Parents file appeal with NJ Commissioner of Education over Middletown school closures
Filing asks the Commissioner to void Middletown’s February 26 closure resolution and order injunctive and disclosure-related relief; the matter remains pending.
Seven parents have filed a Petition of Appeal with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education challenging Middletown Township Board of Education’s plan to close three schools: Leonardo Elementary School, Navesink Elementary School, and Bayshore Middle School.1
Beyond the immediate dispute, the filing raises broader transparency and accountability questions in local school governance, particularly regarding reliance on outside consultants and the availability of supporting documentation when major restructuring decisions advance.
The filing asks the Commissioner to void the board’s closure resolution and order interim relief, including directing the district to keep the schools open through the 2026–27 school year, along with additional disclosure and oversight measures.2
Procedurally, the filing begins an administrative appeal with the Commissioner of Education, who has authority to resolve disputes arising under New Jersey’s school laws. The Commissioner may decide the matter directly or refer it to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing before an administrative law judge. The petition states the parents are seeking administrative review through the Department of Education and, “if necessary,” judicial review in the appellate courts.3
This is not the first time the school district’s operations have been challenged in court in connection with keeping schools open.
What the February 26 vote did — and which schools are named
According to the petition, the board voted 5–4 on February 26 to “begin the process of closing” Leonardo, Navesink, and Bayshore.1 The petition lists the board members it says voted yes (Christopher Aveta, Frank Capone, Jacqueline Tobacco, Caterina Skalaski, and Sara Weinstein) and no (Erin Torres, Deborah Wright, Joan Minnuies, and Mark Soporowski).4
The records reviewed for this article consist of the petition and its exhibits as submitted by the parents’ counsel.
Public Record NJ previously reported on the vote and the district’s path toward state review.
What the petition asks the Commissioner to do
In its “Prayer for Relief,” the petition asks the Commissioner to order remedies including:2
- Voiding the closure resolution
- Directing the district to keep the named schools open through the 2026–27 school year
- Enjoining the district from taking further closure-related actions until a new superintendent is selected
- Requiring clearer agenda disclosures for any future votes on school closures
- Enjoining the district from discussing closures in executive session
- Referring the matter to the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance to investigate district spending, including payments to Ross Haber Associates
Key grounds raised in the petition
Consultant authorship and the “Haber Closure Report”
A central dispute in the petition concerns what it describes as the “Haber Closure Report,” dated February 17, 2026, and other materials presented to the public as connected to consultant Ross Haber Associates.5 The filing reconstructs the consultant’s work over nearly a year and argues that documents released in February 2026 differ significantly from what had previously been presented to the community.
According to the petition, the district approved Haber’s proposal in April 2025 for an enrollment projection and demographic study related to facility utilization. Public communications at the time indicated the study would be completed by September 2025. The petition states that no written report or formal deliverable was released through the summer or fall of 2025, despite district bills lists showing payments connected to the project.5
The filing also describes uncertainty about the scope and participants involved in the consulting work. Emails cited in the petition show Haber working with Tim Ammon of Ammon Consulting Group, who was copied on communications about the report and attended meetings with district officials. The petition states it is unclear whether Ammon Consulting Group was ever formally approved by the board as a vendor and notes that no written contract or work product describing the consultant’s scope of work was produced in response to public records requests.5
When findings were first presented publicly on January 27, 2026, they appeared in a slide presentation titled “Demographic Project: Presentation of Draft Results.” According to the petition, the presentation focused on rezoning district boundaries and recommended reassigning approximately 119 students across six schools. The presentation described those adjustments as the least disruptive option based on projected enrollment through 2031 and did not recommend closing schools. The underlying written report referenced in the presentation was not released to the public at that time.5
The petition then describes communications in early February that it argues shifted the direction of the analysis. In a February 2, 2026 email cited in the filing, a district administrator asked the consultants to also examine “the objective of closing two schools.” The petition contends this request came after the rezoning presentation had already been delivered and after the consultant had described boundary adjustments as the least disruptive path.5
Two weeks later, district officials circulated new materials supporting school closures, including a document on Ross Haber Associates letterhead dated February 17, 2026, referred to in the petition as the Haber Closure Report. At a February 19, 2026 board meeting, the petition cites video of Haber stating that he “didn’t do that report.” The parents argue that statement raises questions about who authored the closure report and related presentation materials, which the petition states were not publicly released before the meeting where they were discussed.5
