SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3074-16T4

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL

OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT OF 

CENTRAL JERSEY COLLEGE PREP

__________________________________

Argued May 30, 2019 – Decided June 7, 2019

Before Judges Haas, Sumners and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Education.

William C. Morlok argued the cause for appellant 

Franklin Township School District (Parker McCay, PA, 

attorneys; Brett E.J. Gorman, of counsel and on the 

briefs; Kayleen Egan, on the briefs).

Brenda C. Liss argued the cause for respondent Central 

Jersey College Prep Charter School (Riker Danzig 

Scherer Hyland & Perretti, LLP, attorneys; Brenda C. 

Liss, of counsel and on the brief; Stephen M. Turner, 

on the brief).

Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, argued 

the cause for respondent Department of Education 

(Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Melissa 

Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of 

counsel; James M. Esposito, Deputy Attorney General, 

on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3074-16T4

PER CURIAM

Appellant Franklin Township Board of Education (Franklin) appeals from 

the February 28, 2017 final decision of the Commissioner of Education 

(Commissioner), approving an application by Central Jersey College Prep 

Charter School (CJCP) to amend its charter to increase enrollment, add a 

satellite campus, and move its main campus to a new facility. 1 We affirm.

I.

We begin by reciting the essential background facts and procedural history 

of this matter. CJCP is a charter school located in Franklin Township, Somerset 

County, with an approved "region of residence,"2that includes Franklin 

 

1

 Calendared back-to-back with this appeal, North Brunswick Township Board 

of Education (North Brunswick), New Brunswick Board of Education (New 

Brunswick) and Piscataway Township Board of Education (Piscataway) 

separately appealed from this same decision. North Brunswick Twp. Bd. of 

Educ. v. Harrington (North Brunswick), No. A-3415-16. Two other appeals 

from decisions by the Commissioner regarding charter schools are also 

calendared back-to-back with this case. Highland Park Bd. of Educ. v. 

Harrington (Highland Park II), No. A-3455-16; Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of 

Piscataway v. N.J. Dep't of Educ. (Piscataway), No. A-5427-16. Because of this 

overlap, the reader is encouraged to review all four of our opinions in these 

cases, which are being released simultaneously.

2

 The term "region of residence" is defined as "contiguous school districts in 

which a charter school operates and is the charter school's district of residence." 

N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2.
3

A-3074-16T4

Township, New Brunswick, and North Brunswick. The school began operation 

in 2006. It was approved under the Charter School Program Act of 1995, 

N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-1 to -18 (the Charter School Act or CSPA), to serve students 

in grades kindergarten through eighth, with a maximum enrollment of fortyeight students per grade, and a projected total enrollment of 624 students for the 

2019-2020 school year. Its mission is "to prepare its students for post-secondary 

education and beyond with the necessary skills and knowledge they need to 

intellectually and emotionally reach their maximum potential."

CJCP is a high-performing, Tier 1 school, a ranking it received from the 

New Jersey Department of Education's (Department or NJDOE) assessment of 

its academic performance based on the metrics set forth in the State's Academic 

Performance Framework governing charter schools.3 It was awarded the 

National Blue Ribbon Award in 2016, named a High Performing Title I Reward 

School in 2015, featured as a Top Performing High School in U.S. News and 

World Report in 2015 and 2016, and designated as a "Top Ten Middle School" 

by JerseyCAN in 2013.

 

3

 The "Performance Framework" as referenced in N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3(b)(2), and 

as defined in N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2, sets specific quantitative and qualitative 

standards for academic, financial, and organizational performance.
4

A-3074-16T4

Appellant Franklin Township Board of Education (Franklin) operates the 

traditional Franklin Township Public Schools (FTPS). For the 2016-2017 

school year, approximately 7000 students from Franklin Township were 

enrolled in FTPS. Two charter schools also operate within the district, CJCP 

and Thomas Edison EnergySmart Charter School (TEECS). A third school, 

Ailanthus Charter School, received approval to begin operation for the 2018-

2019 school year. In re Ailanthus Charter Sch., No. A-0945-16 (App. Div. May 

11, 2018). As of April 2017, 330 students from Franklin were enrolled in CJCP, 

311 students were enrolled in TEECS, and forty-eight students were enrolled in 

out-of-district charter schools (Hatikvah International Charter School 

(Hatikvah) and the Greater Brunswick Charter School).

On December 1, 2016, CJCP submitted a charter amendment application 

seeking to: 1) expand its maximum enrollment from 624 to 1320 students by 

the 2019-2020 school year; 2) add a satellite campus in New Brunswick (within 

its region of residence) by the 2019-2020 school year; and 3) relocate the current 

facility to a new facility on Mettlers Road in Somerset. It proposed to enroll 

960 students at the Somerset campus and 360 students at the New Brunswick 

campus. In accord with N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(a)(2), CJCP submitted a board 

resolution authorizing the request to amend, a copy of the proposed revisions to 
5

A-3074-16T4

the charter, and a rationale statement in support of the proposed amendment.

CJCP stated that its need for expansion was "driven primarily by the heavy 

demand from the community to be a part of the educational success that it had 

instilled." It represented that the number of applications had dramatically 

increased over the past few years, totaling 465 for the 2014-2015 school year, 

and 956 for the 2016-2017 school year. CJCP had, at the time of the application, 

628 students on its waiting list and was only able to accept approximately 25% 

of the application pool. Thus, it maintained that under the current maximum 

capacity of forty-eight students per grade, it was "unable to service the vast 

number of students who would benefit" from the education provided by the 

school.

CJCP anticipated that demand for admission would continue to increase 

as a result of its awards, expansion, and proposed new facilities. It submitted 

student achievement results showing that in the spring of 2016, its students had 

significantly outperformed their peers attending FTPS in all PARCC 

assessments. For the 2016-2017 school year: 65% of their high school students 

were enrolled in at least one Advanced Placement (AP) class; 84% had taken 

college-level courses; and for the fifth consecutive year, 100% of the students 

had graduated high school and were accepted into a four-year college. Expanded 
6

A-3074-16T4

enrollment would allow it to increase its AP and college-level courses and to 

offer a wider range of extracurricular activities.

