(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
GILLIAN IMPEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY (A-89-94)
Argued January 31, 1995 -- Decided August 14, 1995
HANDLER, J., writing for a unanimous Court.
The issue on appeal is whether a board of education has the authority to subcontract with a county
educational services commission to provide speech correction services and, in doing so, whether the board
may abolish the position of speech correctionist and terminate the employment of a tenured teacher without
violating statutory tenure rights.
Gillian Impey was a tenured teacher employed by the Board of Education of the Borough of
Shrewsbury (Board) as a part-time speech correctionist. Impey provided speech correction services for the
pupils of the Shrewsbury School District. She had worked in the school district for about twenty years.
In July 1990, the Board voted to contract with the Educational Services Commission (ESC) of
Monmouth County to provide speech correction services for the district's pupils during the 1990-91 school
year, and to abolish Impey's position. Impey had an yearly salary of just over $20,000. The Board agreed to
pay the Monmouth County ESC $8,000 to provide the equivalent speech correction services. Therefore, as a
result of the subcontracting agreement with the Monmouth County ESC, the Board saved approximately
$12,000. After voting to abolish Impey's position, the Board placed Impey on a preferred eligibility list for
re-employment in her area of seniority.
An ESC is a duly established agency organized in accordance with statute for the purpose of
carrying on programs of educational research and development and providing to public school districts such
educational and administrative services as may be authorized pursuant to the Rules of the State Board of
Education. The State Board of Education, on June 2, 1982, approved the Monmouth County ESC to provide
special education services to public school districts pursuant to statute.
Impey filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner), claiming that the
Board's action violated her tenure, seniority and re-employment rights. She also asserted that the Board did
not have the authority to enter into a subcontracting relationship with the Monmouth County ESC to provide
speech correction services.
The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). During the proceedings in the
OAL, the parties stipulated to certain facts, including the fact that the Board's decision to abolish the
position of Speech Correctionist and to contract with the Monmouth County ESC had no adverse impact on
the program needs of the school district for such speech services.
On cross-motions for summary decision, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the
Board. The Commissioner and the State Board of Education adopted the ALJ's determination. Thereafter,
Impey filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division, which affirmed the decision of the State Board
and Commissioner. The Supreme Court granted Impey's petition for certification.
HELD: A local board of education has the authority to contract with an educational services commission to
provide speech correction services. In doing so, the board may abolish the existing speech
correctionist position and terminate the employment of a tenured teacher for economic reasons
without violating statutory tenure rights.
1. Boards of education have considerable latitude in providing essential educational services. A board of
education has a statutory responsibility to provide suitable facilities and programs of education for all
handicapped children, including those who are communication handicapped. A board of education may
contract with an educational services commission for the provision of examination, classification and speech
correction services. (pp. 5-8)
2. The Board was empowered to enter into the contract with the Monmouth County ESC for the provisions
of educational services. The statutory and regulatory provisions enable an ESC to provide a wide range of
educational services to local schools. Those enactments clearly authorize a local board of education to enter
into a contract with an ESC to obtain speech correction services for its eligible pupils. (pp. 8-10)
3. The relevant regulation does not confer tenure protection to those who are certified special education
providers. A tenured educator must be certified, but a certified educator need not be tenured. (pp. 10-12)
4. The determination of an administrative agency will not be reversed unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. (pp. 12-13)
5. As a tenured teacher, Impey was entitled to certain statutory protections. However, a local board of
education has the authority to reduce its teaching force as long as that reduction is genuinely for reasons of
economy. The determination to reduce the teaching force by abolishing positions need not eliminate the
services that may be related to those positions. In this case, the parties stipulated that the subcontracting
agreement with the Monmouth County ESC has had no adverse impact on the program needs of the school
district for the speech services. Moreover, the Board's decision to abolish Impey's position and to contract
with an ESC has resulted in a more economical delivery of those services in the district. Further, there is no
indication that the services to be rendered by the Monmouth County ESC are inadequate or do not conform
to the standards authorized by the Commissioner. Thus, there exists substantial credible evidence to justify
the decisions of the Commissioner and the State Board of Education. The Board acted in good faith and
complied with the tenure statute in reducing the number of employees within the district for reasons of
economy. (pp. 12-17)
Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and
COLEMAN join in JUSTICE HANDLER's opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
89 September Term 1994
GILLIAN IMPEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY,
Respondent-Respondent.
