ANNA PORUCHYNSKY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, 7/8/02 (#267-02)

267-02
ANNA PORUCHYNSKY, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL,
MONMOUTH COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioning instructional aide claimed tenure status as a teacher. 	She charged that the Board
failed to renew her as a teacher for the 2000-2001 school year in violation of her tenure and
seniority rights. 	She contended her employment during the 1996-97 school year as an
instructional aide was sufficient for tenure acquisition purposes.
The ALJ determined that there was no Board action to appoint petitioner as a teacher, whether
full-time or less, for the 1996-97 school year, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1. Also, the fact that
the Board required petitioner to hold a teaching certificate did not elevate the position of aide to
that of teaching staff member within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 18A:1-1 so as to confer tenure
benefits upon her pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5 based on her employment in the aide position.
The ALJ determined that nothing in the record indicated an estoppel or a clear right to tenure.
The ALJ found that petitioner performed the duties of an aide. The petition was dismissed.
The Commissioner adopted the determination in the Initial Decision concluding that petitioner
did not acquire tenure in respondent district. The petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissionerís decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.
July 8, 2002

19
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 6261-00
AGENCY DKT. NO. 244-7/00
ANNA PORUCHYNSKY, 	:
PETITIONER, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	:
TOWNSHIP OF HOLMDEL,
MONMOUTH COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
:
The 	record, 	Initial 	Decision 	and 	exceptions 	on 	behalf 	of 	petitioner,
Anna Poruchynsky, have been reviewed. 	No reply exceptions were filed. 	Upon review of the
record, 	the 	Commissioner 	determines 	to 	adopt 	the 	determination 	in 	the 	Initial 	Decision
concluding that petitioner did not acquire tenure in the respondent district and hereby dismisses
the petition.
This matter involves petitionerís claim to tenure status and, concomitantly, that
respondent Board improperly failed to employ her as a teaching staff member for the 2001-2002
school year based on her having obtained such status. Respondent denies that petitioner obtained
tenure and, thus, asserts that its determination not to offer her a teaching staff position for the
2001-2002 school year was in accordance with law.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that petitioner never acquired
tenure, holding that the duties performed during her service as an instructional aide in the 1996-
1997 school year did not constitute service as a teaching staff member so as to confer tenure

20
upon her when coupled with her service as a teaching staff member in 1997-1998, 1998-1999
and 1999-2000. 	(Initial Decision at 11) 	The ALJ specifically rejected petitionerís contention
that her duties were akin to those of a teacher, and that respondent improperly changed her title
to instructional aide in order to illegally deny her tenure. 	(Id. at 11-12) 	Likewise, the ALJ
determined that the Board did not appoint petitioner as a teacher in 1996-1997, and the fact that
it required her to hold a teaching certificate did not elevate her to the status of teaching staff
member. 	(Id. at 11) 	Finally, the ALJ determined that nothing in the record indicated an
estoppel or a clear right to tenure, concluding that petitioner performed the duties of an aide,
some of which had instructional components, but that performance of some teaching duties ìdoes
not translate automatically into a teaching position.î (Id. at 12)
Petitionerís exceptions reiterate the facts and arguments in her post-hearing brief
and generally dispute the ALJís factual and legal determinations. 	The Commissioner rejects
those arguments for the reasons set forth in the Initial Decision.
In addition, the Commissioner rejects petitionerís remaining contentions on
exception, since they fail to set forth a basis for reversing the conclusion of the ALJ that
petitioner did not serve as a teacher in 1996-1997 and, thus, is not entitled to tenure in
respondentís district. 	Specifically, the Commissioner rejects the argument that the ALJ erred
because he purportedly did not consider the testimony presented to the effect that petitioner
satisfied all of the requirements of the job description of the district for a teacher in the 1996-
1997 school year and, thus, served as a teacher for the requisite time period and should be
awarded tenure. 	To the contrary, the Initial Decision demonstrates that the ALJ considered all

21
proffered testimony but concluded, contrary to petitionerís assertion, that petitioner did not serve
as a teacher in 1996-1997. 	Also, petitionerís factual statement in her exceptions avers that she
was ìteam teachingî English, Math and Social Studies in 1996-1997 by helping integrate
computer technology as a part of ìall academic instruction.î Petitionerís Exceptions, at 8, ∂13.
The Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that, at most, she assisted in providing a component of
courses taught by teaching staff members; i.e. she provided assistance with regard to the
integration of computer technology as a component of academic instruction. 	As held by the
ALJ, assisting teachers in such a manner does not constitute service as a teacher.
The 	Commissioner 	agrees 	with 	petitionerís 	contention 	that, 	in 	unique
circumstances such as occurred in Speiwak, supra, failure to appoint a person as a teaching staff
member as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:27-1 may not preclude a person who has in fact served in
that position from acquiring tenure. 	However, the fact remains that petitioner herein did not
serve as a teaching staff member in 1996-1997 as set forth above. 	Thus, petitionerís exception
with regard to appointment is of no moment.
Finally, petitionerís insistence that she assisted in grading that portion of pupil
assignments involving the use of technology and attended back to school nights, and that this
demonstrates functioning as a teacher, does not compel rejection of the ALJís conclusions.
These proffered facts indicate that petitioner assisted teachers (as do all instructional aides), not
that she served as a teacher, and they compel instead a decision adopting the determinations of
the ALJ.
Based on the foregoing, while the Commissioner recognizes that petitioner was
unquestionably a dedicated and competent employee, her service during the year at issue was

22
that of an aide. Accordingly, the Commissioner adopts the conclusions and order in the Initial
Decision, and hereby dismisses the petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED *
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 8, 2002
Date of Mailing: 	July 9, 2002
* This decision may be appealed to the State Board of Education pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-27 et seq. and N.J.A.C.
6A:4-1.1 et seq. within 30 days of filing. Commissioner decisions are deemed filed three days after the date of
mailing to the parties.