If approved, CJCP planned to hire approximately twenty-eight new 

teachers, together with additional administrative staff to meet their staffing 

needs. Under the expansion, the school projected the following expenses for 

teacher salaries: $2,572,388 (2017-2018); $3,081,559 (2018-2019); and 

$3,510,006 (2019-2020).

CJCP also sought to amend its charter to add a satellite campus in New 

Brunswick "to increase opportunities of education equity for all students in its 

attendance zone." CJCP identified two facilities for consideration, but had not 

finalized its selection pending the approval to operate a satellite campus.

CJCP asserted that the addition of the New Brunswick satellite campus 

would allow for the "accessibility and replication" of the school's "existing 

model to service this high-need community and the increased number of students 

attending [the] school," and would open the opportunities offered by CJCP to "a 

much larger student base in need of a college education." CJCP would also "be 

able to cut the costs within the schools by utilizing district-wide resources 

between the New Brunswick and Somerset campuses."

Although CJCP served New Brunswick students, as part of its "region of 
7

A-3074-16T4

residence," it had received only ninety-three applications from families in New 

Brunswick for the 2016-2017 school year, of which sixteen students were 

enrolled through the lottery system, and seventy-seven students were placed on 

the waiting list. The applications from New Brunswick students for the 2016-

2017 school year had doubled from the applications for the 2015-2016 school 

year, but were still less than expected given that there were no charter schools 

located in the city of New Brunswick. CJCP cited to studies that emphasized 

"the importance of residential proximity for charter schools to be a real option 

for parents," and expressed confidence that positioning the satellite campus in 

New Brunswick will increase the awareness of the school within the community 

and result in increased enrollment.

If approved, CJCP represented that it would "run an enrollment campaign" 

to reach out to the entire New Brunswick community. "Brochures and fliers 

would be translated for non-English speakers and distributed to various 

organizations, including but not limited to places of worship, community 

centers, enrichment programs and service organizations." It would also hold 

open houses at the school and at other locations accessible to members of the 

community.

CJCP projected that enrollment at the satellite campus would total:
8

A-3074-16T4

Grade 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020

Grade 6 0 0 72 72

Grade 7 0 0 72 72

Grade 8 0 0 0 72

Grade 9 0 0 72 72

Grade 10 0 0 0 72

Grade 11 0 0 0 0

Grade 12 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 216 360

Lastly, CJCP sought to relocate its main facility to an approximately 

90,000 square foot building located on Mettlers Road in Somerset. CJCP

acknowledged that part of the reason for the request to relocate was the fact that 

the current "landlord's recent and unreasonable actions and legal challenges have 

made it impossible to stay in [the current building] beyond this school year." It 

also sought to relocate because the current facility did not provide enough space 

and amenities to accommodate its students. The new larger facility had fiftyfive classrooms, a media center, cafeteria, auditorium, and conference rooms 

among other features. Further, although the rent for the new facility was higher, 

CJCP determined that considering "all factors" including legal expenses and 

maintenance costs, "the new facility will not significantly increase the 

percentage of the school's general fund allocated for the building/land rent and 

maintenance."

CJCP projected that enrollment at the Somerset Campus would total:
9

A-3074-16T4

Grade 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020

Kindergarten 48 72 96 96

Grade 1 48 72 98 96

Grade 2 48 72 96 96

Grade 3 48 72 96

Grade 4 48 72

Grade 5 48

Grade 6 48 72 96 96

Grade 7 48 48 72 96

Grade 8 48 48 48 72

Grade 9 48 48 48 48

Grade 10 48 48 48 48

Grade 11 48 48 48 48

Grade 12 48 48 48 48

Total 480 624 816 960

More than 100 individuals and organizations sent letters to the 

Commissioner supporting CJCP's application, including the Latino Leadership 

Alliance of New Jersey, which expressed its "strong support" for the application.

On January 13, 2017, Franklin submitted a letter to the Commissioner 

asking her to deny CJCP's application. It claimed that CJCP had not 

demonstrated that it could meet the challenges posed by its rapid expansion, 

including tripling its current enrollment and opening two new facilities. 

Franklin maintained that this "ill-advised amendment" threatened "the 

educational viability of CJCP's students." It asked the Commissioner to deny 

the application, or in the alternative, to reduce the "proposed increase in 

enrollment and facilities."

Franklin claimed that CJCP had not allocated sufficient funds to attract 
10 A-3074-16T4

and adequately staff its schools with competent professionals, which would 

result in "catastrophic consequences to the viability of the school and the 

delivery of educational services." It calculated that the new teachers would 

receive an average salary of $33,486.35 per year ($937,618 (budget increase for 

teacher salaries) ÷ 28 (new teachers)). That annual salary for new teachers was 

significantly less than CJCP's median staff salary of $49,200 for the 2015-2016 

school year. As a result, Franklin asserted that CJCP would "struggle to find 

qualified teachers to run a rigorous college preparatory curriculum." Franklin

also maintained that CJCP's staffing goal for its Somerset campus did not 

comport with its stated goal of small class sizes and a low teacher-student ratio 

because it would not be fully staffed for several years after the increased 

enrollment.

Moreover, Franklin alleged that there was insufficient community demand 

for the expansion, because the lack of applications from New Brunswick 

families for the Somerset campus did not necessarily mean that there was 

community support for a satellite campus in New Brunswick. Further, CJCP 

sought to "expand enrollment in Somerset despite the fact[] that only 87% of the 

students enrolled at the CJCP Somerset campus reside in the district of 

residence." Franklin asserted that CJCP's "argument that more seats are 
11 A-3074-16T4

necessary in Somerset to meet the demand seems illogical since 13% of the 

students currently attending CJCP reside in a town outside the district of 

residence."