Argued January 31, 1995 -- Decided August 14, 1995
On certification to the Superior Court,
Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported
at
273 N.J. Super. 429 (1994).
Stephen B. Hunter argued the cause for
appellant (Klausner, Hunter, Cige & Seid,
attorneys).
Nathanya G. Simon argued the cause for
respondent (Schwartz, Simon, Edelstein, Celso
& Kessler, attorneys; Ms. Simon and Jeffrey
A. Bennett, on the brief).
David Earle Powers, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for respondent State Board
of Education (Deborah T. Poritz, Attorney
General of New Jersey, attorney; Joseph L.
Yannotti, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel).
Richard A. Friedman argued the cause for
amicus curiae New Jersey Education
Association (Zazzali, Zazzali, Fagella &
Nowak, attorneys).
Kim Chapman, Associate Counsel, argued the
cause for amicus curiae New Jersey School
Boards Association (Susan E. Galante,
Director, attorney).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
HANDLER, J.
In this case, a local board of education, for reasons of
economy, entered into a contract with a county educational
services commission to provide speech correction services for the
school district's pupils. Concomitantly, the board abolished the
permanent part-time position and terminated the employment of a
tenured part-time speech correctionist. The issues raised by
those actions are whether a board of education has the authority
to subcontract with a county educational services commission to
provide speech correction services and, in doing so, whether the
board may abolish the position and terminate the employment of a
tenured teacher without violating statutory tenure rights.
Gillian Impey (petitioner) was a tenured teacher employed by the Board of Education for the Borough of Shrewsbury (Board) as a part-time speech correctionist. She provided speech correction services for the pupils of the Shrewsbury School District.
In July 1990, the Board voted to contract with the Educational Services Commission (ESC) of Monmouth County to provide speech correction services for the district's pupils during the 1990-1991 school year, and to abolish petitioner's
position. Petitioner's annual salary was slightly more than
$20,000; the Board agreed to pay the ESC $8,000 to provide the
equivalent speech correction services. As a result of this
subcontracting arrangement with the ESC, the Board saved
approximately $12,000.
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Commissioner of
Education, claiming that the Board's action violated her tenure,
seniority and re-employment rights. She also asserted that the
Board did not have the authority to enter into a subcontracting
relationship with the ESC to provide speech correction services.
The Board filed its answer and affirmative defenses, and the
matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Law.
In relevant part, the parties stipulated to the following
facts:
1. Petitioner Gillian Impey, holds certification as a
Speech Correctionist from the Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners.
2. Petitioner Gilliam Impey was hired by the Shrewsbury
Board of Education as [a] part-time Speech
Correctionist effective March 1, 1970 through June 30,
1990.
3. By correspondence dated July 5, 1990 . . . the Board
notified petitioner that the Board would discuss at a
special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 10, 1990
the possibility of abolishing the position of Speech
Correctionist.
4. At the Board's special meeting of July 10, 1990, the
Board voted to abolish the position of Speech
Correctionist for the 1990-1991 school year.
5. At the Board's special meeting of July 10, 1990, the
Board also adopted a resolution terminating the
employment of the petitioner as a result of the
abolishment of [the] position and reduction in force.
The Board further placed petitioner on a preferred
eligibility list for re-employment in her area of
seniority.
6. By correspondence dated July 11, 1990, . . . the Board
advised the petitioner that [it] . . . adopted a
resolution terminating her employment . . . as a result
of [the] abolishment of position and reduction in
force. Additionally, petitioner was advised that based
upon her tenure and seniority rights, she had been
placed on a preferred eligibility list for recall to
the position of Speech Correctionist.
7. At the Board's special meeting of July 10, 1990, the
Board approved a contract with the Monmouth County
Educational Services Commission to provide speech
services for the school district for the 1990-1991
school year for two days per week at a stipend of $20
per hour for five hours x two days per week for a total
cost of $8,000 per year.
8. The Monmouth County Educational Services Commission is
a duly established agency organized in accordance with
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-51 with the purpose of carrying on
programs of educational research and development and
providing to public school districts such educational
and administrative services as may be authorized
pursuant to the Rules of the State Board of Education.
