Lakeeda Sessoms v. Board of Trustees of the Great Oaks Legacy Charter School, Essex County, 5/23/25 (#271-25)

271-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 12601-24
Agency Dkt. No. 263-8/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Lakeeda Sessoms,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Trustees of the Great Oaks Legacy
Charter School, Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and respondent’s reply thereto,
have been reviewed and considered.
This matter involves petitioner’s claim that respondent charter school violated N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6 by denying her promotional tenure rights in the position of principal. The material facts
are undisputed. 	Petitioner began working for respondent in 2012 and held the following
positions:
2012-2013 	Teacher
2013-2014 	Teacher
2014-2015 	Teacher
2015-2016 	Teacher
2016-2017 	Teacher
2017-2018 	Instructional Leader
2018-2019 	Vice Principal
2019-2020 	Vice Principal
2020-2021 	Vice Principal

2
2021-2022 	Principal
2022-2023 	Campus Director
2023-2024 	Campus Director
Via letter dated May 13, 2024, respondent notified petitioner that her employment as
campus director would not be renewed for the 2024-2025 school year. However, respondent
advised that petitioner could work in a teaching position because she obtained streamline tenure
as a teacher at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 school year.
Petitioner contends that respondent’s non-renewal of her employment as campus
director violated her promotional tenure entitlement to the position of principal, based upon
over two years of service with a principal endorsement as principal and later as campus director
with identical job responsibilities as principal.
Because the material facts were not in dispute, the parties cross-moved for summary
decision. The ALJ concluded that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not establish promotional tenure rights
for charter school employees and granted respondent’s motion for summary decision. 	In so
concluding, the ALJ reviewed the plain language of relevant provisions of the Charter School
Program Act, including N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e), which grants charter school employees the right
to streamline tenure in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidelines; its implementing
regulations; and the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6.
The ALJ determined that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6, which states that it applies to “teaching staff
member[s] under tenure or eligible to obtain tenure under this chapter,” i.e., Chapter 28, is not
applicable to charter school employees who obtain streamline tenure under Chapter 36. Thus,
the ALJ rejected petitioner’s assertion that promotional tenure is available to charter school
employees as contrary to legislative intent. The ALJ also rejected petitioner’s unpled claim that

3
she is entitled to streamline tenure as a vice principal due to her administrative service from July
1, 2018, to June 30, 2024.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the ALJ erred by: (1) failing to recognize that
streamline tenure and promotional tenure are distinct; (2) finding that the streamline tenure
statute prohibits charter school employees from obtaining promotional tenure; (3) finding that
the Charter School Program Act does not support the conclusion that charter school employees
are eligible for promotional tenure; (4) accepting an inaccurate definition of “teaching staff
member” offered by respondent; and (5) failing to determine that petitioner met the statutory
criteria for obtaining promotional tenure.
Respondent agrees with the ALJ’s determination that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not apply to
the present matter. It further contends that petitioner cannot now plead rights to streamline
tenure as a vice principal because the claims in her petition were premised only upon the
promotional tenure statute. 	Moreover, it asserts that neither the campus director nor the
principal nor the vice principal positions are eligible for streamline tenure, that petitioner’s 2023-
2024 ineffective rating would preclude her from attaining streamline tenure as a campus director
or principal, and that she did not work for the requisite time as a vice principal to qualify for
streamline tenure.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not
establish promotional tenure rights for charter school employees. 	Chapter 36 of Title 18A
instructs that charter school employees “shall not accrue tenure pursuant to N.J.S. 18A:17-2,
N.J.S. 18A:17-3, or N.J.S. 18A:28-5, but shall acquire streamline tenure pursuant to guidelines
promulgated by the commissioner, and the charter shall specify the security and protection to

4
be afforded to the employee in accordance with the guidelines.” N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e). The
guidelines promulgated by the Commissioner appear in Title 6A, Chapter 11, Subchapter 6 of the
Administrative Code.