Next, Franklin asserted that CJCP had "a poor track record" with English 

Language Learners (ELL). It argued that as of the 2014-2015 school year, CJCP 

had not enrolled any ELL students, in contrast to the Franklin Township school 

district, which had 600 ELL students.

Lastly, Franklin had concerns relating to the suitability of the Mettlers 

Road facility. According to Franklin, the facility was apparently located in a 

ROL Zone (Research/Office/Laboratory Zone), where schools were not a 

permitted use. Although the Planning Board ultimately approved CJCP's 

application for a use variance, it imposed "significant conditions" on the project, 

which Franklin asserted "undermine[d] its viability as a school location." 

Moreover, CJCP's proposed location for a gymnasium was "located within the 

setback of a gas transmission pipeline, potentially exposing the students to a 

dangerous condition."

CJCP also only intended to use approximately one-half of the existing 

Mettlers Road facility, leaving the remainder vacant and available for lease. 

Thus, the property owner could lease the balance of the building to a commercial 
12 A-3074-16T4

office or research laboratory, thereby potentially "creating a number of security 

risks for the students, who would be forced to share a building." Franklin also 

noted that CJCP's proposal to move its main facility had resulted in 

"threatened/pending litigation" with its current landlord.

On January 27, 2018, the Superintendents of Edison, Highland Park, New 

Brunswick, Sayreville, South River, and Metuchen Township Public School 

Districts submitted a letter to the Commissioner opposing the applications filed 

by CJCP, Hatikvah, and TEECS, to expand their enrollments. They alleged that 

Hatikvah and TEECS, but not CJCP, "enroll a significantly more segregated 

student body than any of the resident or non-resident sending districts with 

respect to race, socioeconomic status, and need for special education."

Boards of Educations from ten other school districts, including the 

appellants in the companion appeal, North Brunswick, No. A-3415-16, passed 

almost identical resolutions calling for a general moratorium on new charter 

school seats in Middlesex and Somerset Counties. The Boards also alleged that 

Hatikvah and TEECS, but not CJCP, enrolled a "significantly more segregated 

student body" than any of the resident or non-resident sending districts.

By letter dated January 31, 2017, CJCP responded to each of Franklin's

claims. With regard to Franklin's argument that the "existing charter schools 
13 A-3074-16T4

located in Middlesex and Somerset counties are already lacking in demand in 

their own designated communities," CJCP stated that it had "been experiencing 

an increase in demand for enrollment from students living within its sending 

district." It asserted that the number of applicants from its region of residence 

totaled: 302 (2014-2015); 684 (2015-2016); and 734 (2016-2017). For the 

2017-2018 school year, CJCP had received 748 applications as of January 2017, 

and anticipated receiving over 1200 applications by the 2017-2018 school year 

deadline.

With regard to Franklin's claim that only 87% of the students enrolled in 

CJCP resided in the school's region of residence, CJCP explained that that 

number was "a result of upperclassmen high school students from outside of the 

attendance zone who started to attend CJCP when they were sixth graders. CJCP 

pointed out that as these students graduated, the ratio of students from CJCP's 

region of residence had increased," as follows: 71% (2014-2015); 80% (2015-

2016); 87% (2016-2017). As a result, CJCP anticipated that approximately 94% 

of its students would reside in its region of residence in the 2017-2018 school 

year, and 100% by the 2018-2019 school year.

Lastly, CJCP stated that Franklin's claim that TEECS and Hatikvah 

enrolled a more segregated student body was a tacit admission that CJCP's 
14 A-3074-16T4

student body was representative of its sending districts. CJCP represented that 

the demographics of its students were: 14% (White); 17% (Hispanic); 30% 

(African American); 38% (Asian); and 1% (other).

By letter dated February 10, 2017, the Latino Coalition of New Jersey, a 

civil rights organization, and Franklin C.A.R.E.S., a group of parents of FTPS 

students, informed the Commissioner that they had filed a federal civil rights 

complaint against CJCP, alleging that CJCP engaged in segregative practices 

relating to enrollment of students with disabilities and ELL students.

4

 CJCP 

responded to the allegations the next day, and "vehemently" denied engaging in 

any form of discrimination. CJCP stated it was an inclusive and diverse school 

that, for the past ten years, had been "successfully educating students from 

Franklin Township, North Brunswick and New Brunswick under the strict 

regulatory oversight of the NJDOE," and was in "complete compliance with all 

NJDOE regulations regarding enrollment policies."

CJCP explained that it solicited and accepted applications from all 

interested students. Students gained enrollment through a publicly held random 

lottery process that blindly selected a certain number of students to fill available 

 

4

 Franklin did not include the letter or the complaint in its appendices. It also 

provided no information concerning the outcome, if any, of this litigation.
15 A-3074-16T4

seats. Importantly, CJCP did not collect any information at the time of the 

application as to the students' socioeconomic and ethnic background, disability 

status, or English language skills. Any disparity in demographics of its student 

enrollment, as compared to FTPS, was "completely attributable to parentchoice." Further, the request to open a satellite campus in New Brunswick was 

"specifically designed to give more ethnically diverse, economically 

disadvantaged, and ELL students access to a high quality, public education."

Lastly, CJCP claimed that it had "raised the bar of what should be 

expected in public education in Franklin Township with a proven track record 

of academic success." Its students had outperformed their peers in FTPS in 

every subject, as represented by the 2016 PARCC test results:

2016 PARCC Results – All Students

0

20

40

60

80

100

Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Math-MS ELA-MS ELA-HS

63.2

51 60.6

73.2

91.1

77.3

42

24 26.4 30.3

44 47 CJCP

Franklin
16 A-3074-16T4

2016 PARCC ELA Results - Free/Reduced Lunch Students

2016 PARCC Math Results - Free/Reduced Lunch Students

On February 28, 2017, the Commissioner granted CJCP's application to 

amend its charter based on the recommendations and her review of the record. 