At the meeting of the State Board of Education held on
June 2, 1982, the Monmouth County Educational Services
Commission was approved to provide special education
services to public school districts pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-51, 63 and 69.
9. The Board's decision to abolish the position of Speech
Correctionist and to contract with Monmouth County
Educational Services Commission for speech services has
had no adverse impact on the program needs of the
school district for such speech services.
10. Petitioner's compensation for the 1989-1990 school year
was . . . $20,325. Petitioner's salary for the 1990-1991 school year is yet undetermined due to unsettled
negotiations.
11. The use of the Educational Services Commission has
resulted in a savings to the School District of
Shrewsbury in the amount of at least $12,325 for the
1990-1991 school year and for each year thereafter in
which it participates in this contract arrangement.
12. The Shrewsbury School District is a K through 8 School
District. . . . The total number of students involved
in the speech program for the 1989-1990 school year was
37. The total number of students involved in the
speech program for the 1990-1991 school year was 37.
The number of students involved in the speech program
for 1991-1992 school year is 40.
13. During the 1989-1990 school year, in addition to a
Speech Correctionist, the Board employed a Learning
Disability Teacher Consultant, School Psychologist and
School Social Worker, and for the 1990-1991 school year
the Board employed a School Psychologist and School
Social Worker.
14. In Monmouth County, the following school districts
utilize the Monmouth County Educational Services
Commission for special education services by having one
or more members of the Child Study Team exclusively
supplied in a contractual arrangement by the
Commission: Avon, Spring Lake Heights, Neptune City,
Shrewsbury and Deal.
On cross-motions for summary decision, the Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Board. The Commissioner
and the State Board of Education adopted that determination.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Appellate Division, which affirmed the decisions of the State
Board and the Commissioner.
273 N.J. Super. 429 (1994).
Petitioner filed a petition for certification, which we granted.
138 N.J. 266 (1994).
The Educational Services Commission of Monmouth County, with which the Shrewsbury Board of Education has contracted to obtain speech correction services for its pupils, is an agency established and organized in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:6-51. We address the threshold question of whether a local board of education has the statutory authority to contract with an ESC to provide speech correction services for its pupils.
Boards of education have considerable latitude in providing essential educational services. Services, facilities and programs of special education may be provided for in several ways. E.g., N.J.S.A. 18A:46-14. One avenue is through county educational services commissions.
An educational services commission is defined as
an agency established . . . in one or more counties for the purpose of carrying on programs of educational research and development and providing to public school districts such educational and administrative services as may be authorized pursuant to rules of the State Board of Education.
An ESC may be established by local boards of education with the concurrence of the Commissioner of Education on the approval of the State Board of Education. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-52. ESCs may provide a range of educational and administrative services. See Remedial Educ. & Diagnostic Servs., Inc. v. Essex County Educ. Servs. Comm'n, 191 N.J. Super. 524, 526-28 (App. Div. 1983) (citing N.J.S.A. 18A:46-19.7, court confirmed local school
board's authority to subcontract with an ESC to provide auxiliary
and remedial services to handicapped pupils), certif. denied,
97 N.J. 601 (1984). An ESC "shall from time to time determine what
services and programs shall be provided . . . [and] enter into
contracts with school districts, whether member districts of the
commission or not, to provide any or all such services and
programs." N.J.S.A. 18A:6-63.
