Judy Sullivan

08/26/2026

It's a gorgeous night in Oakland.

08/25/2026

First day of class at Felician University!

08/25/2026

As we approach Board of Education elections, I think voters should pay close attention not only to what candidates say during campaign season, but to how current board members actually perform when members of the public ask substantive questions. As you may know, I support Doreen Mariani for the open Wyckoff seat, not the incumbent Brian DeLaite.

I attended the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District Board of Education meeting last night to follow up on several questions I had previously submitted by email. I was disappointed by Board President Helen Koulikourdis (has publicly endorsed Brian DeLaite) and Vice President Tom Bogdansky’s handling of those inquiries. I received no substantive answers in writing beforehand, and my questions were not answered at the meeting.

A few examples:

First, curriculum transparency. I had been trying to locate the district’s “All Curriculum” page. As far as I can determine, it is accessible through the “How to Use This Page” button on the Curriculum Update site. When I asked how the public was supposed to find it, I did not get an answer from the board president Helen Koulikourdis nor the vice president Tom Bogdansky. After the meeting, I went directly to the curriculum director and finally got the information I needed. See link below.

Fortunately, the district has an excellent superintendent in Shauna DeMarco. Her leadership has been one of the more encouraging aspects of following the district. Regrettably, Ms. Koulikourdis, Mr. DeLaite and Mr. Bogdansky did not, shockingly, vote for her appointment to the role in 2024.

Second, the board advanced, on first reading, a policy concerning seclusion and restraint of special education students. Whatever one’s position on the policy itself, I was struck that not a single board member publicly asked why the district needs this policy, how it compares with current national thinking and professional guidance, or what safeguards should accompany it. I was particularly concerned that no one raised the question of requiring prompt parental notification when a student is secluded during the school day.

Third, the district’s electronic presentations remain unnecessarily difficult for members of the public to follow, both remotely and in person. The font is often too small and the camera too distant to make presentation materials readily readable. I raised this during public comment. Public meetings should be designed so the public can actually follow them.

Fourth, the proposed board goals developed by Mr. John Kinney of Wyckoff and his ad hoc committee were, in my view, inadequate. I was glad they were ultimately tabled, on Mr. Kinney’s own motion.

None of these issues is about personalities. They are about preparation, transparency, responsiveness, oversight, and whether elected board members are willing and able to engage seriously with substantive questions from the public, especially when they are asking the public to accept their endorsements of candidates (like Helen Koulikourdis asking for the public to vote for Brian DeLaite over the more deserving, in my opinion, Doreen Mariani). With elections approaching, those are qualities worth examining closely.

I periodically post information and observations about the school board’s activities on this page for anyone who would like to follow along.

08/23/2026

The Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District has posted its curriculum for 2026-2027 for approval.

The agenda was released Friday evening. School begins week after next and the Board is scheduled to vote Monday night, August 24, 2026. How, exactly, is the community supposed to meaningfully review this amount of curriculum between Friday night and Monday night?

I spent part of this weekend attempting to do exactly that. Even reviewing one curriculum carefully takes time. It requires more than opening a document and scanning its headings. A meaningful review means examining the stated standards, objectives, assessments, instructional activities, resources, and whether the material being presented for approval is current, complete, and internally consistent.

And there are dozens of curricula being presented for approval Monday.

The public-access problems make this even more concerning. Some links on the curriculum update site do not work. For example, the World Languages page currently contains a Google Drive item that the public cannot access. I have attached a screenshot.

The Social Studies page also relies on presentation videos recorded in the spring. Those videos may explain work that was underway months ago, but they do not provide the public with a current presentation of the final curricula the Board is being asked to approve Monday night.

This raises several questions that I hope the Board will address publicly Monday: When were Board members provided with the final versions of all of the curricula they are being asked to approve? How much time were Board members given to review them? Has each Board member reviewed the actual curriculum documents being approved, rather than relying primarily on department presentations or administrative recommendations? When were the final curriculum materials made available to the public?

What does the District believe the purpose of a public curriculum hearing is if the public is given essentially one weekend to review the materials before the Board votes?

I reviewed one Social Studies unit in detail this weekend, and that review alone generated legitimate questions about standards alignment, assessments, instructional resources, and the level of detail provided in the public-facing curriculum. That is precisely why adequate review time matters.

The Board's agenda itself speaks about transparency, clear communication, community awareness, engagement, and community trust. Those principles should apply not only to what the District says it values, but to how consequential decisions are actually presented to the public.

A Friday-night agenda, inaccessible materials, spring videos, and a Monday-night vote do not provide a meaningful opportunity for community review.