In a brief written decision, the Commissioner noted that the Department had 

"completed a comprehensive review including, but not limited to, student 

performance on statewide assessments, operational stability, fiscal viability, 

public comment, fiscal impact on sending districts, and other information in 

order to make a decision regarding the school's amendment request." The 

Commissioner confirmed the school's maximum enrollment for the "approved 

region of residence of Franklin, New Brunswick and North Brunswick," as 

0

50

100

ELA-MS ELA-HS All

83.4

74.5 78.5

30.9 33.2 32 CJCP

Franklin

0

50

100

Math-MS Math-HS All

61.1

47.6 50.7

20.3 20.8 20.5

CJCP

Franklin
17 A-3074-16T4

follows:

Grade 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020

Kindergarten 72 96 96

Grade 1 72 96 96

Grade 2 72 96 96

Grade 3 48 72 96

Grade 4 48 72

Grade 5 48

Grade 6 72 168 168

Grade 7 48 144 168

Grade 8 48 48 144

Grade 9 48 120 120

Grade 10 48 48 120

Grade 11 48 48 48

Grade 12 48 48 48

Total 624 1032 1320

The Commissioner also confirmed the new site location at Mettlers Road, 

and directed CJCP to "provide all facility related documents to the Office of 

Charter and Renaissance Schools and the Somerset County Office of 

Education." Further, the Commissioner directed that once CJCP had identified 

the final site of the satellite campus, it should provide the Department with the 

required amended documentation pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6. This appeal 

followed.

On appeal, Franklin raises the following contentions:

POINT I

THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION SHOULD BE 

REVERSED BECAUSE SHE FAILED TO 

CONSIDER THE SEGREGATIVE IMPACT CJCP'S 
18 A-3074-16T4

CHARTER AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE ON THE 

DISTRICT.

POINT II

THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION WAS 

ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND 

UNREASONABLE.

II.

In Point I, Franklin argues that the Commissioner's decision was arbitrary, 

capricious and unreasonable because she failed to consider the alleged 

segregative impact of CJCP's charter amendment on the district. We disagree.

The scope of judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner on a 

charter school application is limited. In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch. 

of Montclair Founders Grp., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013). We may reverse only if 

the Commissioner's decision is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Ibid. 

In making that determination, our review is generally restricted to three 

inquiries:

(1) whether the agency's action violates express or 

implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency 

follow the law; (2) whether the record contains 

substantial evidence to support the findings on which 

the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying 

the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly 

erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably 

have been made on a showing of the relevant factors.
19 A-3074-16T4

[Id. at 385-86 (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 

22, 25 (1995)).]

"When an agency's decision meets those criteria, then a court owes 

substantial deference to the agency's expertise and superior knowledge of a 

particular field." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). This court "may not 

substitute its own judgment for the agency's even though the court might have 

reached a different result. . . ." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007) (quoting 

Greenwood v. State Police Training Ctr., 127 N.J. 500, 513 (1992)).

Charter schools are public schools that operate under a charter granted by 

the Commissioner, operate independently of a local board of education, and are 

managed by a board of trustees. N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-3(a). The Legislature found 

and declared that

the establishment of charter schools as part of this 

State’s program of public education can assist in 

promoting comprehensive educational reform by 

providing a mechanism for the implementation of a 

variety of educational approaches which may not be 

available in the traditional public school classroom. 

Specifically, charter schools offer the potential to 

improve pupil learning; increase for students and 

parents the educational choices available when 

selecting the learning environment which they feel may 

be the most appropriate; encourage the use of different 

and innovative learning methods; establish a new form 

of accountability for schools; require the measurement 

of learning outcomes; make the school the unit for 
20 A-3074-16T4

educational improvement; and establish new 

professional opportunities for teachers.

The Legislature further finds that the 

establishment of a charter school program is in the best 

interests of the students of this State and it is therefore 

the public policy of the State to encourage and facilitate 

the development of charter schools.

[N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-2.]

It is well established that, "[r]ooted in our Constitution, New Jersey's 

public policy prohibits segregation in our public schools. . . ." In re Grant of 

Charter Sch. Application of Englewood on the Palisades Charter Sch., 164 N.J. 

316, 324 (2000). In that regard, the CSPA provides that "[t]he admission policy 

of the charter school shall, to the maximum extent practicable, seek the 

enrollment of a cross section of the community’s school age population 

including racial and academic factors." N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-8(e). See N.J.A.C. 

6A:11-4.5(e) (charter school lottery). Further, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-7 provides:

A charter school shall be open to all students on a space 

available basis and shall not discriminate in its 

admission policies or practices on the basis of 

intellectual or athletic ability, measures of achievement 

or aptitude, status as a person with a disability, 

proficiency in the English language, or any other basis 

that would be illegal if used by a school district; 

however, a charter school may limit admission to a 

particular grade level or to areas of concentration of the 

school, such as mathematics, science, or the arts. A 

charter school may establish reasonable criteria to 
21 A-3074-16T4

evaluate prospective students which shall be outlined in 

the school’s charter.

Our Supreme Court has held that the "form and structure" of the 

segregative analysis under the CSPA is up to the Commissioner and the 

Department to determine. Englewood, 164 N.J. at 329. "The Commissioner 

must consider the impact that the movement of pupils to a charter school would 

have on the district of residence" and "be prepared to act if the de facto effect of 

a charter school were to affect a racial balance precariously maintained in a 

charter school's district of residence." Id. at 328. "The Commissioner must 

vigilantly seek to protect a district's racial/ethnic balance during the charter 

school's initial application, continued operation, and charter renewal 

application." In re Red Bank Charter Sch., 367 N.J. Super. 462, 472 (App. Div. 

2004).

