commission of education,
labels plan
Marlboro seeks
to vacate FRHSD
pupil movement
Files petition with state
commission of education,
labels plan ‘arbitrary’
By jeanette M. Eng
Staff Writer
MARLBORO — James Wasser, the superintendent of schools for the Freehold Regional High School District, wants area residents to understand one thing.
"People have to accept the fact that when you enter a regional high school (district), there is a possibility that they can be attending any one of the schools in the region," he said. "Until they accept that, these court cases are going to keep happening."
Wasser was speaking in response to a petition filed by the township of Marlboro with the state Department of Education. The petition was filed on Dec. 6 against the FRHSD Board of Education’s recent decision to assign some high school age Marlboro residents to attend Colts Neck High School beginning in September 2003.
Marlboro claims that in reaching its decision to redistrict some students the board relied upon demographic reports, information and data that admittedly contained numerous errors. The petition claims board also made its redistricting decision without the benefit of a needed full-scale demographic study.
Board members said they were implementing the redistricting plan to handle overcrowded conditions at Marlboro High School. The plan also assigns some high school age residents of Manalapan to Freehold Township High School beginning in September 2003.
The implementation of the FRHSD redistricting plan has been placed on hold by a U.S. District Court judge as separate litigation filed by Marlboro and relating to the school board’s voting system is pending.
According to the petition filed with the Department of Education, Marlboro High School is not currently overcrowded and the school does not face any overcapacity issues in the immediate future. The growth rate has actually slowed this year, according to the petition.
The petition claims the board failed to explore or consider alternative, more viable and less intrusive options for redistricting, including the voluntary reassignment of students.
In response to that claim, Wasser said "volunteerism was considered, but it was done in 1998 on a small scale and it didn’t work to the extent that we needed it to; a number of people didn’t want to go."
One of the problems, according to Wasser, was the need to target a specific geographic area in order to remain realistic in terms of transportation, but also the need to not discriminate.
However, the petition claims that in adopting the redistricting plan the board exhibited bias toward Marlboro residents by targeting Marlboro for geographic redistricting, stating it was now Marlboro’s "turn" to endure involuntary redistricting of its high school students.
The petition claims the board’s decision to redistrict was arbitrary and capricious.
In response, Wasser said, "This [redistricting] plan has had more input than any other plan in 17 years of history."
The petition filed by Marlboro requests judgment from the commissioner of education for an order declaring that the FRHSD’s redistricting plan is arbitrary and capricious; the cost of attorney fees; and other relief to which Marlboro may be entitled.
Department of Education spokesman Richard Vespucci said this is an example of the administrative process exercising its quasi-judicial powers to judge and resolve.
"The commissioner of education has the power … to intervene in local disputes that arise out of interpretations," Vespucci said. "He can act as a judge without educators or citizens going to court."
The administrative process will follow all the rules of the court, Vespucci said.
The petition was received by the commissioner on Dec. 6. According to Vespucci, FRHSD attorneys have 21 days to file a response to the petition. Once the commissioner has the complaint and the answer, he will turn the case over to the Office of Administrative Law for assignment to an administrative law judge.
The judge will hold hearings in which evidence, witnesses and testimony can be presented, said Vespucci. After hearing all sides the judge will release the facts of the case and draw conclusions in his decision which serve as recommendations to the commissioner.
According to Vespucci, once the initial decision arrives, the commissioner gets to see all the evidence and the judge’s decision. The commissioner then has 45 days to uphold, overturn or modify the judge’s decision.
"That is the process that lies ahead of us," Vespucci said.