N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1, repeating the language codified at N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e), states: “An
employee of a charter school shall acquire streamline tenure pursuant to guidelines developed
by the Commissioner. The charter school shall specify the security and protection to be afforded
to the employee in accordance with the Commissioner’s guidelines.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a)
provides that “[a]ll teaching staff members, janitors, and secretaries shall acquire streamline
tenure in a charter school after five consecutive full academic years of effective employment as
determined by the Department-approved educator evaluation system established by each
charter school and in accordance with the charter school’s uniform policies and procedures.”
Notably, Title 6A, Chapter 11, Subchapter 6 does not contain a promotional tenure provision for
charter school employees.
The ALJ’s conclusion that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 is not applicable to charter school employees
who obtain streamline tenure under Title 18A, Chapter 36 and pursuant to the guidelines in Title
6A, Chapter 11, Subchapter 6 is supported by the statute’s plain language. “There is no more
persuasive evidence of legislative intent than the words by which the Legislature undertook to
express its purpose . . . .” Perez v. Zagami, LLC, 218 N.J. 202, 209-10 (2014). When a statute’s
“plain language leads to a clear and unambiguous result . . . our interpretive process is over.”
Richardson v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Fireman’s Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 195 (2007). As noted by the
ALJ, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 clearly and unambiguously states that it applies to “teaching staff
member[s] under tenure or eligible to obtain tenure under this chapter,” i.e., Chapter 28.

5
Because charter school employes obtain streamline tenure under Chapter 36, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6
is not applicable to them.
In addition, the regulatory history of N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1 lends further support to the ALJ’s
conclusion. Prior to 2013, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1 provided that charter school employees obtained
streamline tenure “in accordance with the tenure acquisition criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-
5(b), 18A:28-6, and 18A:17-2(b)(2).” 44 N.J.R. 2151(a) (Sept. 4, 2012). However, the Department
repealed and replaced that rule with the current version of N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1 in January 2013—
removing all references to Chapter 28—because the prior rule was determined to “contradict
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e).” 	Ibid. 	Moreover, the Department’s response to a public comment in
connection with this rulemaking clarified that it intended to exempt charter schools from Chapter
28 tenure requirements “to provide charter schools with increased autonomy over their teaching
staff while requiring increased accountability for student outcomes.” 	45 N.J.R. 26(a) (Jan. 7,
2013).
Petitioner’s exceptions are unavailing. The Commissioner disagrees that the ALJ failed to
recognize that streamline tenure and promotional tenure are distinct and that, therefore, charter
school employees may obtain both streamline tenure and promotional tenure. 	Petitioner’s
position ignores the plain language of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6, which clearly states that the promotional
tenure provision applies only to employees who obtain tenure under Chapter 28. Additionally,
petitioner’s reliance upon In re Suspension of Teaching Certificate of Van Pelt, 414 N.J. Super.
440, 449 (App. Div. 2010), for the proposition that charter schools operate under the same
statutes and regulations as public schools unless the Charter School Program Act or the
Commissioner state otherwise is misplaced, as that matter was decided prior to the amendment

6
of N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1 in 2013. 	By amending N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1 in 2013, the Commissioner
expressly exempted charter schools and charter school employees from Chapter 28 tenure
requirements.
The Commissioner also disagrees with petitioner’s contention that the ALJ erred by
finding that N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e) suggests that promotional tenure does not apply to charter
school employees. 	Petitioner’s claim that N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e) makes no such prohibition
ignores the statute’s plain language, which states that charter school employees shall not obtain
tenure pursuant to Chapter 28. Because N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 applies only to employees who obtain
tenure pursuant to Chapter 28, the ALJ correctly found that N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e) supports the
conclusion that charter school employees are not eligible for promotional tenure under Chapter
28. Once again, petitioner’s reliance upon Van Pelt is misplaced because it was decided prior to
2013.
As for petitioner’s contention that the ALJ erred when finding that the purpose of the
Charter School Program Act does not support the conclusion that charter school employees are
entitled to promotional tenure, the Commissioner again disagrees. It is well-established that the
Charter School Program Act was intended to provide comprehensive educational reform and
increased autonomy and flexibility to charter schools. See N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-2; Educ. Law Ctr. v.