[S]egregation, however caused, must be addressed. To 

be timely addressed, assessment cannot wait until after 

a charter school has been approved for operation and is 

already taking pupils from the public schools of a 

district of residence. The Commissioner must assess 

whether approval of a charter school will have a 

segregative effect on the district of residence of the 

charter school. Once a charter school is operating, the 

Commissioner must also assess whether there is a 

segregative effect in any other district sending pupils to 

the approved charter school.

[Englewood, 164 N.J. at 330.]
22 A-3074-16T4

In response to the Court's decision in Englewood, and to its companion 

case, In re Greater Brunswick Charter School, 164 N.J. 314, 315 (2000), the 

Board adopted regulations requiring the Commissioner, prior to approval of a 

charter, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(j), and on an annual basis thereafter, N.J.A.C. 

6A:11-2.2(c), to "assess the student composition of a charter school and the 

segregative effect that the loss of the students may have on its district of 

residence. The assessment shall be based on the enrollment from the initial 

recruitment period pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.4(a) and (b)." 32 N.J.R. 

3560(a), 3561 (Oct. 2, 2000). N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.4(a) provides that "a charter 

school shall submit to the Commissioner the number of students by grade level, 

gender and race/ethnicity from each district selected for enrollment from its 

initial recruitment period for the following school year."

Moreover, in response to a public comment about the readoption of the 

implementing regulations with amendments, the Commissioner explained that:

20. COMMENT: The commenter requested revisions 

to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1 and 2.2 to ensure the Department 

assesses the segregative effects of charter schools not 

only by race, but also on religion, ethnicity and gender, 

students with disabilities, English language learner 

status, low-income students (socioeconomic status), 

and students at risk of dropping out or with other 

special academic needs.
23 A-3074-16T4

RESPONSE: The Department assesses the segregative 

effects of charter schools by many factors other than 

race, including those referenced by the commenter, 

although it is not specifically required by or enumerated 

in N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1 and 2.2. The factors that are 

considered are predicated on the composition of the 

involved school districts. In light of this fact specific 

analysis, the Department contends revisions to N.J.A.C. 

6A:11-2.1 and/or 2.2 are not necessary or warranted.

[46 N.J.R. 2351(c), 2353 (Dec. 1, 2014).]

On appeal, Franklin claims that CJCP is not representative of a cross 

section of the community's school age population because it over-enrolls Asian 

students, and under-enrolls Hispanic students, economically disadvantaged 

students (defined as students receiving free or reduced cost lunch), ELL 

students, and special needs students. However, before the Commissioner, 

Franklin only asserted that CJCP had a "poor track record" with ELL students, 

and presented no evidence to the Commissioner regarding the racial and 

economic segregative effects of CJCP's increased enrollment.

Further, the other opposing districts included data regarding the 

segregative effect of two different charter schools, but not CJCP, and there is no 

indication in this record whether the Latino Coalition and Franklin C.A.R.E.S 

presented any substantiated evidence of a segregative effect on the district. 

Thus, there was nothing in this record to support Franklin's assertion that CJCP's 
24 A-3074-16T4

enrollment practices will have a segregative effect on the district. Red Bank, 

367 N.J. Super. at 472-85.

It was also undisputed that CJCP did not discriminate in its admission 

policies or practices. In accordance with the CSPA, CJCP operated a publiclyheld random race-blind lottery. In addition, CJCP did not collect any data at the 

time of the application about the students' socioeconomic and ethnic 

background, disability status, and English language skills.

Additionally, even if Franklin had presented the information about student 

enrollment data to the Commissioner at the time she was considering CJCP's 

application, it would not have presented a basis to reject the application. 

Franklin compared the racial/ethnic demographics of CJCP and TEECS (not a 

party to this appeal) students, with FTPS students for the school year 2016-2017, 

as follows:

Demographic FTPS Students CJCP Students TEECS Students

White 12.8% 13.3% 14.7%

Asian 16.0% 34.0% 67.6%

Hispanic 25.4% 18.8% 3.5%

Black 37.4% 31.1% 12.6%

Free or reduced price lunch 47.7% 28.0% 7.0%

Special Education 16.0% 8.0% 3.0%

ELL or LEP 7.0% 0% 3.0%

It also cited to the change in CJCP's demographics, as follows:

 
25 A-3074-16T4

CJCP's

Demographics

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

White 6.6% 8.0% 9.5% 12.0% 13.3%

Asian 5.7% 7.7% 15.4% 19.6% 34.0%

Hispanic 20.4% 21.4% 20.9% 20.3% 18.8%

Black 66.7% 62.3% 53.9% 47.5% 31.1%

Economically 

disadvantaged

33.0% 44.0% 43.0% 39.0% 28.0%

ELL or LEP 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Special education 8.0% 9.0% 7.0% 7.0% 8.0%

The demographics cited by Franklin do not present a sufficient basis for 

assessing segregative effect. The data provided shows some disparity between 

the enrollment of Asian, Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, and ELL 

students in FTPS. Significantly, however, Franklin does not argue that FTPS

are becoming more segregated, and in fact, the data submitted by the 

Commissioner indicates that they have not. See Bd. of Educ. of Morris Sch. 

Dist. v. Unity Charter Sch., EDU 1797-02, final decision, (May 22, 2003) 

("student population for purposes of comparison with a charter school is not the 

public school enrollment of the district of residence, but 'the community's school 

age population,' a group for which no comparison can here be made, since the 

present record is virtually devoid of information about it").

