signed a settlement agreement under which A.D. agreed to
withdraw her appeal, and, in exchange, the Board agreed to withdraw its claim for tuition
and allow D.D., a senior, to finish the school year. The agreement was placed on the
record during a virtual hearing on October 31, 2025, at which A.D. was subject to voir dire
to ensure she understood the agreement and to confirm her representations regarding
relocation. The settlement agreement was contingent upon approval by the full Board at
its next meeting on November 18, 2025.
By letter dated November 12, 2025, the Board advised this tribunal that it had been
contacted by the school district to which A.D. had represented she was relocating. That
district informed the Board that A.D. was seeking enrollment under the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act as a family in transition, which was inconsistent with A.D.’s
representations in the settlement agreement and during the Zoom conference, when she
stated that she had secured a lease in the new school district. Her enrollment under
McKinney-Vento carried potential financial implications for the Board that were not
contemplated at the time of the settlement. Accordingly, the Board did not approve the
settlement agreement.
Subsequently, on February 17, 2026, and March 18, 2026, I scheduled two in-
person conferences to seek clarification regarding A.D.’s whereabouts and prior
representations to this tribunal about signing a lease in another school district.
On March 19, 2026, A.D. emailed this tribunal, stating that all her children, except
the oldest, D.D. (who had permission from the Board to remain), had been withdrawn
from Cinnaminson schools, and that her school schedule did not allow her to attend the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
4
hearing dates set by this tribunal. A.D. further indicated that, because the children were
no longer enrolled, she did not feel it necessary to appear at the hearing.
I scheduled the hearing for April 16, 2026. A.D. failed to appear, and the hearing
was held in absentia. During the hearing, the Board presented evidence related to the
tuition owed by A.D. and moved for a ruling that A.D. had abandoned her appeal. A.D.
was given twenty-four hours to explain her absence. On April 17, 2026, after failing to
hear from A.D., I closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Given the testimony provided by Dr. Frank Goulburn, Ed.D., and my assessment
of its credibility, together with the documents the parties submitted, and my assessment
of their sufficiency, I FIND the following as FACT:
1. Frank Goulburn, Ed.D., is the director of Curriculum and Instruction for the
Board, whose duties include overseeing residency matters. The Board has
employed Goulburn for the past eight years. He is familiar with A.D.’s
children, their academic placements, and the Board’s approved tuition
rates.
2. In September of the 2021–2022 school year, A.D. enrolled four of her six
children, D.D., J.D., A.H., and R.D., in the Cinnaminson School District. At
the time, A.D. signed the Host Family Affidavit, stating that they were
residing with her sister, R.D., because they were unable to find a house.
R.D. also signed the affidavit, affirming that A.D. and the children were living
with her at 701 P. Street, Cinnaminson, New Jersey.
3. In September of the 2022–2023 school year, A.D. also enrolled two
additional children, K.D. and J.D., in the Cinnaminson School District.
Again, A.D. signed the Host Family Affidavit, stating that they were residing
with her sister, R.D., because they were unable to find a house. R.D. also

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
5
signed the affidavit, affirming that A.D. and the children were living with her
at 701 P. Street, Cinnaminson, New Jersey.1
4. Beginning in the fall of 2023, several teachers and administrators reported
to him that several of A.D.’s children began making statements to them that
cast doubt on their residency in Cinnaminson.
5. Goulburn was advised that the children stated that their mother lived in
Trenton, New Jersey. One of the children reported their address as 1010
S. Street, Trenton, which matched the prior address listed in the enrollment
records.2 The children also reported taking the train to and from
Cinnaminson and Trenton.
6. An investigation, including surveillance, confirmed that a vehicle registered
to A.D. was observed parked at 1010 S. Street on several occasions in 2024
and 2025. A.D. and the children were seen at the Trenton residence. The
investigation also included observing the children walking to and from the
New Jersey Transit River Line Light Rail, which runs from Trenton to
Camden and has a stop in Cinnaminson.
7. On December 9, 2024, the Cinnaminson School District sent A.D. a letter
advising her that it had determined she was not domiciled in the school
district, and that if she accepted the decision, the children needed to be
withdrawn from the school, or she could challenge the decision at a hearing
before the Board.
8. On December 17, 2024, A.D. appeared before the Board and presented her
case. On December 18, the Board issued its decision finding that A.D. was
not domiciled in the Cinnaminson School District.
