A.G., S.D., A.G.-H., M.G., S.H., R.H., B.I., J.I., E.L., J.L., D.M., D.P., R.P., N.R., E.S., R.S., S.S., and D.Z., on behalf of minor children v. Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional School District, Burlington County, 11/17/25 (#529-25)

529-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 06340-25
Agency Dkt. No. 98-4/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
A.G., S.D., A.G.-H., M.G., S.H., R.H., B.I., J.I., E.L., J.L.,
D.M., D.P., R.P., N.R., E.S., R.S., S.S., and D.Z., on
behalf of minor children,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional
School District, 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.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that respondent
Board of Education’s unopposed motion for summary decision should be granted for the reasons
expressed in the Initial Decision.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 17, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	November 17, 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
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 98-4/25
A.G., S.D., A.G.-H, M.G., S.H., R.H., B.I.,
J.I., E.L., J.L., D.M., D.P., R.P., N.R., E.S.,
R.S., S.S., AND D.Z. ON BEHALF OF
MINOR CHILDREN,
Petitioners,
v.
BORDENTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION,
BORDENTOWN REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
A.G., petitioner, pro se
Cameron R. Morgan, Esq., for respondent (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri & Jacobs,
LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 8, 2025 Decided: October 6, 2025
BEFORE ADVIA KNIGHT FOSTER, ALJ:
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 19, 2025, respondent, Bordentown Board of Education (Board), proposed
a redistricting plan to balance the 2025−26 school budget, which provides, among other
things, essential cost savings by eliminating five to six teachers yearly without sacrificing
critical programming and ensures educational equity by requiring all students to transition
from three to four schools. Must the board’s plan be overturned? No. The actions of a
school board must not be disturbed unless unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.” Kopera v.
West Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 8, 2025, petitioners filed a petition of appeal with the Department of
Education seeking a stay of respondent’s redistricting plan.
On April 10, 2025, the Department of Education 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, 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, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and disputes
arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17.
Jurisdiction is conferred under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.
On April 16, 2025, I held oral argument and closed the record. On April 17, 2025, I
denied petitioners’ request for emergency relief. On May 6, 2025, I held a prehearing
telephone conference. During the conference, respondent requested leave to file a motion
for summary decision, which I granted, and I set a briefing schedule. On July 7, 2025,
respondent filed its motion; petitioners’ opposition was due on September 8, 2025, but on
September they informed the court they would not be filing any opposition. I closed the
record.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the papers respondent submitted in support of and in opposition to the
motion for summary decision, and reviewing them in the light most favorable to
petitioners, I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
On March 19, 2025, the board held a public meeting to address the tentative
budget for the 2025–26 school year for which proper advance forty-eight-hour notice was
given to the public. Edward Forsthoffer III, interim superintendent, presented a
PowerPoint presentation explaining the budget and the Board’s rationale and posted it on
the Bordentown School District website. (R-1.) The PowerPoint included the fiscal
budget and budget appropriations comparisons for transportation for the 2024−25 and
2025−26 school years with a projected 16 percent increase and an increase of $408,210
in state aid. (Exh. 1.) The PowerPoint explained how the school district obtains state aid
and why it projected the increase. (Ibid.) The PowerPoint also included sources of school
funding and the tax levy distribution for the municipality of the school district. The final
budget had to be submitted to the Department of Education (DOE) on or before May 14,
2025, according to N.J.S.A. 18A:22-32(b).
For the 2025–26 school year, there was a substantial budget gap of over $8.3
million due to declining enrollment, losses in state aid, increased costs in special
education and healthcare premiums, and loss of grant money. To balance its budget for
the upcoming school year, the Board proposed a tentative budget that contained several
cuts and reductions, including reducing summer curriculum writing, eliminating middle
school sports, postponing the purchase of two buses, eliminating summer pay, and
eliminating forty-seven and a half staff positions. The plan also eliminated five to six
teachers without sacrificing critical programming. (R-1.)
The proposed tentative budget also contained a redistricting plan called One
Bordentown. Prior to the 2025−26 school year, there were five schools in the district:
Bordentown Regional High School, which houses grades 9–12; Bordentown Regional
Middle School, which houses grades 6–8; MacFarland Intermediate School
(MacFarland), which houses grades 3–5; Peter Muschal Elementary School (Peter