As the Commissioner correctly points out, the District's student 

demographics, including socioeconomic and racial demographics, have, as set 

forth below, remained relatively static from the 2010-2011 to the 2015-2016 
26 A-3074-16T4

school year, and thus there was no indication that CJCP's operations were 

exacerbating the racial imbalance:

Students 

Pre-K to 12

Franklin 

2010-2011

Franklin 

2016-2017

White 18.7% 13.7%

Black or African American 40.3% 38.0%

Asian 18.4% 16.7%

Hispanic 21.5% 29.5%

LEP 5.1% 7.8%

Special needs 15.2% 16.0%

Free or reduced lunch 36.6% 45.0%

A comparison of the demographic data indicates that CJCP enrolled a 

diverse student population, albeit, a population that did not exactly match FTPS 

demographics. Moreover, CJCP maintained that the expansion and the 

operation of a satellite campus in New Brunswick would allow it to develop an 

even more diverse student population. To that end, Franklin has not presented 

any evidence that the District was becoming more segregated, or that CJCP's 

existence has worsened the existing racial imbalance. See Bd. of Educ. of 

Hoboken v. N.J. State Dep't of Educ., No. A-3690-14 (slip op. at 15) (App. Div. 

June 29, 2017) (affirmed charter renewal where there were no allegations that 

the school's practices after the enrollment of students by an impartial lottery 

exacerbated the racial or ethnic balance); see also In re Renewal Application of 

TEAM Acad. Charter Sch., ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (slip op. at 14) (stating that 

"[t]he mere fact that the demographics of the charter schools do not mirror the 
27 A-3074-16T4

demographics of the [d]istrict does not alone establish a segregative effect.").

In that regard, this case is distinguishable from Red Bank, 367 N.J. Super. 

at 462. In that case, the Board of Education (Board) appealed from the 

Commissioner's decision approving an application by a charter school to renew 

its charter. Id. at 467. The Board opposed the application on the basis that the 

school's operation had worsened the racial/ethnic imbalance, citing to data 

showing that since the charter school opened, the percentage of non-minority 

students in the traditional public schools had decreased from 32% to 18%, and 

a disproportionate number of non-minority students were enrolled in the charter 

school. Id. at 469. The Board also alleged that prior to standardized testing, the 

charter school frequently returned enrolled minority students with poor 

academic records to the traditional public schools. Id. at 479.

The Commissioner in Red Bank did not specifically address the 

segregation argument below. Id. at 476. However, this court discerned from 

the entire record, including the Commissioner's brief on appeal, that the 

Commissioner had concluded there was "no evidence in the record to suggest 

that the charter school has promoted racial segregation among the district's 

school-age children," and "there is no requirement that the two schools have 

exactly the same minority/non-minority enrollment figures." Ibid. (internal 
28 A-3074-16T4

quotation marks omitted). We held that "the Commissioner is to assess whether 

or not the charter school is seeking 'a cross section of the community's school 

age population.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-8(e)).

Despite the disparity in the enrollment, we affirmed the Commissioner's 

decision, finding that:

The Charter School should not be faulted for 

developing an attractive educational program. 

Assuming the school's enrollment practices remain 

color blind, random, and open to all students in the 

community, the parents of age eligible students will 

decide whether or not to attempt to enroll their child in 

the Charter School and any racial/ethnic imbalance 

cannot be attributed solely to the school. To close this 

school would undermine the Legislature's policy of 

"promoting comprehensive educational reform" by 

fostering the development of charter schools. N.J.S.A. 

18A:36A-2.

[Id. at 478.]

Nonetheless, this court found that the school's post-enrollment practices 

were "disturbing and difficult to dismiss on this record." Id. at 480. 

Additionally,

[w]hile the Charter School's enrollment practices might 

not be the sole cause of existing racial/ethnic 

imbalance, the manner of operation of the school after 

its color-blind lottery, warrants closer scrutiny to 

determine whether some of the school's practices may 

be worsening the existing racial/ethnic imbalance in the 

district schools.
29 A-3074-16T4

[Ibid.]

Thus, we remanded the matter to the Commissioner to determine "whether 

any remedial action is warranted." Id. at 482. Here, and unlike in Red Bank, 

there are no allegations that CJCP's practices, after the enrollment of students 

by an impartial lottery, exacerbated the racial, ethnic, or special needs balance

in FTPS. Franklin does not cite to any policy or procedure utilized by CJCP in 

a manner to further exacerbate that balance. Instead, Franklin simply claimed, 

in general terms, that CJCP was more segregated than the FTPS—a claim 

insufficient to warrant further review on an application to amend.

This case is also distinguishable from two other cases cited by Franklin. 

In In re Petition for Authorization to Conduct a Referendum on the Withdrawal 

of North Haledon School District from the Passaic County Manchester Regional 

High School District, 181 N.J. 161, 183 (2004), the Court reversed the grant of 

North Haledon's petition to withdraw from the Passaic County Manchester 

Regional High School District. The Court found that "demographic trends are 

contributing to a steady decrease in the number of white students attending 

Manchester Regional, and that North Haledon's withdrawal will accelerate this 

trend." Ibid. The Court held that "[r]ather than using the demographic trend as 

an excuse for approving North Haledon's petition, the Board should have 
30 A-3074-16T4

considered the ameliorative effect of denying the petition on the racial balance 

at Manchester Regional." Ibid.

Similarly, in Board of Education of Englewood Cliffs v. Board of 

Education of Englewood, 257 N.J. Super. 413, 459-65 (App. Div. 1992), aff'd, 

132 N.J. 327, cert. denied, 510 U.S. 991 (1993), the Appellate Division affirmed 

the State Board of Education's denial of Englewood Cliffs' petition to withdraw 

from the sending/receiving relationship due to the substantial negative impact 

on the racial balance in the district. In contrast, here, Franklin did not show that 

CJCP's expansion will increase the racial imbalance as in North Haledon and 

Englewood Cliffs. In fact, it appears from the data submitted by the 

Commissioner that the racial demographics have remained fairly consistent 

during CJCP's operation.

Lastly, it is undisputed that the Commissioner considered the segregative 

effect of the charter school in approving CJCP's application to open the school 

in 2006, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(j), in renewing its application in 2010 and 2015, 

N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3(b)(8), and on an annual basis, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.2(c). There 

is no indication in this record that there was any challenge based on the 

segregative effect either in the initial approval or on renewal. Nor is there any 

indication in this record that the Commissioner found a segregative effect during 
31 A-3074-16T4

the annual review. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.2(c).