N.J. State Bd. of Educ., 438 N.J. Super. 108, 113 (App. Div. 2014). 	That autonomy includes
“increased autonomy over their teaching staff,” which is consistent with the Commissioner’s
amendment of N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1 in 2013 to exempt charter schools from Chapter 28 tenure
requirements. 	45 N.J.R. 26(a) (Jan. 7, 2013). 	Thus, the ALJ’s determination that the Charter

7
School Program Act does not support the conclusion that charter school employees are entitled
to promotional tenure under Chapter 28 is sound.
Finally, petitioner’s remaining contentions are moot. Petitioner’s assertion that the ALJ
accepted an inaccurate definition of “teaching staff member” offered by respondent in
connection with her eligibility for streamline tenure as a vice principal is moot because the ALJ
correctly determined that petitioner cannot now pursue unpled claims regarding streamline
tenure eligibility when her petition alleged only a violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6. And because
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not apply to charter school employees for the reasons explained herein,
petitioner’s claim that the ALJ should have determined that she met the statutory criteria for
obtaining promotional tenure is also moot.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter,
respondent’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby
dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 23, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	May 27, 2025
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 263-8/24
LAKEEDA SESSOMS,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD 	OF 	TRUSTEES 	OF 	THE 	GREAT
OAKS LEGACY CHARTER SCHOOL, ESSEX
COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Jordan Shead, Esq., for petitioner (Schwartz Law Group, LLC, attorneys)
Thomas O. Johnston, Esq., for respondent (Johnston Law Firm LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: February 4, 2025 	Decided: March 21, 2025
BEFORE R. TALI EPSTEIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Lakeeda Sessoms (“Sessoms”) appeals the decision of respondent
Great Oaks Legacy Charter School (the “Charter School”) to non-renew her position as
campus director, which she claims violates her promotional tenure rights. 	Is Sessoms

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
2
eligible for promotional tenure at the Charter School? 	No. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not
establish promotional tenure rights for charter school employees.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 12, 2024, Sessoms filed a Petition of Appeal (the “Petition”) with the
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) challenging the
decision by the Charter School to non-renew her position as campus director, which she
claimed 	violated 	her 	“promotional 	tenure” 	entitlement 	to 	the 	position 	of 	principal.
Specifically, Sessoms claims that the Charter School “violated her promotional tenure
rights 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:28-6” 	and 	seeks 	“reinstatement 	as 	a 	Principal.”
(Petition, Count 1 and Wherefore Clause.) 	The Charter School filed an Answer to the
Petition, dated September 3, 2024, which raised affirmative defenses, including that the
single-count Petition failed to state a claim or cause of action for which relief can be
granted. (Answer, Fifth Affirmative Def.)
The DOE transmitted this case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
it was filed on September 4, 2024, as a contested case under the Administrative
Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules,
N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6. 	The matter was assigned to me on September 20, 2024. 	At
the prehearing conference on October 2, 2024, the parties agreed that the material facts
were undisputed and that the issue to be adjudicated was appropriately decided on a
motion for summary decision, as a matter of law. 	I set a briefing schedule, which was
further extended at the parties’ requests, and the parties filed their cross-motions for
summary decision in a timely manner. 	Sessoms and the Charter School filed their
respective motions for summary decision on December 17, 2024. The parties filed their
briefs in opposition and further support of their cross-motions on February 4, 2025, and
the cross-motions were fully briefed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
3
FINDINGS OF MATERIAL FACT
The following material facts derived from the motion pleadings submitted herein
are undisputed and, therefore, deemed as FACT.
The Charter School is duly approved by the Commissioner of Education to
operate as a charter school in Newark under the New Jersey Charter School Program
Act. 	The Charter School operated pursuant to its charter mission and application,
subject to a renewal application process every five years for authorization from the
Commissioner to continue to operate. (Cert. of Jared Taillefer (“Taillefer Cert.”), ¶ 2.)
The Charter School employed Sessoms as a teacher effective August 7, 2012,
for the 2012−2013 school year in the capacity of “teacher.” 	(P-1.) 	Sessoms holds a
valid teaching certificate, but her contract with the Charter School did not require a
teacher certificate. (Taillefer Cert., Ex. B; P-2.)