I hope the Board will address this process directly Monday night before voting on the proposed curricula.

https://sites.google.com/rih.org/curriculum-updates-for-2627/home

08/22/2026

On the agenda for Monday night's meeting of the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District, August 24, 2026 are some pretty sorry proposed board goals, put forth by John Kinney, of Wyckoff.

I surely hope the board sends Mr. Kinney back to the drawing board. Here's an email I sent to the board today:

Dear Mr. Kinney and Members of the Board,

I am writing regarding the proposed 2026-2027 Board Goals listed as OP1 on the August 24 agenda. I urge the Board not to approve these goals in their current form and instead return them to the Ad Hoc Board Goals Committee for substantial revision. The proposed Board Goals fundamentally misunderstand what a Board goal is, and, more importantly, what a Board of Education is supposed to do. If Board goals are supposed to measure how effectively the Board governs, these proposed goals miss the mark almost entirely.

I want to be very clear that my concern is not with the Superintendent’s proposed goals. In fact, I think the Superintendent’s goals are substantially better conceived. They identify district-level priorities: student achievement, expanded educational opportunities, fiscal planning, communication, and implementation of technology policie, and the accompanying resolution appropriately authorizes the Superintendent to develop action plans, professional learning, monitoring systems, and progress reports to accomplish them. That is an understandable accountability structure: the Board establishes and approves district priorities; the Superintendent develops and implements plans to achieve them; and the Board monitors progress.

The proposed Board Goals are a different matter.

The New Jersey School Boards Association specifically distinguishes Board goals from district goals. NJSBA states: “As opposed to district goals, board goals are set to improve the processes and tasks of the board.” NJSBA further explains that Board goals should result from examining the Board’s own governance practices, strengths, and opportunities for improvement. NJSBA also describes the basic division of responsibility very plainly: the school board does not operate the district on a day-to-day basis; that is the Superintendent’s responsibility. The Board establishes policy, goals, and objectives and holds the Superintendent accountable for implementing them. Against that framework, I do not understand the proposed Board Goals.

The Superintendent has five goals:

1. Educational Excellence and Elevated Achievement;
2. Innovative Options and High-Quality Educational Experiences;
3. Fiscal Responsibility and Negotiations;
4. Governance and Communication; and
5. Cell Phone Restriction and Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy Implementation.

The proposed Board Goals then follow essentially the same five subjects, in essentially the same order:

1. Student Achievement & Equity Oversight;
2. Program Innovation & Future Readiness;
3. Fiscal Responsibility & Strategic Investment;
4. Governance, Transparency & Community Trust; and
5. Policy Leadership: Technology, AI & Student Focus.

That is alignment to the point of duplication. These do not read like an independent assessment of what this Board needs to improve about its own governance. They read like the Superintendent’s goals were taken one by one and rewritten in “Board” language.

For example, Board Goal 1 begins by stating that the Board will “ensure measurable improvement in student achievement and equitable outcomes across all student groups.” How exactly will the Board itself “ensure” improved student achievement? Board members do not supervise instruction, select interventions, manage teachers, administer assessments, or operate academic programs. Those are administrative responsibilities. The Board can establish expectations, allocate resources, review achievement data, ask appropriate governance-level questions, establish policy, and hold the Superintendent accountable for results. A genuine Board goal should identify how the Board intends to improve its performance in carrying out those responsibilities.

Board Goal 2 presents the same problem. It calls on the Board to “support the development and sustainability” of innovative programs and program expansions. But developing and sustaining educational programming is principally the work of the Superintendent and administration. The Board’s role is to evaluate recommendations and make informed policy, budget, and approval decisions.
A meaningful Board goal might instead require the Board to establish consistent criteria for evaluating proposed programs: educational value, student demand, equitable access, staffing implications, cost, sustainability, and measurable outcomes. That would be a task the Board itself could accomplish and later evaluate.

Goal 3, concerning fiscal responsibility, is the strongest of the five because budget adoption, fiscal oversight, long-range planning, and financial transparency are unquestionably Board responsibilities. Even here, however, the goal would benefit from clearly defined Board deliverables and measures by which the Board can determine at year-end whether it accomplished the goal.

Goal 4 is perhaps the greatest missed opportunity. It is titled “Governance, Transparency & Community Trust”—exactly the area in which I would expect to see genuine Board goals. Instead, much of the language again focuses on supporting the administration’s public-facing dashboards and reports.

Where are the goals for improving the Board’s own governance? For example, has the Board identified any goals arising from its annual self-evaluation? Does it need to improve committee reporting? Agenda transparency? The quality and timeliness of information provided to the public before major votes? Board member professional development? Adherence to appropriate Board/administration roles? The effectiveness of public communication? The clarity of Board deliberations? The process by which the Board evaluates its own performance? Those would actually be Board goals.