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the Commissioner's decision 

granting the expansion was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable because 

Franklin did not provide sufficient evidence of a segregative effect to warrant 

either a more detailed scrutiny or the denial of the application. Therefore, we 

reject Franklin's contention on this point.

III.

In Point II, Franklin argues that the Commissioner's decision approving 

the amendment was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable because she failed to 

consider "serious deficiencies and problems in CJCP's application." 

Specifically, Franklin contends the Commissioner failed to consider that: 

1) CJCP sought to expand too rapidly; 2) CJCP's staffing plan was unrealistic; 

3) there was a lack of community demand for the New Brunswick campus and 

no demonstrated need for additional seats at the Somerset campus; 4) CJCP has 

a "poor track record" with ELL students; 5) the proposed location of the 

Somerset campus is unsuitable for a school; and 6) CJCP may become involved 

in expensive litigation with its current landlord. We are unpersuaded by these 

arguments.

Applications to establish a charter school are governed by N.J.S.A. 
32 A-3074-16T4

18A:36A-4 and -5, and the implementing regulation, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1. The 

Commissioner has final authority to grant or reject a charter. N.J.S.A. 18A:36A4(c). "The notification to eligible applicants not approved as charter schools 

shall include reasons for the denials." N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(f) (emphasis added).

Applications to renew a charter are governed by N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-17 and 

the implementing regulation, N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3. The Commissioner shall 

grant or deny the renewal of a charter based upon a comprehensive review of 

the school, including, among other things, the annual reports, recommendation 

of the district board of education or school superintendent, and student 

performance on statewide tests. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3. "The notification to a 

charter school that is not granted a renewal shall include reasons for the denial." 

N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3(d) (emphasis added).

With particular reference to the case at hand, a charter school can also 

apply to the Commissioner for an amendment to its charter. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-

2.6. A charter school can seek, as in this case, an expansion of enrollment and 

the establishment of a new satellite campus. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(a)(1)(i), (iv). 

Boards of Education in the district of residence can submit comments in 

response to the application for amendment. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(c).

"The Commissioner may approve or deny amendment requests of charter 
33 A-3074-16T4

schools and shall notify charter schools of decisions. If approved, the 

amendment becomes effective immediately unless a different effective date is 

established by the Commissioner." N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(d). In determining 

whether the amendments are eligible for approval, the Department "shall 

evaluate the amendments" based on the CSPA and the implementing regulations, 

and the Commissioner "shall review a charter school's performance data. . . ." 

N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(b). A school's performance data is reflected in the school's 

Academic Performance Framework report. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2. The 

Performance Framework consists of three sections: academic, financial, and 

organizational. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2. A charter school’s performance on the 

Academic section carries the most weight. That component includes measures 

of student growth, achievement, graduation rate, and attendance. N.J.A.C. 

6A:11-1.2.

An appellate court may reverse a Commissioner's decision on a charter 

school application only if it is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." Quest 

Acad., 216 N.J. at 385. "[T]he arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard 

. . . subsumes the need to find sufficient support in the record to sustain the 

decision reached by the Commissioner." Id. at 386. "[A] failure to consider all 

the evidence in a record would perforce lead to arbitrary decision making." Ibid. 
34 A-3074-16T4

However, in cases where "the Commissioner is not acting in a quasi-judicial 

capacity," and is instead acting in [her] legislative capacity, as [s]he was doing 

here, [s]he "need not provide the kind of formalized findings and conclusions 

necessary in the traditional contested case." TEAM Acad., ___ N.J. Super. ___ 

(slip op. at 30) (quoting In re Grant of Charter Sch. Application of Englewood 

on the Palisades Charter Sch., 320 N.J. Super. 174, 217 (App. Div. 1999), aff'd 

as modified, 164 N.J. 316 (2000)).

Thus, although the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable standard 

demands "that the reasons for the decision be discernible, the reasons need not 

be as detailed or formalized as an agency adjudication of disputed facts; they 

need only be inferable from the record considered by the agency." Englewood, 

320 N.J. Super. at 217. See Red Bank, 367 N.J. Super. at 476 (reasons need not 

be detailed or formalized, but must be discernible from the record); Bd. of Educ. 

of E. Windsor Reg'l Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 172 N.J. Super. 547, 552 

(App. Div. 1980) (detailed findings not required by Commissioner in reducing 

amount local school board sought to increase its budget).

There is also no statutory or regulatory provision requiring the 

Commissioner to include reasons for granting an application to amend. TEAM 

Acad., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (slip op. at 40). The regulations provide only that 
35 A-3074-16T4

the notification "shall include reasons for the denial[]" of an initial charter 

school application and an application for renewal. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(f); 

N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3(d). The Commissioner does however, take comments 

regarding the amendment into consideration when rendering a final decision. 

N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(c). Here, although the Commissioner did not specifically 

address the comments submitted by Franklin in its opposition to CJCP's 

application, a review of the record indicates that none of the issues raised by 

Franklin presented a basis to deny the amendment.

First, Franklin argues that CJCP failed to present sufficient evidence of a 

need for a satellite campus in New Brunswick. A charter school can seek an 

amendment to open a new satellite campus. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(a)(1)(iv). See

Educ. Law Ctr. ex rel. Burke v. N.J. State Bd. of Educ., 438 N.J. Super. 108, 

112 (App. Div. 2014) (affirmed State Board's action in adopting regulations

allowing satellite campuses). A satellite campus is defined as "a school facility 

operated by a charter school that is in addition to the facility identified in the 

charter school application or charter, if subsequently amended." N.J.A.C. 

6A:11-1.2. "A charter school may operate more than one satellite campus in its 

district or region of residence, subject to charter amendment approval, pursuant 

to N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6." N.J.A.C. 6A:11-4.15(b).
36 A-3074-16T4

The Department evaluates whether amendments are eligible for approval 

based on the CSPA. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(b). Under the CSPA, a charter must 

include information showing a "[d]emonstration of need" in its initial 

application for a charter. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(b)(2)(vi). Franklin contends that 

CJCP did not demonstrate a need for the satellite campus because it cited only 

to a lack of demand from New Brunswick families.