Sessoms continued her employment in the capacity of teacher through the
2016−2017 school year. 	(See Taillefer Cert., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) 	Each of Sessoms’s
employment 	contracts with 	the 	Charter 	School 	was 	issued annually 	for 	one-year
periods. (Ibid., ¶ 4.)
For the 2017−2018 school year, the Charter School offered Sessoms a contract
to serve as an “instructional leader.” 	Sessoms accepted the offer. 	Her base salary
increased by $7,500. (Ibid., Ex. C.)
For the 2018−2019 school year, the Charter School offered Sessoms a contract
to serve as a “vice principal.” 	Sessoms accepted the offer. 	Her base salary increased
by $3,500. 	(Ibid., Ex. D.) 	Sessoms served in the capacity of vice principal through the
conclusion of the 2020−2021 school year. (Ibid., Ex. E.)
For the 2021−2022 school year, the Charter School offered Sessoms a contract
to serve as a “principal.” 	Sessoms accepted the offer. 	Her base salary increased by
$9,500. (Ibid., Ex. F.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
4
For the 2022−2023 school year, the Charter School offered Sessoms a contract
to serve as a “campus director.” 	Sessoms accepted the offer. 	Her base salary
increased by $10,000. 	(Ibid., Ex. G.) 	Sessoms continued in her capacity as campus
director for the 2023−2024 school year. (Ibid., Ex. H.)
Sessoms received a 2.39 overall score on her 2023−2024 performance review
and was rated “partially effective” (an overall score of 3 is required for an “effective”
rating.) (Ibid., Ex. J.)
The Charter School non-renewed Sessoms’s contract as “campus director” for
the 2024−2025 school year and advised, by letter dated May 13, 2024, that her
employment with the Charter School would terminate on June 30, 2024. (P-19.)
On May 28, 2024, Sessoms emailed the Charter School’s executive director
inquiring about the Charter School’s streamline tenure policy. (P-20.)
By way of a June 13, 2024, email, the Charter School’s executive director
advised Sessoms that the position she was being “non-renewed” for was “campus
director,” but she could remain employed by the Charter School in a teaching position if
she returned for the 2024−2025 school year, as she had attained streamline tenure in
that position at the conclusion of the 2016−2017 school year. (Taillefer Cert., ¶ 14.)
The Charter School’s streamline tenure policy states, in relevant part:
All 	certified 	teaching 	staff 	members, 	janitors 	and
secretaries shall acquire streamline tenure on the first day of
employment, following five consecutive academic years of
effective 	employment, 	as 	determined 	by 	the 	educator
evaluation system established by [Charter School] and in
accordance with the charter school’s uniform policies and
procedures. (Emphasis added.)
[Ibid., Ex. M.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
5
The Charter School’s streamline tenure policy follows N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a), the
applicable regulation governing the acquisition of streamline tenure at charter schools.
“Teaching staff” is defined in the Charter School streamline tenure policy as “staff
members who hold non-administrative roles that require certification, such as Teacher,
Social Worker, School Nurse, etc.” (Ibid. at 0193.)
Sessoms did not return to a teacher position at the Charter School for the
2024−2025 school year. 	Indeed, Sessoms did not enter into any employment contract
with the Charter School for the 2024−2025 school year. (Ibid., ¶ 15.)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the Uniform Administrative Procedure, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, which
governs the conduct of contested cases before the OAL, a party may file a motion for
summary decision on substantive issues in a contested case. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a).
The motion “shall be served with briefs and with or without supporting affidavits.”
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	The administrative law judge presiding over the contested case
may grant a party’s motion “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.” 	Ibid.;
accord Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 530 (1995). 	When
evaluating the cross-motions, the tribunal reviews each motion on its own merits to
determine if any party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.
In requesting to file cross-motions for summary decision, the parties submit that
there are no disputed facts requiring a hearing. 	Having considered their respective
submissions, 	as 	supported 	by 	sworn 	certifications 	and 	documentary 	evidence, 	I
CONCLUDE that the material facts are undisputed and the matter is ripe for summary
adjudication.