Of special relevance in this case is the statutory and
regulatory authority governing services to children in need of
speech correction. The Classes and Facilities for Handicapped
Children Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:46-1 to -46, requires that public
schools provide special educational services for handicapped
students. A board of education has a statutory responsibility
"to provide suitable facilities and programs of education" for
all handicapped children, N.J.S.A. 18A:46-13, including children
who are "communication handicapped." N.J.S.A. 18A:46-1. "The
facilities and programs of education required" for handicapped
pupils may be provided by "[j]oint facilities including a class
or classes . . . to be provided by agreement between one or more
school districts." N.J.S.A. 18A:46-14(c). Further, and
specifically, "[a] board of education may contract with . . . an
educational services commission . . . for the provision of
examination, classification and speech correction services
required by this act." N.J.S.A. 18A:46-19.7.See footnote 1
The services provided by the board of education for handicapped children are frequently administered by child study teams. Those services pertain to identification and diagnosis of children needing special educational services, development and approval of public school programs for handicapped pupils, supervision and coordination of public school programs for handicapped pupils, and reporting and referral of children with severe handicaps to appropriate agencies. N.J.S.A. 18A:46-5. "The basic child study team shall consist of a school psychologist, a learning disability teacher consultant and a school social worker." N.J.S.A. 18A:46-5.1. The Legislature has recognized that each board of education and each county need not have its own child study team for the purpose of providing services and/or performing functions relating to handicapped pupils. See N.J.S.A. 18A:46-5 ("Each county child study team shall function in consultation with the local boards of education in the county or the local boards of education in the counties served by it."). Thus, boards of educations are authorized to undertake programs "separately or jointly with one or more boards
of education or State agencies [to] provide for basic child study
team services." N.J.S.A. 18A:46-5.1.
The regulations of the Commissioner and State Board of
Education implement the broad statutory authority in providing
services for handicapped children. N.J.A.C. 6:28-1.1(f) ("Each
district board of education, independently or through joint
agreements, shall employ child study teams, speech correctionists
or speech-language specialists . . . in numbers sufficient to
ensure provision of required programs and services pursuant to
this chapter."). The regulations explicitly recognize that a
board may contract with an ESC to provide educational services
for pupils with educational disabilities. N.J.A.C. 6:28-7.1(a).
Moreover, N.J.A.C. 6:28-7.4(a) states that "[t]he educational
program . . . provided through contractual agreements . . . [with
an ESC] shall be considered the educational program of the
district board of education. The district board of education
shall be responsible for the services required in N.J.A.C. 6:28-3."
Petitioner contends that N.J.A.C. 6:28-3.1 requires that the
members of the child study team that serve handicapped pupils be
employed directly by the school district. That section provides:
A child study team shall consist of a school psychologist, a learning disabilities teacher-consultant and a school social worker. For pupils ages three to five, the study team shall include a speech correctionist or speech-language specialist. All members of the child study team shall be employees of a district board of education, have an identifiable, apportioned commitment to the local school district and shall be
available during the hours pupils are in
attendance.
Petitioner claims that she was a member of the child study team
employed by the district, and her replacement by the ESC,
consisting of non-district personnel, to provide the services of
the child study team violates N.J.A.C. 6:28-3.1(b). However, the
ALJ, Commissioner, and State Board of Education determined that
petitioner, who served a K through 8 school, was not a member of
the basic child study team referred to in N.J.A.C. 6:28-3.1. Cf.
N.J.S.A. 18A:46-5.1 (omitting speech correctionist from
definition of "basic child study team"). In addition, their
determinations reflect that the other requirements of that
regulation, which relate to the hours available and commitment to
the school district's pupils, were satisfied.
We concur in the Appellate Division's conclusion that the
Board was empowered to enter into the contract with the ESC for
the provision of educational services. The statutory and
regulatory provisions enable an ESC to provide a wide range of
educational service to local schools. Those enactments clearly
authorize a local board of education to enter into a contract
with an educational services commission to obtain speech
correction services for its eligible pupils.
Petitioner contends that under the circumstances the abolition of the position of speech correctionist and the
termination of her employment violated her statutory tenure
rights under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-10. Specifically, petitioner
asserts that tenured professional employees must be retained by
local boards of education for positions for which they are
qualified, and that the reduction-in-force statute, N.J.S.A.
18A:28-9, cannot be used to replace tenured professional
personnel with less expensive public employees pursuant to
subcontracting arrangements.
We note, preliminarily, an additional argument made by the
New Jersey Educational Association (NJEA), as amicus. It asserts
that Chapter 28 of the Administrative Code, which was adopted to
fulfill a State's requirement to provide special education
services to its handicapped pupils, requires that each district
board of education be responsible for providing a system of free,
appropriate special education, supervised and provided by
appropriately "certified professional staff members." See
N.J.A.C. 6:28-1.1. The NJEA contends the term "certified
professional staff members," N.J.A.C. 6:28-1.1(d)(2), refers to
the Tenure Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:28-5, and thus, tenure protections
extend to all staff members who hold appropriate certificates
issued by the board of examiners.