However, in its application, CJCP presented a detailed rationale for the 

addition of a satellite campus—a record that amply supports the Commissioner's 

decision. Notably, CJCP set forth that New Brunswick's high percentage of 

economically disadvantaged students (86% (high school) and 93% (middle 

school)), would benefit from easier access to CJCP. It also cited to studies that 

"emphasize[d] the importance of residential proximity for charter schools to be 

a real option for all parents."

Moreover, CJCP demonstrated need because even though it received 

fewer applications than expected from New Brunswick students in 2016-2017, 

it still received double the number of applications from 2015-2016, and seventyseven of the ninety-three students were placed on the waiting list. CJCP also 

represented that the total number of applications had dramatically increased over 

the past few years (465 for the 2014-2015 school year and 956 for the 2016-
37 A-3074-16T4

2017 school year), and that at the time of the application, there were 628 students 

on its waiting list.

Second, Franklin argues that CJCP failed to demonstrate need because 

only 87% of the students enrolled at the Somerset campus were from CJCP's

region of residence. However, CJCP explained that number was "a result of 

upperclassmen high school students from outside of the attendance zone who 

started to attend CJCP when they were sixth graders. As these students graduate, 

the ratio of students from CJCP's region of residence attending CJCP has 

increased," as follows: 71% (2014-2015); 80% (2015-2016); 87% (2016-2017). 

CJCP anticipated that approximately 94% of its students would reside in its 

region of residence in the 2017-2018 school year, and 100% by the 2018-2019 

school year.

Third, Franklin argues that the Commissioner ignored the fact that CJCP 

had a "poor track record in enrolling ELL students." It asserts that 14% of the 

students enrolled in traditional public schools in New Brunswick are ELL 

students, and that CJCP has not demonstrated that it is able to serve this student 

population. However, there was no evidence that CJCP utilized any policy or 

procedure, either before or after the lottery, to exclude ELL students. It was 

also undisputed that students gain admission to CJCP through a publically held 
38 A-3074-16T4

random lottery process that blindly selects students from among the applicant 

pool, and CJCP did not collect any information prior to the lottery as to a 

student's English language skills. Further, CJCP maintained that it sought to 

open a satellite campus in New Brunswick in order to reach more ELL students.

Franklin also failed to present any evidence that CJCP was unable to serve 

the population of ELL students. It was undisputed that CJCP complied with 

NJDOE regulations during its ten years of operation, including N.J.A.C. 6A:11-

4.8, which provides that "[a] charter school shall provide an enrolled limited 

English proficient student with all required courses and support services to meet 

the New Jersey Student Learning Standards in accordance with N.J.S.A. 

18A:7A-4 and 18A:7A-5 and N.J.A.C. 6A:15, Bilingual Education."

Fourth, Franklin argues that the Commissioner failed to address its 

concern that the increased enrollment at the Somerset campus and the creation 

of the satellite campus will cause "catastrophic staffing issues due to unrealistic 

teacher salaries." However, there is no indication in this record that CJCP 

proposed to pay its teachers less than the amount required under the CSPA. In 

this regard, N.J.S.A. 18A:36A-14(b) provides that "[a] charter school shall not 

set a teacher salary lower than the minimum teacher salary specified pursuant to 

section 7 of P.L.1985, c.321 (C.18A:29-5.6) nor higher than the highest step in 
39 A-3074-16T4

the salary guide in the collective bargaining agreement which is in effect in the 

district in which the charter school is located." See also 34 N.J.R. 2920(a) (Aug. 

19, 2002) ("Charter schools pay their teachers and professional staff not less 

than the State minimum salary nor more than the salaries of the district boards 

of education in which the charter schools are located"). Therefore, Franklin's 

contention on this point also lacks merit.

Fifth, Franklin contends that the Commissioner ignored its safety 

concerns about the Mettlers Road location. However, prior to opening the new 

campus, CJCP must submit to the NJDOE the new lease, mortgage, or title to 

the facility, a valid certificate of occupancy for educational use issued by the 

local municipal enforcing official, a sanitary inspection report with a 

satisfactory rating, and a fire inspection certificate with an "Ae" (education) 

code life hazard. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.1(i)(6)-(9). The regulations are designed to 

ensure that facilities are safe for students. Thus, none of the issues raised by 

Franklin in opposition to the application form a basis for denying the 

application.

In sum, we are satisfied that the administrative record amply supports the 

Commissioner's decision to grant CJCP's request to amend its charter. CJCP 

demonstrated that it is a high-performing, Tier 1 school, a ranking it received 
40 A-3074-16T4

from the Department's assessment of its academic performance based on the 

metrics set forth in the State's Academic Performance Framework governing 

charter schools. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-1.2; N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.3(b). In 2015-2016, 

CJCP students ranked in the 99th percentile statewide for Math on the PARCC 

and outperformed their home district on the 2016 PARCC in every subject. It 

was also awarded the National Blue Ribbon Award in 2016, named a High 

Performing Title I Reward School in 2015, featured as a Top Performing High 

School in U.S. News and World Report in 2015 and 2016, and designated as a 

"Top Ten Middle School" by JerseyCAN in 2013.

Thus, a review of CJCP's performance data clearly supported the need for 

the amendment. N.J.A.C. 6A:11-2.6(b). Further, in the application and annual 

reports submitted by CJCP during its ten-year operation, it demonstrated that it 

was fiscally stable and operationally sound. Finally, the Commissioner properly 

approved CJCP's request to expand enrollment with the understanding that 

facilities would need to be identified, secured, and potentially improved to 

comply with the charter regulations. Under these circumstances, we discern no 

basis for disturbing the Commissioner's reasoned determination.

Affirmed.