1 The letter P is used to replace the actual street name to maintain the privacy of the residents.
2 The letter S is used to replace the actual street name to maintain the privacy of the residents.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
6
9. Goulburn attends Board meetings and is familiar with the tuition rates
approved by the Board for both general education and special education.
10. D.D., J.D., A.H., R.D., J.D., and K.D. were enrolled in the Cinnaminson
School District for the 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 school years, through
November 3, 2025, when A.D. withdrew J.D., A.H., R.D., J.D., and K.D. from
the school district. D.D., a senior, was permitted to remain in the school.
11. The 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 school years consist of 180 days. Since
A.D. withdrew J.D., A.H., R.D., J.D., and K.D. on November 3, 2025, during
the 2025–2026 school year, they were enrolled in the Cinnaminson school
district for only 45 days.
12. D.D. remains enrolled at Cinnaminson High School. She is presently a
senior in the general education program and was a junior during the 2024–
2025 school year. The annual tuition rates approved by the Board,
applicable to her age and program, are as follows:
a. 2024–2025: $18,741.00;
b. 2025–2026: $18,465.00.
13. The total amount owed for D.D. is $37,206.00.
14. J.D. was enrolled in Cinnaminson schools as a tenth-grade student until
A.D. withdrew him on November 3, 2025. He is classified as multiply
disabled and attended Archway Academy during both the 2024–2025 and
2025–2026 school years. J.D. was enrolled for 180 days during the 2024–
2025 school year and 45 days during the 2025–2026 school year. The
annual tuition rates approved by the Board, applicable to his age and
program, are as follows:
a. 2024–2025: $52,608.00;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
7
b. 2025–2026: $54,257.00;
c. Pro-rated through November 3, 2025: $13,564.25.
15. The total amount owed for J.D. is $66,172.25.
16. J.D. was enrolled in Cinnaminson schools as an eighth-grade student until
A.D. withdrew him on November 3, 2025. He is classified as multiply
disabled and attended Archway Academy during both the 2024–2025 and
2025–2026 school years. J.D. was enrolled for 180 days during the 2024–
2025 school year and 45 days during the 2025–2026 school year. The
annual tuition rates approved by the Board, applicable to his age and
program, are as follows:
a. 2024–2025: $52,608.00;
b. 2025–2026: $54,257.00;
c. Pro-rated, through November 3, 2025: $13,564.25.
17. The total amount owed for J.D. is $66,172.25.
18. A.H. was enrolled in Cinnaminson schools as an eighth-grade student until
A.D. withdrew her on November 3, 2025. She is classified with emotional
regulation impairment. A.H. was enrolled for 180 days during the 2024–
2025 school year and 45 days during the 2025–2026 school year. The
annual tuition rates approved by the Board, applicable to her age and
program, are as follows:
a. 2024–2025: $28,017.00;
b. 2025–2026: $27,000.00;
c. Pro-rated through November 3, 2025: $6,750.00.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
8
19. The total amount owed for A.H. is $34,767.00.
20. R.D. was enrolled in Cinnaminson schools as an eighth-grade student until
A.D. withdrew her on November 3, 2025. She was placed in a resource
room placement. R.D. was enrolled for 180 days during the 2024–2025
school year and 45 days during the 2025–2026 school year. The annual
tuition rates approved by the Board, applicable to her age and program, are
as follows:
a. 2024–2025: $18,350.00;
b. 2025–2026: $18,500.00;
c. Pro-rated through November 3, 2025: $4,625.00.
21. The total amount owed for R.D. is $22,975.00.
22. K.D. was enrolled in Cinnaminson schools as a third-grade student until
A.D. withdrew her on November 3, 2025. She was a general education
student. K.D. was enrolled for 180 days during the 2024–2025 school year
and 45 days during the 2025–2026 school year. The annual tuition rates
approved by the Board, applicable to her age and program, are as follows:
a. 2024–2025: $18,384.00;
b. 2025–2026: $18,611.00;
c. Pro-rated through November 3, 2025: $4,652.75.
23. The total amount owed for K.D. is $23,036.75.
24. A.D. failed to appear at the hearing on April 16, 2026.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Public school shall be free to a minor who is domiciled within the school district,
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a). New Jersey has consistently held that a child’s domicile follows
the parent’s domicile, Shim v. Rutgers, 191 N.J. 374, 399 (2007). Moreover, if a student
does not have the right to attend the school district the Commissioner may assess tuition.