We do not agree that the regulation confers tenure
protection to all staff members who are certified special
education providers. All teachers employed by school districts
to provide special education must become eligible through
certification. However, the reference to "certified staff
members" in N.J.A.C. 6:28-1.1(d)(2) does not, as argued by
amicus, mean tenured personnel. A tenured educator must be
certified, but a certified educator need not be tenured. See
Dennery v. Bd. of Educ.,
131 N.J. 626 (1993).
Petitioner's principal argument that the Board did not
legitimately effectuate a reduction in force stresses that the
ESC is performing the same duties that petitioner previously
performed as a part-time tenured speech correctionist, which
indicates that the Board's intention was not an actual abolition
of one part-time speech correctionist position, but rather a
reorganization and transfer of speech correctionist duties to a
less expensive provider. Accordingly, petitioner argues that the
board violated her tenure rights under N.J.S.A. 18A:28-10. The
Board responds that the termination of petitioner's employment
was a valid "reduction" in the number of tenured teachers, as
permitted by N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10, and that a cost savings of
$12,000 per year constituted a justifiable "reason[] of economy"
for abolishing petitioner's teaching position under N.J.S.A.
18A:28-9.
In considering these challenges, we are mindful of the
appropriate standard of review. In Dennery v. Board of
Education, supra,
131 N.J. 626, this Court stated that, "[it]
will not reverse the determination of an administrative agency
unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or is not
supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a
whole." Id. at 641 (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison,
81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980)). The Court in Dennery noted that it
"adhere[s] to that standard to resolve disputes arising under
school laws." Ibid. (citing Dore v. Bd. of Educ.,
185 N.J.
Super. 447, 452 (App. Div. 1982)). See also Capodilupo v. Bd. of
Educ.,
218 N.J. Super. 510, 515 (App. Div.) (holding that final
decision of State Board of Education should not be upset unless
unreasonable, and unsupported by the record or violative of the
legislative will), certif. denied,
109 N.J. 514 (1987).
As a tenured teacher, petitioner was entitled to certain
statutory protections. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 provides:
No person shall be dismissed or reduced in
compensation,
(a) if he is or shall be under tenure of
office, position or employment during good
behavior and efficiency in the public school
system of the state, . . .
except for inefficiency, incapacity,
unbecoming conduct, or other just cause, and
then only after a hearing held pursuant to
this subarticle, . . .
Nothing in this section shall prevent the
reduction of the number of any such persons
holding such offices, positions or
employments under the conditions and with the
effect provided by law.
The tenure statute recognizes certain situations in which
school boards may terminate tenured teachers for reasons other
than "inefficiency, incapacity, unbecoming conduct, or other just
cause." Teaching positions may be abolished for reasons of
economy. N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9 provides:
Nothing in this title or any other law
relating to tenure of service shall be held
to limit the right of any board of education
to reduce the number of teaching staff
members, employed in the district whenever,
in the judgment of the board, it is advisable
to abolish any such positions for reasons of
economy or because of reduction in the number
of pupils or of change in the administrative
or supervisory organization of the district
or for other good cause upon compliance with
the provisions of this article.
The Appellate Division pointed out that "[t]he Board's
decision to contract with an ESC to provide the speech correction
services previously performed by [petitioner] eliminated the need
for the position of speech correctionist within the district."
273 N.J. Super. at 434. Referring to N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9, the
court found that the Board, in abolishing petitioner's position
within the district, would save the district $12,000 per year,
and concluded "that the Board properly abolished [petitioner's]
position of speech correctionist 'for reasons of economy' and
thus did not violate her tenure rights." Ibid.