Closure regulation and local policy
The petition alleges the district failed to satisfy requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5, the state regulation governing school closings. The rule requires districts to provide the New Jersey Department of Education with formal assurances demonstrating that a closure decision follows a deliberate process and meets defined criteria. According to the petition, those assurances must address building capacity, the need for temporary facilities, and whether student reassignment could contribute to unlawful segregation.7
The filing argues the district cannot demonstrate those assurances based on the information publicly available at the time of the vote. One example cited is the planned closure of Bayshore Middle School, which would require relocating more than 500 students to Thompson Middle School and Thorne Middle School. Enrollment projections cited from the district’s closure presentation show those schools approaching or exceeding 1,000 students in future years. The petition contrasts those projections with district-reported capacity figures showing both buildings designed for roughly 930 students and argues the plan would result in overcrowding.7
Petitioners further note that the district’s own presentation materials acknowledge prior overcrowding at those schools but rely on that history to suggest similar enrollment levels could be accommodated again. The petition argues that reasoning does not satisfy the regulation’s requirement to demonstrate adequate capacity following a closure.7
The filing also cites Middletown Board of Education Policy 7113.1, which governs school facility closures at the local level. The policy requires the board to gather and evaluate appropriate information before committing to close a school, including student enrollment projections, educational adequacy of facilities, safety and traffic factors, district revenues, and alternative organizational plans. It also calls for citizen participation in the analysis of that information.8
According to the petition, those steps were not completed before the February 26 vote. Among the deficiencies it identifies are the absence of publicly presented traffic studies or school safety analyses, uncertainty about whether temporary classroom trailers might be required if enrollment exceeds capacity, and the lack of publicly released architectural plans or facility studies describing how buildings would be reconfigured to accommodate additional students.8
The petition also disputes the reliability of enrollment projections used to justify the closures, arguing the district underestimated future enrollment growth and approved the plan before releasing the underlying data needed for the public to evaluate the proposal’s assumptions.78
Segregation / disparate impact allegations
The petition alleges the closure plan and associated feeder-pattern changes would worsen racial and socioeconomic segregation, citing Article I, Paragraph 5 of the New Jersey Constitution and the Law Against Discrimination.9
As one example of the statistical claims it advances, the petition asserts that shutting out Leonardo and Navesink students from Middletown High School South would effectively remove more than 100 minority students from that school based on 2024–25 enrollment data.10 The petition further claims the change would shift the projected racial composition to roughly 10 percent non-white at Middletown High School South and about 25 percent non-white at Middletown High School North.11
Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) and notice allegations
The petition also raises allegations under the Open Public Meetings Act. OPMA is typically enforced through actions in Superior Court, but the petition argues the Commissioner can consider those claims here because they are intertwined with a school-law dispute and cites case law for that position.12
Regarding executive session, the petition alleges that discussions about school closures occurred during closed sessions on February 19 and February 26. It cites meeting video in which board member Mark Soporowski states, “that’s a lie, we did… we sure did.”13
The petition also alleges the posted agenda for the February 26 meeting did not indicate that a vote on school closures would occur and that the agenda was amended during the meeting to add the resolution.14 As of the time of publication, the text of the closure resolution has not been publicly released.
Campaign spending and the Proven Leadership PAC
The petition also raises questions about the role of an outside political committee in the November 2025 Middletown Board of Education election. According to filings cited in the complaint, Proven Leadership PAC registered with the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission in August 2024 as a continuing political committee. Financial disclosures show the PAC raised $14,000 in a single day on February 25, 2025, with contributions from several firms that do business with the school district or operate in construction and engineering sectors associated with public infrastructure projects.6
Later in the election cycle, the PAC spent more than $9,000 on political consulting and campaign materials supporting candidates Christopher Aveta, Sara Weinstein, and James Cody, including printed mailers and digital advertising. The committee also made direct contributions to the slate, and campaign materials distributed during the race identified the PAC as the sponsor of the mailer promoting the three candidates.6
The election ultimately produced three new board members — Aveta, Weinstein, and Erin Torres — each winning by relatively narrow margins. The petition points to the PAC spending and donor list as part of a broader pattern involving outside political spending in local school board races. Those claims describe activity consistent with themes identified in our analysis of campaign finance filings, which documented connections between district vendors, political committees, and local election campaigns.
