I.B., on behalf of minor child v. Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District Board of Education, Somerset County, 8/12/26 (#303-26E)

303-26E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06029-26
Agency Dkt. No. 142-04-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
I.B., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District Board
of Education, Somerset County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem
necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	August 12, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	August 12, 2026

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER DENYING
EMERGENCY RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 142-04-26
I.B. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIDGEWATER-RARITAN REGIONAL
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
I.B., petitioner, pro se
Douglas M. Silvestro, Esq., for respondent (Busch Law Group)
BEFORE ANDREA SPEVAK, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner I.B. moves for emergent relief to stay the modification of the gifted and
talented program at respondent, Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District. No settled
right, however, exists to maintain the program. 	Is petitioner entitled to emergent relief?
No. 	Emergent relief may not be granted when the petitioner does not have a likelihood
of success on the merits. See N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 15, 2026, petitioner submitted a complaint to respondent alleging that the
Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District failed to comply with the Strengthening the
Gifted and Talented Act (SGTEA) because the school district proposed eliminating the
academically independent program, which is an accelerated learning program for gifted
and talented elementary school students.
On that same day, petitioner filed a petition of appeal with the Commissioner of the
Department of Education, together with a motion for a stay, to stay the elimination of the
academically independent program on behalf of the Association of Parents for Education
Excellence (APEX), not on behalf of his son.
On April 16, 2026, the Department of Education transmitted the case, together with
the motion for a stay, to the Office of Administrative Law 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.
On April 21, 2026, petitioner moved to stay the Bridgewater-Raritan Regional
Board of Education’s (Board) upcoming vote on April 28, 2026, on the Board’s budget for
the 2026–2027 school year on his belief that the budget reallocated funding and staff
used for the academically independent program. 	During the prehearing conference the
following day, I denied petitioner’s motion to stay the budget vote. 	I did, however, give
petitioner leave to amend his petition of appeal to reflect that he had filed his petition on
behalf his minor child, not APEX, which he did that same day. 	Meanwhile, petitioner
withdrew his initial request for a stay of the elimination of the academically independent
program.
On 	May 	15, 	2026, 	petitioner 	requested 	an 	adjournment 	of 	the 	prehearing
conference scheduled for May 19, 2026, so he could obtain counsel. I granted the request
and rescheduled the prehearing conference for June 22, 2026. Meanwhile, on June 16,
2026, petitioner notified me that he would proceed pro se. At the same time, he refiled