Our courts have recognized that a local board of education
has the authority to reduce its teaching force as long as that
reduction is genuinely "for reasons of economy." E.g., In re
Maywood Bd. of Educ.,
168 N.J. Super. 45, 55 (App. Div.) (stating
that "[r]eductions in force, whether of tenured or nontenured
teachers, if done for reasons of economy, is entirely within the
authority of the board."), certif. denied,
81 N.J. 292 (1979);
see also Jamison v. Morris School Dist. Bd. of Educ.,
198 N.J.
Super. 411, 415 (App. Div. 1985) (recognizing reduction in force,
if done for reasons of economy, is entirely within the authority
of the board); Klinger v. Bd. of Educ.,
190 N.J. Super. 354, 357
(App. Div. 1982) ("[R]eduction in force is entirely within the
authority of the board if done for reasons of economy."), certif.
denied,
93 N.J. 277 (1983).
The determination to reduce the teaching force by abolishing
positions need not eliminate the services that may be related to
those positions. E.g., Klinger, supra, 190 N.J. Super. at 357
(concluding that a local school board may alter the full-time
status of a tenured employee in order to restructure a department
to meet financial constraints while continuing to provide
identical services). Whether those services are eliminated,
reduced or modified, however, may be a relevant factor in
determining whether abolition of a position genuinely advances
the goals of economy and efficiency and was undertaken in good
faith. Cf. Viemeister v. Prospect Park Bd. of Educ.,
5 N.J.
Super. 215, 218 (App. Div. 1949) (stating that the "substance"
rather than the form of change controls and if position of
"principal" was replaced with identical position with different
title, it would not constitute a valid reduction in force); see
also Cochran v. Watchung Hills Regional High School Bd. of Educ.,
1
985 S.L.D. 1878 (adopting Commissioner of Education's
determination that reduction of child study team from full-time
to part-time violated N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9 because part-time
services would be inadequate, especially in light of then-current
statutory requirement that child study team services may only be
supplemented) (subsequent history omitted).
In this case, the parties have stipulated that the
subcontracting agreement with the ESC for ten hours a week has
had "no adverse impact on the program needs of the school
district for such speech services." Clearly, the Board's
decision to abolish the speech correctionist position held by
petitioner, and to contract for speech correction services with
the Monmouth County ESC, has resulted in a more economical
delivery of those services in the district. The ALJ determined
that the Board's sole motive in contracting with the Monmouth
County ESC, and in abolishing petitioner's position, had been to
save money. Consequently, the ALJ decided that the Board's
action in terminating petitioner was in compliance with N.J.S.A.
18A:28-9 and did not violate petitioner's tenure rights. The
Commissioner of Education and the State Board of Education also
found that the Board's termination of petitioner was in good
faith and based on permissible economic interests pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9. Moreover, there is no indication that the
services to be rendered by the ESC are in any way inadequate or
do not conform with the standards authorized by the Commissioner.
As the Appellate Division explained, petitioner's replacement
"involves a statutorily authorized administrative change in the
method of providing an educational service for the sole purpose
of saving money." 273 N.J. at 435.
Finally, we note, the stipulation that the Board "has placed
petitioner on a preferred eligibility list for re-employment in
her area of seniority." The question whether plaintiff, as a
tenured speech correctionist, would have been entitled to
preferential hiring by the ESC is not before the Court. See
Shelko v. Bd. of Educ.,
97 N.J. 414 (1984) (outlining tacking of
tenure and rights of teaching staff members when county
educational services commission takes over a local special
education program from school district).
We conclude, as did the Appellate Division, there exists
substantial credible evidence to justify the decisions of the
Commissioner and State Board of Education. The Board acted in
good faith and complied with N.J.S.A. 18A:28-9 in reducing the
number of employees within the district for reasons of economy.
The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN join in JUSTICE HANDLER's opinion.
NO. A-89 SEPTEMBER TERM 1994
ON APPEAL FROM
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
GILLIAN IMPEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BOROUGH OF SHREWSBURY,
Respondent-Respondent.
DECIDED August 14, 1995
Chief Justice Wilentz PRESIDING
OPINION BY Justice Handler
CONCURRING OPINION BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Footnote: 1 New Jersey participates in the federal program to help finance the education of handicapped children. See Lascari v.
Bd. of Educ., 116 N.J. 30, 34 (1989) (noting that receipt of federal funds is conditioned on the State's compliance with requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §1400 et seq.). Accordingly, the State is required to provide disabled children with "speech or language impairments," 20 U.S.C.A. 1401(a)(1)(A)(i), with special education and "related services." 20 U.S.C.A. 1400(c). "Related services" include services for "speech pathology," 34 C.F.R. 300.16(a), such as identification, diagnosis, appraisal and treatment of speech, language, or communicative impairments. Id. at 300.16(b)(13).