NJSBA’s current Board Self-Evaluation materials expressly describe self-evaluation as a way for a Board to examine its “processes and procedures” and identify its “strengths and opportunities for growth.” NJSBA further explains that the results can be used to establish priorities for future Board goals. What Board self-evaluation findings produced the five goals currently before us? If these goals arose from that process, I believe the Board should explain the connection. If they did not, I question why the Board’s own governance strengths and weaknesses are largely absent from its annual goals.

Goal 5 again illustrates the duplication problem. The Superintendent’s Goal 5 appropriately concerns implementing the cell-phone and generative-AI policies through procedures, staff training, student guidance, communication systems, and monitoring. The Board’s corresponding goal then covers essentially the same subject and calls for monitoring implementation data concerning discipline, academic integrity, and classroom impact. Certainly, the Board should receive appropriate reports and periodically evaluate whether its policies require revision. But the Board should not create a parallel administrative work plan for itself. Its role is governance and oversight, not implementation.

Most troubling to me is that these proposed goals make it difficult to determine who is actually accountable for what. If both the Superintendent and the Board have substantially the same five goals, who owns the outcome? Who implements? Who oversees? And at the end of the year, how does the Board objectively evaluate whether it accomplished its own goals rather than merely whether the administration accomplished the District’s goals? The distinction matters. The Superintendent’s goals should describe the results and organizational improvements the District is expected to achieve. The Superintendent should then be accountable to the Board for executing those goals. Board goals should describe how the Board intends to become a more effective governing body. Those two sets of goals should be aligned, but they should not be duplicates.

I would therefore respectfully ask the Board to return OP1 to the Ad Hoc Board Goals Committee and develop actual Board goals centered on Board-owned responsibilities: governance effectiveness, policy stewardship, fiscal oversight, Superintendent oversight and evaluation, Board professional development and self-evaluation, role clarity, transparency, and meaningful communication with the community.

The Board should also identify measurable indicators for each goal so that, at the end of the 2026-2027 school year, it can publicly answer a basic question: Did the Board itself accomplish what it said it would do? The Superintendent deserves clear district goals and clear accountability. She also deserves a Board that understands that its job is not to duplicate her work, but to govern effectively, provide appropriate oversight, and hold itself accountable for its own performance. I do not believe the proposed Board Goals accomplish that.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Judy Sullivan

08/22/2026

Dress Codes, Subjectivity, Impact on Females, and Missed Class Time.

I wrote this email to the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School District board of education concerning their proposed new dress code policy on for a first read of approval at Monday night's board meeting, August 24, 2026.

Dear Ms. Souders and members of the Policy Committee,

I am writing regarding the proposed revisions to Regulation 5511, “Dress Code. While I support modernizing the dress code to protect student self-expression, I am concerned that the revision introduces highly subjective standards that risk inconsistent and discriminatory enforcement. Furthermore, when read alongside Regulation 5600, “Student Discipline/Code of Conduct,” these changes create a punitive framework where students will lose valuable instructional time over subjective clothing disputes.

The Contradictory Standards in the Proposed Dress Code
The proposed regulation moves in two different directions at once. It states that attire presenting a “substantial disruption to the orderly operation of the school” is impermissible. At the same time, it introduces subjective phrases requiring students to dress “appropriately for a high school educational environment,” ensuring attire “facilitates participation in learning,” and requiring clothing to cover the “majority of the torso”. I do not understand how these standards are intended to operate together.

Constitutional Language and the Tinker Test
The phrase “materially and substantially” carries significant legal weight. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 US 503 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that schools could only restrict student expression when it would “materially and substantially interfere” with school operations. While Tinker involved expressive conduct rather than ordinary dress codes, the District has chosen to explicitly incorporate this strict constitutional language into Regulation 5511. If “substantial disruption” is the governing principle, the regulation must clarify how that standard relates to the other, vaguer restrictions.

Disproportionate Impact of Undefined Torso Rules
Although the requirement to cover the “majority of the torso” is written in gender-neutral terms, national data raises legitimate concerns about its real-world impact. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) nationwide review found that dress codes restrict clothing typically worn by girls significantly more often than boys. Without clear definitions, a torso-coverage requirement warrants severe scrutiny to ensure it does not recreate these very gender and racial disparities. The GAO’s national review is particularly relevant to the proposed requirement that students cover the “majority of the torso.” GAO found that most school dress codes regulate the coverage of specific body parts, and these restrictions more frequently apply to clothing typically worn by girls, such as crop and halter tops; it found that 67 percent of district dress codes prohibited exposed midriffs. That history makes an undefined “majority of the torso” requirement worth particular scrutiny for both clarity and the possibility of unequal enforcement.