The sole issue for determination is whether promotional tenure, as provided in
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6, applies to charter school employees. 	(Pet’r’s Br. in Support of Mtn.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
6
for Summary Decision at 2.) 	Specifically, Sessoms argues that she is entitled to
promotional tenure in the position of “principal” at the Charter School. 	The Charter
School contests Sessoms’s claim and asserts that, as a matter of law, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-
6 has no applicability to charter school employees or operations. 	Rather, the process
for acquiring tenure at a charter school is governed by the Charter School Program Act
of 	1995, 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:36A 	et 	seq. 	(the 	“Charter 	School 	Act”), 	and 	the 	Act’s
implementing regulations. 	(Resp’t’s 	Moving Br. 	in Support of Mtn. for Summary
Decision at 1, 6-9.)1 As discussed below, I agree with the Charter School.
Standards for Statutory Construction
When interpreting a statute, a judge is “required to carefully examine the words
chosen by the Legislature in expressing its intent as well as the overall purpose of [the
Act] and its neighboring and related provisions. 	New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Grp./Garrison
Lange v. Holger Trucking Corp., 417 N.J. Super. 393, 397 (App. Div. 2011); see also In
re Boardwalk Regency Casino License Appl., 180 N.J. Super. 324, 344 (App. Div. 1981)
(citations omitted), modified on other grounds, 90 N.J. 361 (1982), appeal dismissed,
Perlman v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 459 U.S. 1981, 103 S. Ct. 562, 74 L. Ed. 2d 927 (1982) (it
is the responsibility of the court “not to ignore the words used by the Legislature and, if
possible, to harmonize the meaning of the statute so that no words or phrases are
deemed inoperative, superfluous or meaningless.”)
Statutory construction begins with a review of “the statute’s plain language, which
is the best indicator of legislative intent. . . . If the language of the statute clearly reflects
the Legislature’s intent, then the court applies the law as written, affording the terms
their plain meaning.” 	State v. Scudieri, 469 N.J. Super. 507, 513 (App. Div. 2021);
Richardson v. Bd. of Trs. Police & Firemen’s Ret. Sys., 192 N.J. 189, 195 (2007) (“If the
plain language leads to a clear and unambiguous result, then [the] interpretive process
is over.”) 	If the language is ambiguous, the court may resort to extrinsic interpretative
1 The Charter School also points to comments by the State Board concerning the 2013 proposed rule
changes to the charter school tenure regulations as further support that “[t]he State Board explicitly
‘repealed’ promotional tenure’s application to streamline tenure and ‘replaced’ it with the current
streamline tenure rules. 	44 N.J.R. 2151(a) (Summary to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1)” 	(Resp’t’s Moving Br. in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
7
aids, including legislative history, to determine the statute's meaning.” 	Scudieri, 469
N.J. at 513.
The court “interprets a regulation in the same manner that it would interpret a
statute. 	Determining the intent of the drafter is its paramount goal. 	Generally, the
drafter's intent is found in the actual language of the enactment. . . . if it is otherwise
unambiguous . . . [the court] must construe the regulation as written.” US Bank, N.A. v.
Hough, 210 N.J. 187, 199 (2012).
The Applicable Law
Tenure rights are statutory, not contractual. 	DiNapoli v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of
Verona, 434 N.J. Super. 233, 237 (App. Div. 2014) (citing Zimmerman v. Bd. of Educ. of
City of Newark, 38 N.J. 65, 72 (1962). 	“Tenure arises only upon compliance with the
precise conditions articulated in the statute.” Picogna v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Cherry
Hill, 143 N.J. 391, 400 (1996.) “To acquire the security of tenure, the precise conditions
enunciated in the applicable statute must be met.” DiNapoli at 237−238.
The Charter School Act and Its Implementing Regulations
Effective January 11, 1996, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the Charter
School Act (P.L. 1995 c. 426, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A). 	The Charter School Act authorizes
the Commissioner of Education to establish a charter school program. 	As set forth in
the Charter School Act, the Legislature determined that “the establishment of a charter
school program is in the best interests of the students of this State.” 	Among other
benefits, the Legislature recognized that “charter schools offer the potential to improve
pupil learning; . . . establish a new form of accountability for schools; require the
measurement of learning outcomes; . . . and establish new professional opportunities
for teachers.” N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-2.