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
4
Muschal), which houses grades pre-K–2; and Clara Barton Elementary School (Clara
Barton), which houses grades pre-K–2. Under the One Bordentown plan, only the
elementary schools’ enrollment changes. For example, Peter Muschal would house
grades pre-K–1, Clara Barton would house grades 2–3, and MacFarland would house
grades 4–5. This redistricting plan also has an impact on those children who could walk
to school. The plan requires students to transition from three to four schools during their
academic career. It also allows students from different districts to meet for the first time
in earlier grades, promoting socialization skills.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
‘An action of the local board which lies within the area of its discretionary powers
may not be upset unless patently arbitrary, without rational basis or induced by improper
motives.” Kopera v. West Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960).
The decision of a local board “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be
upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary, capricious
or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App.
Div. 1965). With respect to school laws in particular, the commissioner has jurisdiction to
hear and determine all controversies and disputes arising under the school laws, except
higher education, or under the rules of the State board or of the commissioner. N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9. Where the subject matter of the controversy is a particular course of action by
a district board of education or any other party subject to the jurisdiction of the
commissioner, the petitioner may include with the petition of appeal a separate motion for
emergent relief or a stay of that action pending the commissioner’s final decision in the
contested case. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(a).
In this case, due to declining enrollment, losses in State aid and grants, and
increased costs in healthcare premiums and special education, the Board had to close
an $8.3 million budget gap. The redistricting plan was devised out of that need to close
the gap. In their Motion for Emergent Relief, petitioners sought a “halting” to the One
Bordentown plan, citing among other things, harm to the children requiring them to
transition between schools four times in their educational careers instead of three and
removing the ability for students to walk to school. The financial considerations alone

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
5
render the Board’s redistricting plan debatable, but that fact does not render the Board’s
decision arbitrary or capricious. Moreover, the board’s redistricting plan is robust and
well-reasoned since it provides educational cohesion by requiring students from different
districts to meet in earlier grades. The plan also ensured educational equity by requiring
all students to transition from three to four schools. In addition, it contained a prospective
cost savings component in eliminating five to six teaching positions without sacrificing
critical programming. Therefore, I CONCLUDE the Board’s actions in devising the
redistricting plan were honest, forthright, and thoughtful. I CONCLUDE the redistricting
plan is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
A motion for summary decision “shall be served with briefs and with or without
supporting affidavits,” and the decision “may be rendered 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.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). “The judge’s function is not… to weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a
genuine issue for trial.” To defeat a summary decision motion, the adverse party must
respond by affidavits setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
which can only be determined in an evidentiary hearing. Ibid.
In this case, petitioners have not submitted any opposition to the motion for
summary decision. They have not asserted any arguments that there are genuine issues
of material fact that must be heard by this tribunal. However, in its brief, respondent
conceded that the financial considerations for the redistricting plan are debatable, but
because they are debatable does not make them material genuine issues of fact to be
determined at a hearing by this tribunal since school board decisions are entitled to a
“presumption of correctness” and should not be disturbed unless they are arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable. Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332
(App. Div. 1965).
In their motion for emergent relief, petitioners argue that the Board did not give
proper notice under the Open Public Meetings Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 to -21. Contrary to
their assertion, the Board did provide proper and adequate notice under the Act because

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
6
the Board provided written notice forty-eight hours in advance by advertising the date,
time, and location of the meeting, as well as the agenda. Moreover, petitioners conceded
in their petition that the Board provided adequate notice. Therefore, I CONCLUDE that
the board provided proper notice.
In their second claim, petitioners argue that the redistricting plan violates the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by disproportionately affecting services
for special education students and disrupting Basic Skills Instruction (BSI) programs.
Under the IDEA, only a parent, guardian, or adult child may file a claim identifying an
individual student, the nature of the problem as it relates to his or her educational rights,
and a resolution of the problem. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7). For these reasons, I
CONCLUDE that the petitioners have no standing to bring this IDEA claim.
In their third claim, petitioners argue that the redistricting plan will cause substantial
financial consequences and that the Board has not been transparent about the
transportation costs. Petitioners specifically argue that the Board failed to provide a
financial breakdown of transportation costs or savings, an analysis of transportation
expenses, and a detailed budget explaining how increased transportation costs will be
covered. The Board announced and detailed the tentative 2025–26 budget at its meeting
in March and included a PowerPoint presentation on its website after the meeting. (R-1.)
The PowerPoint included the fiscal budget and budget appropriations comparisons for
transportation for the 2024−25 and 2025−26 school years with a projected sixteen percent
increase. (Exh. 1.) It also explained how the school district obtains state aid and why it
projected the increase. (Ibid.) The PowerPoint also includes sources of school funding
and the tax levy distribution for the municipality of the school district. I CONCLUDE that
the Board’s actions were transparent and comprehensive regarding costs and aid for
transportation.
In the final claim, petitioners argue that the redistricting plan will significantly
increase traffic demands and cause “unintended consequences for traffic safety, air
quality, and district operations,” and, therefore, the Board is required to do a
traffic-congestion and road-safety study. Again, petitioners failed to provide any evidence
to support this assertion. Since no genuine issues of material fact exist, and the Board’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06340-25
7
redistricting plan is neither arbitrary and capricious nor unreasonable, I CONCLUDE that
respondent is entitled to summary decision as a matter of law.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the motion for
summary decision is GRANTED, and that this case 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
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 06340-25
8
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.
October 6, 2025
DATE ADVIA KNIGHT FOSTER, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
AKF/tc