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
3
his motion to stay the elimination of the academically independent program, and in the
alternative, enjoin the school district from reassigning or reducing staff for the program,
dispersing his child’s cohort to home schools, and removing any students from the
program.
On June 22, 2026, I held a prehearing conference, during which time respondent
moved to dismiss the case because the Board had not issued a determination on
petitioner’s complaint.
On June 26, 2026, I held a prehearing conference, during which time I set a briefing
schedule and scheduled oral argument for July 10, 2026.
On July 2, 2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss.
On July 10, 2026, I held oral argument on both the motion for emergent relief and
the motion to dismiss.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the papers submitted in support of and in opposition to the request for
emergent relief, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
Bridgewater-Raritan has operated some form of the academically independent
program for many years. 	In recent years, this meant that students in second grade
through fourth grade who were eligible for the program and chose to participate in the
program were separated from their peers and grouped together by grade level in classes
at a particular elementary school. At the beginning of fifth grade, these students phased
out of the program by attending their local intermediate schools with general education
peers while still receiving some enhanced programming. 	By middle school and high
school, 	students 	from 	the 	program 	were 	completely 	integrated 	with 	their 	general
education peers with equal access to classes at varying instruction levels.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
4
In 	April 	2026 	respondent 	announced 	the 	elimination 	of 	the 	academically
independent program as part of a broader realignment of grade groupings at the school
district’s buildings and restructuring of gifted and talented programming. 	Respondent
intends to return rising third-grade and fourth-grade students who were in the program to
the general education classes at their neighborhood schools. 	In its place, respondent
intends to provide the former program participants, along with other identified gifted and
talented students, with a pull-out enrichment period once a week. Meanwhile, respondent
will reallocate funding and staff as part of the restructuring for the 2026–2027 school year
and further develop the gifted and talented curriculum.
Petitioner is the parent of a rising third-grade student who has been identified as
gifted and talented by the school district and has been a participant in the academically
independent program since second grade. 	At the end of second grade, he was the
academic equivalent of a student at the end of third grade. 	Petitioner had intended for
his child to participate in the academically independent program for this upcoming school
year, his third-grade year.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
To prevail on a motion for emergent relief, petitioner must meet the following four
standards under Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982):
1. 	The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested
relief is not granted;
2. 	The legal right underlying petitioner’s claim is settled;
3. 	The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits
of the underlying claim; and
4. 	When 	the 	equities 	and 	interests 	of 	the 	parties 	are
balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the
respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b).]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
5
The petitioner must also do so by clear and convincing evidence. 	Garden State
Equality v. Dow, 216 N.J. 314, 320 (2013).
1. 	Irreparable harm
Emergent relief should not be granted except “when necessary to prevent
irreparable harm.” 	Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132. 	More than the risk of irreparable harm must
be demonstrated. Continental Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chemicals Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359
(3d Cir. 1980).
In this case, no evidence exists that petitioner’s child will suffer irreparable harm
by the loss of the academically independent program. The child remains eligible for gifted
and talented programming alongside other identified gifted and talented students.
Petitioner’s disagreement with the anticipated manner of programming does not prove
harm, irreparable or otherwise, particularly when the new curriculum remains under
development.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not met his burden of proof for this
standard.
2. 	Settled Legal Right
Emergent relief “should be withheld when the legal right underlying plaintiff’s claim
is unsettled.” 	Crowe, 90 N.J. at 133 (citing Citizens Coach Co. v. Camden Horse R.R.
Co., 29 N.J. Eq. 299, 304–05 (1878)).
In New Jersey, eligibility and programming for academically gifted and talented
services are broadly governed by the Strengthening the Gifted and Talented Education
Act (SGTEA). N.J.S.A. 18A:35-34 to -39. The SGTEA requires school districts to adopt
and implement “appropriate instructional adaptations” for gifted and talented students in
grades kindergarten through twelve related at their “instructional level.” N.J.S.A. 18A:35-
36(a). 	The SGTEA further requires school districts to identify eligible students using
“multiple measures in order to identify student strengths in intellectual ability, creativity, or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
6
a specific academic area,” “ensure equal access to a continuum of gifted and talented
education services,” and “develop and document appropriate curricular and instructional
modifications used for gifted and talented students.” N.J.S.A. 18A:35-36(b).
Petitioner argues that the SGTEA entitles his child to the academically independent
program, or alternatively, an identical individualized program for his child alone. 	In his
view, the only way for respondent to comply with the law is to provide his child with
accelerated learning in a class of other gifted and talented students.
Petitioner’s argument, however, is inconsistent with a plain reading of the SGTEA.
The law gives districts wide discretion to develop and implement gifted and talented
programs. As such, petitioner has no settled legal right to the academically independent
program or any other particular gifted and talented program.
Conversely, it is long-settled law that a school board has broad discretion to
operate its public schools and that such discretion may not be overturned in the absence
of a finding that the action was arbitrary or capricious. Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ.,
60 N.J. Super. 288 (App. Div. 1960). 	No evidence exists that the school district’s
proposed modification of the gifted and talented program is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not met his burden of proof for this
standard.
3. 	Likelihood of Success on the Merits
To meet this standard, “a plaintiff must make a preliminary showing of a reasonable
probability of ultimate success on the merits.” Crowe, 90 N.J. at 133 (citing Ideal Laundry
Co. v. Gugliemone, 107 N.J. Eq. 108, 115–16 (E. & A. 1930)). This typically “‘involves a
prediction of the probable outcome of the case’ based on each party’s initial proofs,
usually limited to documents.” 	Brown v. City of Paterson, 424 N.J. Super. 176, 182–83
(App. Div. 2012) (quoting Rinaldo v. RLR Inv., LLC, 387 N.J. Super. 387, 397 (App. Div.
2006)).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
7
Since petitioner does not have a right to a particular gifted and talented program,
he cannot show a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the merits.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not met his burden of proof for this
standard.
4. 	Balancing the Equities
The fourth emergent relief standard is “the relative hardship to the parties in
granting or denying relief.” 	Crowe, 90 N.J. at 134 (citing Isolantite, Inc. v. United Elect.
Radio & Mach. Workers, 130 N.J. Eq. 506, 515 (Ch. 1941), mod. on other grounds, 132
N.J. Eq. 613 (E. & A. 1942)).
In balancing the equities, it is in the public interest that respondent maintain
stewardship over its educational programing rather than an individual parent dictate
specific programming, especially when that discretion is the province of respondent,
unless arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not met his burden of proof for this
standard.
ORDER
Accordingly, I ORDER that the petitioner’s request for emergent relief is DENIED.
This order on application for emergency relief may be adopted, modified or
rejected by COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is
authorized to make a final decision in this matter. 	The final decision shall be issued
without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of this order. 	If
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION does not adopt, modify or

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06029-26
8
reject this order within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become a final
decision on the issue of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
July 14, 2026
DATE 	ANDREA SPEVAK, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 14, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	July 14, 2026
AS/gd
cc: OAL clerk