Support of Mtn. for Summary Decision at 9). 	The rule changes resulted in the deletion of N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6 (and two other tenure-related statutes) from N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
8
Regarding tenure, the Charter School Act provides that:
An employee of a charter school shall not accrue tenure
pursuant 	to 	N.J.S.18A:17-2, 	N.J.S.18A:17-3, 	or
N.J.S.18A:28-5,2 	but 	shall 	acquire 	streamline 	tenure
pursuant to guidelines promulgated by the commissioner,
and the charter shall specify the security and protection to
be 	afforded 	to 	the 	employee 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
guidelines.
[N.J.S.A. 18 A:36A-14(e) (emphasis added).]
The New Jersey Administrative Code, Chapter 11, Charter Schools, provides the
state 	regulations 	to 	implement 	the 	Charter 	School 	Act. 	Specifically, 	N.J.A.C.
6A:11-1-1(a) states that:
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the rules to
govern 	the 	implementation 	of 	the 	Charter 	School
Program Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 et seq. The rules define
the 	processes 	for: 	establishing 	and 	operating 	charter
schools; complying 	with 	the School Ethics Act (N.J.S.A.
18A:12-21 	et 	seq.); 	implementing 	programs; 	certifying
classroom 	teachers, 	principals, 	and 	professional 	support
staff; and applying streamline tenure for teaching staff
members, janitors, and secretaries.
[Ibid. (emphasis added).]
N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2 further defines “streamline tenure” as “the tenure process for
all charter school teaching staff members, janitors, and secretaries who are either newly
employed in a charter school or employed in a charter school while on leave from a
district board of education.” (Emphasis added.)
2 N.J.S. 18A:17-2 is the traditional school district tenure provision for “secretaries, assistant secretaries,
school business administrators, business managers and secretarial and clerical employees.” 	N.J.S.
18A:17-3 is the traditional school district tenure provision for “janitorial employees.” N.J.S.18A:28-5 is the
traditional school district tenure provision for “teaching staff members . . . in the positions of teacher,
principal, vice principal, assistant superintendent, and all school nurses . . . school athletic trainer and all
such other employees as are in positions which require them to hold appropriate certificates issued by the
board of examiners . . . .”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
9
Neither 	the 	Charter 	School 	Act nor 	its 	implementing 	regulations 	provide 	a
process for “promotional” tenure. 	Instead, the definitional section of the implementing
regulations makes clear that “the” tenure process available to specified charter school
employees, including “teaching staff members,” is “streamline” tenure. 	The use of the
definitive article “the” before “tenure process” denotes that there is only one process for
attaining tenure at a charter school. 	See, e.g., Sun Co., Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of
Borough of Avalon, 286 N.J. Super. 440, 447 (App. Div. 1996) (“[T]he singular article
‘the’ modifying the term ‘principal use’ reflects an intent that there be but one principal
use on the property.”) (Emphasis in the original.); New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Group at
397−398 (“[G]iving the words in the statute their common meaning and concluding that
the Legislature’s use of the definite article (“the”) meant that the Legislature intended a
‘single, definite event.’”)
Indeed, Subchapter 6 of the implementing regulations titled “Streamline Tenure”
further describes the singular process for acquiring tenure at a charter school after “five
consecutive 	full 	academic 	years 	of 	effective 	employment” 	and 	pursuant 	to
“[s]treamline tenure policies [as] developed and adopted by each charter school’s
board of trustees.” N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a) (emphasis added). Further, streamline tenure
is only available to charter school “teaching staff members, janitors and secretaries.”
Ibid. 	Subchapter 6 also provides the rules governing the general “[p]rocess for tenure
disputes” and refers exclusively to “procedures and timelines, for hearing streamline
tenure disputes.” N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.3 (emphasis added).
As the Charter School correctly notes in its moving papers, the criteria for
acquiring tenure at a charter school are “materially different” from the requirements
“governing tenure acquisition in resident districts.” 	(Resp’t’s Moving Br. in Support of
Mtn. for Summary Decision at 7). 	In contrast to streamline tenure, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5
(“Requirements 	for 	tenure”) 	and 	N.J.S.A. 	18A:28-6 	(“Tenure 	upon 	transfer 	or
promotion), the statute that Sessoms relies upon, both have shorter time periods for
tenure acquisition (two- or three-year periods).