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a). The resident has the burden of proof in a determination of
residency ineligibility. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1.
In this case, based on the facts presented, the Board sent A.D. a letter on
December 18, 2024, finding that she was not domiciled in the Cinnaminson School
District. A.D. failed to appear and present her case.
Motion on Abandonment
N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(a) provides that if, after appropriate notice, a party fails to appear
in any proceeding scheduled by a judge, the judge shall hold the matter for one day before
taking any action. If the judge does not receive an explanation for the nonappearance
within that one-day period, the judge may direct the Clerk to return the case to the
transmitting agency for appropriate disposition.
In this case, on February 17, 2026, and March 18, 2026, this tribunal scheduled
in-person conferences, but A.D. failed to appear.
On March 18, 2026, this tribunal sent the parties another notice scheduling a
hearing for April 16, 2026. The parties were advised to submit pre-hearing briefs by April
9, 2026. The Board submitted its brief. A.D. did not submit anything.
On March 19, 2026, A.D. emailed this tribunal and wrote that she did not feel it
necessary to appear at the hearing because she had withdrawn her children from the
Cinnaminson School District.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
10
On April 16, 2026, a hearing was held, during which the Board appeared and
presented testimony. On April 16, 2026, A.D. was advised that a hearing had been held
and that she needed to explain why she did not appear. A.D. did not respond.
Based on the above, I CONCLUDE that A.D. abandoned her appeal contesting
her residency. But because the Board is requesting tuition reimbursement, the request
to dismiss is DENIED under N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(a).
Tuition
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a)(1) authorizes the Commissioner of Education to assess
tuition for non-resident students, prorated to the period of the student’s ineligible
attendance in the school district, including when a petitioner fails to prosecute or
abandons the appeal.
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3, tuition is calculated per student during ineligible
enrollment, up to one year, by grade/program category. Daily attendance does not impact
the calculation.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4(d) provides:
If the appearing party requires an initial decision on the merits,
the party shall ask the judge for permission to present ex parte
proofs. If no explanation for the failure to appear is received,
and the circumstances require a decision on the merits, the
judge may enter an initial decision on the merits based on the
ex parte proofs, provided the failure to appear is memorialized
in the decision.
As discussed above, A.D. abandoned her appeal contesting her residency, which
she claimed was in the Cinnaminson School District. In the Board’s answer to A.D.’s
petition, filed on January 21, 2025, the Board sought reimbursement of tuition.
Given my findings of fact and my conclusion that A.D. abandoned her appeal, I
CONCLUDE that the Board is entitled to tuition reimbursement for the 2024–2025 school

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
11
year for all six children, including D.D., J.D., J.D., A.H., R.D., and K.D., in the amounts of
$18,741.00; $52,608.00; $52,608.00; $28,017.00; $18,350.00; and, $18,384.00,
respectively, for a total of $188,708. I further CONCLUDE that the Board is also eligible
for full tuition reimbursement for the 2025–2026 school year for D.D. in the amount of
$18,465.00 for the remainder of the school year, and pro-rated tuition for 45 days of
school for J.D., J.D., A.H., R.D., and K.D. in the amounts of $13,564.25; $13,564.25;
$6,750.00; $4,625.00; and $4,652.75, respectively, for a total of $61,621.25, consistent
with N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a)(1).
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that A.D.’s residency
appeal is DISMISSED for her failure to appear at the hearing. I further ORDER that the
Board’s claim for tuition reimbursement is GRANTED, and that for the 2024–2025 school
year, A.D. owes the Board a total of $188,708. I also ORDER that for the 2025–2026
school year, A.D. owes the Board $61,621.25 for the 45 days J.D., J.D., A.H., R.D., and
K.D. remained in school and $18,465 for the school days attended by D.D., including
those beyond the hearing date, for the remainder of the 2025–2026 school year.
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 case. 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.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
12
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.
May 5, 2026
DATE MAMTA PATEL, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
MP/jm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02031-25
13
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner
None
For respondent
Franklin Goulburn
Exhibits
For petitioner
None
For respondent
R-20 Excerpt from Board minutes showing tuition rates for 2024–2025 and 2025–
2026, and Board secretary certifications3
3 Although the Board made reference to other exhibits while Mr. Goulburn was testifying, because A.D. did
not appear and abandoned her case, none of the other exhibits were entered into evidence.