Fiscal oversight request and the $7,500 payment allegation
The petition also asks the Commissioner to refer aspects of the dispute to the New Jersey Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance, which reviews potential misuse of school district funds. In support of that request, the filing points to a $7,500 payment to consultant Ross Haber in February 2025 that the petition claims occurred before some board members were aware that the district had retained him.15
The filing states the payment appeared on a district bills list and alleges it was issued without a contract or other formal authorization, with no identifiable deliverable tied to the work.15
According to the petition, the district later approved Haber’s engagement in April 2025 when he submitted a written proposal outlining the scope of an enrollment and demographic study. The filing argues that the earlier February payment raises questions about the sequence of the consulting arrangement and whether the board formally approved the work before district funds were disbursed.15
The petition further contends that the later Haber Closure Report complicates those questions. As described elsewhere in the filing, the document circulated in February 2026 was presented as associated with Haber’s work, but the petition cites video of the February 19 board meeting in which Haber states that he “didn’t do that report.” The petition argues that if the report was prepared internally and presented under the consultant’s name, payments tied to that work could represent a misuse of public funds.15
The filing asks state officials to examine those circumstances as part of a broader fiscal review. Questions about contracting procedures have surfaced in other contexts as well. In addition to reviewing campaign finance records, our prior reporting noted the absence of publicly available documentation showing a formal contract for CLB Partners LLC, a lobbying firm that received district payments. Taken together, those issues raise questions about whether certain professional services were authorized and documented through the board’s normal oversight process.
How NJ school closures are approved
New Jersey’s school-closure process involves both local board action and required submissions to the New Jersey Department of Education under state facilities rules. The petition frames the February 26 action as the beginning of that process and argues the district cannot lawfully proceed without satisfying the assurances required under N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5, including assurances related to capacity, temporary facilities, and segregation impacts.17
Procedural posture and what happens next
The petition is dated March 4, 2026 and was submitted by Shah Law Group, LLC on behalf of Kristin Rooney, Scott McPherson, Emilie Donohue, Jessica Donohue, Melissa Daus, Megan Daus, and Kathleen Young.17 The filing states the parents are seeking administrative review through the Department of Education and, if necessary, judicial review in the appellate courts.3
The district must respond to the complaint within 20 days of service. The district has not publicly confirmed that it has been served, but NJ.com reports Superintendent Jessica Alfone referred inquiries to William Burns, the school district’s attorney. Burns did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the state Department of Education declined to comment, citing pending litigation.
The next scheduled school board meeting is Tuesday, March 17, 2026, where the tentative 2026–27 school year budget is expected to be presented. State law requires the tentative budget to be submitted to the county superintendent before March 27, 2026. A public hearing would be held in April before final adoption of the budget in May.
Not the first lawsuit over keeping Middletown schools open
The current petition is not the first time Middletown’s school operations have been challenged in court. During the COVID-19 school-closure period, a Middletown family joined a federal lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York seeking court intervention over special-education services during remote learning. The complaint was styled as a nationwide class action and attempted to sue education agencies and school districts across the United States for alleged disruptions to services required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
One of the named plaintiffs in that case, J.T., was elected to the Middletown Board of Education in November 2020 while the litigation was ongoing. After taking office, J.T. filed a motion to withdraw from the appeal, citing potential conflicts under New Jersey law, which bars board members from maintaining claims against their own school district.
Before that development, the federal court had already narrowed the scope of the case. In a November 2020 opinion, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the Middletown plaintiffs could pursue claims only against entities responsible for the student’s education — the Middletown Township School District and potentially the New Jersey Department of Education — not against New York City or New York State defendants.
The court addressed several threshold issues, including jurisdiction, venue, and whether claims involving multiple school districts could be combined in one federal case. The judge dismissed claims against out-of-state defendants without prejudice and dismissed a civil RICO claim with prejudice without deciding whether Middletown denied the student a free appropriate public education under IDEA.
The Second Circuit affirmed that ruling on August 31, 2022, and in June 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal, leaving the lower court’s decision in place.
Primary Source Document
The following document is the Petition of Appeal filed with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education on March 4, 2026 challenging the Middletown Board of Education’s February 26 school-closure vote.
The filing was shared publicly by the petitioners. Readers can download the original filing or read below.
Key sections of the petition include:
- Alleged OPMA notice violations (pp. 29–31)
- Discrimination claim (pp. 37–41)
- Executive-session allegations (pp. 51–52)
- Fiscal-accountability request involving Ross Haber Associates (pp. 53–54)
Full Petition (embedded)
Notes
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 2.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), pp. 55–56.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 36.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 6.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 29.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 25.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 42.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 47.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), pp. 37–38.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 39.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 40.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 6.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 31.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), pp. 30, 32.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 54.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 21.
- MTPS Petition (FINAL with Exs.), p. 1.