Applying the rules of statutory construction, the plain language of the Charter
School Act and its implementing regulations, specifically N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2 and “its

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
10
neighboring and related provisions,” decidedly reflects the Legislature’s intent that
tenure at charter schools is attained only through the streamline tenure process.
While the clear language of the relevant Charter School Act provisions and
implementing regulations ends the interpretive process, the tribunal’s interpretation also
meshes with the overall purpose of the Act to create charter schools that “establish a
new form of accountability for schools.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-2. Lengthening the pathway
to tenure and/or imposing more restrictive criteria on who may attain tenure, and how
tenure 	is 	attained, 	is 	directly 	aligned 	with 	the 	Charter 	School 	Act’s 	objective 	of
“promoting comprehensive educational reform” and making the “[charter] school the unit
for educational improvement.” 	Ibid. 	In making it more difficult for charter school
teaching staff to earn tenure, charter schools retain the flexibility to make decisions
about their staffing needs in order “to improve pupil learning” and attain desired learning
outcomes. Ibid.
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 Does Not Apply to Charter Schools
As discussed above, the Charter School Act does not provide for the attainment
or retention of tenure as a result of promotion or transfer, and the enabling regulations
make clear that the Legislature did not intend to confer that statutory tenure right to
charter school employees. 	Indeed, that entitlement is only granted to “teaching staff
members” 	employed 	by 	traditional 	school 	districts 	who 	meet 	certain 	performance
criteria, as specified in N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6:
Any such teaching staff member under tenure or eligible
to obtain tenure under this chapter, who is transferred or
promoted with his consent to another position covered by
this chapter . . . shall not obtain tenure in the new position
until after [the expiration of a two or three year period and
receipt of two annual evaluations with effective or highly
effective 	ratings 	within 	the 	first 	three 	years 	in 	the 	new
position].
[Ibid. (emphasis added).]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
11
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 expressly applies to teaching staff members “under tenure,”
not streamline tenure. 	It relates to the prior attainment of tenure “under this chapter”
and immediately follows N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, the tenure acquisition statute for “teaching
staff members” that was expressly excepted from application to charter schools by
N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e). N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 is derivative of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5
Thus, 	the 	tribunal 	is 	not 	persuaded 	by Sessoms’s 	argument that 	because
18A:36A-14(e) excepted N.J.S. 18A:17-2, N.J.S. 18A:17-3, and N.J.S. 18A:28-5 but did
not reference N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 it can be inferred that the Legislature intended to
extend this additional tenure entitlement to teaching staff members at charter schools.
Rather, the reference to the three statutes in N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e) is more readily
explained by the fact that each of the referenced statutes relates to the attainment of
tenure for school district employees in the positions of secretaries, janitors and teaching
staff members, respectively. 	By expressly referencing them in N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(e),
the Legislature intended to make clear that none of those tenure provisions applied to
secretaries, janitors or teaching staff members employed by a charter school because
the streamline tenure process applied to them instead.3 	Sessoms’s position that
“promotional tenure” is available to charter school employees is contrary to legislative
intent and, as discussed above, not supported by a plain reading of the relevant statutes
and their enabling regulations. 	Thus, I CONCLUDE that N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not
apply 	to 	charter 	school 	employees 	and, 	therefore, 	Sessoms 	is 	not 	eligible 	for
“promotional tenure” under that provision.4
3 Sessoms’ reliance on In re Suspension of Teaching Certificate of Van Pelt, 414 N.J. Super. 440 (App.
Div. 2010) is misplaced as it is factually distinguishable. In that case, the Appellate Division was faced
with a statutory construction issue that is not present here. In Van Pelt, the Court ruled that “[g]iven the
absence of administrative regulations or provisions in the [Charter School Act] concerning the
disciplining of charter school teaching staff members for unprofessional conduct by improperly resigning
from their teaching positions, N.J.S.A. 18A:26-10 and N.J.S.A. 18A:28-8 are applicable to those teaching
staff members through the broad terms of N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-11(a), which requires charter schools to
operate in accordance with statutes governing other public schools.” 	Id. at 449 (emphasis added). 	In
stark contrast, here, the subject matter at issue, i.e., the attainment of tenure, is not absent from, but
expressly provided for in, the Charter School Act and its enabling regulations make clear that streamline
tenure is the singular form of tenure entitlement available to charter school employees.
