Correction and Clarification on Board Authority Over Instruction…no nothing really changes

In The BOE Can, In Fact, Wipe Its Ass Without Permission I referenced an older version of state law that included the phrase “management, government, and instruction of the schools

After my article was published BHPSNJ Superintendent Dr. Feltre responded by email to a private email I sent to the Board.

She correctly noted that the current text of N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1 does not include the word “instruction” and that the law now focuses on the government and management of the public schools. She also pointed to the Superintendent’s role under N.J.S.A. 18A:17-20, which grants the superintendent general supervision over the fiscal and instructional programs of the district under rules prescribed by the State Board of Education.

With that said, the legal framework still confirms that local boards of education hold policymaking authority over instruction within the limits set by the State Board. Under N.J.S.A. 18A:4-10, the State Board has “general supervision and control of public education,” and under 18A:4-15, it may “make and enforce, and alter or repeal, rules for implementing and carrying out the school laws of this state.”

Local boards then operate under that umbrella, empowered by 18A:11-1 to “make, amend and repeal rules, not inconsistent with this title or with the rules of the state board, for the government and management of the public schools… and for the employment, regulation of conduct and discharge of its employees.”

That last clause is the critical one.

The main body of district employees are teachers and the law connects the board’s authority over employees to how instruction is delivered, evaluated, and managed as long it doesn’t go against State BOE rules.

This is why curriculum and textbook approvals require formal board votes under 18A:33-1, which states that “no course of study shall be adopted or altered except by the recorded roll-call majority vote of the full membership of the board of education.”

Dr. Feltre was also correct about an error on the BHEA contract language. The line I quoted earlier about the board’s “sole jurisdiction and authority is a stock clause from the NJEA. In the BHEA contract:

“The Board hereby retains and reserves unto itself all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it prior to the signing of this Agreement or which may hereafter be conferred upon it and vested in it by the laws and Constitution of the State of New Jersey and of the United States.”

and

“The exercise of the foregoing powers… shall be limited only by the express terms of this Agreement, and then only to the extent such terms are in conformance with the Constitution and laws of the State of New Jersey and of the United States.”

The Board retains all its powers by law unless specifically restricted in the agreement. Since the contract sets no limits on curriculum or instructional policy, the Board retains that authority by default.

So… The State Board sets the statewide framework for instruction and…

Local boards, operating under that framework, adopt curriculum, approve programs of study, and set policies that affect instruction.

The superintendent carries out those policies and oversees implementation.

The BHEA contract affirms this.

As does Dr. Feltre in her email:

“The Board sets policy direction - the what and they why - and the Superintendent and administration implement it - the ‘how’.”

This correction is meant to be precise and transparent and I appreciate Dr. Feltre’s correction – it helps make the discussion more accurate, and that’s ultimately the goal.  I also appreciate the fact that she took the time to respond and if I get a response back that adds to the discussion, I’ll provide an update.

However, we have to ask why this is even a debate.  

The email response seems to imply that instructional accountability lies more with the State Board than the local Board, and it appears to conflate the Board’s legal authority with ethical guidelines in a way that could be misread as limiting its policymaking role.

The Superintendent does not report to the State Board – she reports to our Board. Our Board is responsible for operating within the limits set forth by the state Board. That’s the Hierarchy.

Why is there a push by organizations and even some BOE members to move power away from a locally elected body and make an administrative arm that is subordinate to Representatives elected by families served by the District equal or more powerful than the body that is supposed to govern them?  

I agree that the relationship should be collaborative but the buck needs to stop somewhere – and it should be and is with Representatives elected by the community.

Email Exchange