4 Because N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6 does not apply to charter school employees, the tribunal need not address
Sessoms’ arguments that she met the consecutive service and evaluative criteria set forth in that statute.
For the same reason, also irrelevant is Sessoms’ claim that the Charter School considered the position of
Campus Director identical to the position of Principal for the purpose of attaining promotional tenure at the
Charter School. 	Likewise, the parties’ disagreement concerning the “interchangeability” of those roles

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
12
Sessoms Is Not Entitled to Relief for Unpled Claims
The Petition contains a single count for relief premised on the Charter School’s
alleged violation of N.J.S.A. 18A:28-6. 	(Petition, Count I.) 	As set forth above, N.J.S.A.
18A:28-6 does not apply in the charter school context. 	Accordingly, the Petition fails to
state a cognizable cause of action and is subject to summary dismissal.
In her motion for summary decision, Sessoms raises new claims and seeks
alternate forms of relief based on her alleged entitlement to “streamline tenure” as a
vice principal “due to her valid administrative service from July 1, 2018 to June 30,
2024.” (Pet’r’s Notice of Mtn.) At no time prior to filing her motion for summary decision
did Sessoms request to amend her petition. 	Further, there is no justification for her
failure to do so, as her 11th-hour claim arises from the exact same set of facts that were
known to her when she filed the Petition. 	See, e.g., Capps v. Rowan Univ., 2021 N.J.
Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2573, *14 (Nov. 12, 2021) (Court properly declined to consider
plaintiff’s proposed additional claims as they were first raised after defendant filed for
summary judgment and were based on the same facts known to plaintiff when he filed
the complaint.)
Setting aside the procedural impropriety that militates against the tribunal’s
consideration of Sessoms’s new claim for relief, it also fails as a matter of law. 	Put
simply, there is no merit to Sessoms’s assertion that she attained streamline tenure in
the position of vice principal. 	That is so for the simple and indisputable fact that she
failed to meet a threshold criterion for streamline tenure that requires employment for
“five consecutive full academic years.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:11-6.2(a).5 	It is undisputed that
Sessoms was employed as vice principal for only three years. (Taillefer Cert., Exs. C to
E.) 	Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Sessoms is not entitled to streamline tenure in the
role of vice principal.
does not create a genuine issue of disputed fact precluding summary decision. 	The disputed fact is
immaterial because Sessoms is not entitled to promotional tenure in any event.
5 	In light of Sessom’s inability to meet this requisite criterion, her remaining claims of entitlement to
streamline tenure in the role of vice principal need not be addressed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
13
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that Sessoms’s
motion for summary decision is DENIED, the Charter School’s motion for summary
decision is GRANTED, and Sessoms’s Petition of Appeal 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 Acting 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
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.
March 21, 2025
DATE 	R. TALI EPSTEIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	March 21, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	March 21, 2025
cc

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12601-24
14
APPENDIX
For Petitioner:
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision, dated 12/17/24
Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision, attaching Exhibits 1–22, dated
12/17/24
Proposed Order (erroneously titled Brief in Support of Motion for Summary
Decision)
Brief in Opposition of [sic] Charter [School]’s Motion and in Support of Petitioner’s
Cross-Motion for Summary Decision, attaching Exhibits 23–27, submitted
on 2/4/25
For Respondent:
Respondent Great Oaks Legacy Charter School Inc.’s Notice of Motion for
Summary Decision, dated 12/17/24
Moving Brief in Support of Charter School’s Motion for Summary Decision,
attaching 2012 N.J. S.N. 1455 and 44 N.J.R. 2151(a) (Rule Proposals),
dated 12/17/24
Certification of Jared Taillefer, with Exhibits A–M, dated 12/17/2024
Letter Brief in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Decision, dated
2/4/25