Legal Risks of Vague Rules and the Sypniewski Precedent
These are not merely questions of wording. If these provisions are independently enforceable without an actual disruption, student compliance will depend entirely on the subjective whims of individual administrators. This is a critical issue in New Jersey. In Sypniewski v. Warren Hills Regional Board of Education, a Third Circuit case arising from a New Jersey high school, the court warned that vague rules fail to provide “fair notice” and permit arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.The issue is not that Regulation 5511 must specify every conceivable shirt, pair of shorts, or outfit. The concern is whether terms such as “appropriate for a high school educational environment” and “majority of the torso” provide students sufficient notice and administrators sufficient guidance to prevent arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement—particularly when Regulation 5600 provides that class time missed due to a dress-code violation will be treated as unexcused.

Punitive Enforcement and Unexcused Missed Class Time Under Regulation 5600
Another significant concern is how Regulation 5511 interacts with the District's existing Student Discipline Regulation 5600. According to Regulation 5600 (Page 8), a student violating the dress code must change clothes, and “any class time missed will be considered unexcused.” Even worse, a student who refuses to change clothing is cited for “Defying the Authority of a School Administrator,” triggering a mandatory minimum 2-day out-of-school suspension and 1-day in-school suspension. A student should never lose instructional time, much less face a multi-day suspension, because of an administrator's subjective assessment of the word "appropriate."

Discretion Rather Than Modernization
Replacing old objective rules (like the mid-thigh measurement) with undefined, subjective terminology does not solve the underlying problem. It simply transfers sweeping discretion to the person enforcing the rule. To ensure a fair environment, I respectfully ask the Board to clarify the following points before approving Regulation 5511:

* Is “substantial disruption” the threshold required for enforcement, or are the subjective provisions independently enforceable?
* What precisely constitutes the “majority of the torso”?
* What objective criteria determine if clothing is “appropriate” or “facilitates learning”?
* What safeguards will ensure that administrators apply these standards consistently?
* Will the District eliminate Regulation 5600’s punitive provision that treats missed instructional time as an unexcused absence?

Conclusion: Keeping Students in the Classroom
A modernized dress code should rely on clear, objective, gender-neutral standards tied directly to legitimate health and safety concerns. Students and parents should be able to read the rules and know exactly what complies. Most importantly, a dress code intended to protect the educational environment should not become the very mechanism used to remove a student from that environment.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
Judy Sullivan

Here is the agenda: https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1787341839/rihorg/hpzxif9wjy0pncf2hkgh/08242026ProposedCurriculumChangesPublicHearing_RegularPublicMeetingAgenda.pdf

Here is the proposed policy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AbsJPvYLma9SF_UaOGPpCdXJltlWYc1iUxfj535grSo/edit?tab=t.0

Here is the link on the US Government Accounting Office on Dress Codes: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105348

Here is the Regulation that allows for suspension for violating the dress code: https://www.straussesmay.com/seportal/Public/DistrictRegulation.aspx?Regulationid=5600&id=fe00aa80407b4789890b24592a36dfb6

Here is the link to a case that made it to the Third Circuit (federal court) on dress codes. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-3rd-circuit/1002915.html

Case opinion for US 3rd Circuit SYPNIEWSKI v. Matthew Sypniewski;  Brian Sypniewski, Appellants. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

08/22/2026

I wrote this email to the Ramapo Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education concerning their proposed policy concerning restraint and seclusion for students. The policy goes against the national trend in that it generally authorizes staff at the high schools to use restraint and seclusion of our disabled students. Not only can these types of actions lead to lifetime emotional and physical scars, they have no demonstrated therapeutic effect.
Major organizations are speaking out against these types of policies, like the National School Nurses Association in 2026. Some of the proposed changes and the current policy and regulation do not provide for notification of parents when a child is secluded, and, worse, permit the use of mechanical restraints (which the federal government expressly disapproves of).

Dear Ms. Souders and members of the Policy Committee,

I am writing regarding proposed Policy 5561, “Use of Physical Restraint and Seclusion Techniques for Students with Disabilities.” Not only are these types of practices against current trends, I have concerns about the lack of parental notification on seclusion and the references to mechanical restraint. I generally do not favor the use of restraint and seclusion. Some leading organizations have come out against it altogether - like the National Association of School Nurses. The National Association of School Nurses’ 2026 position statement advocates that school environments should prohibit restraint and seclusion in favor of trauma-informed, evidence-based positive behavioral interventions. It also notes that restraint and seclusion have no known positive therapeutic benefit and have been associated with serious physical, mental, and emotional harm. Regarding mechanical restraint, the U.S. Department of Education’s restraint and seclusion guidance states that schools should never use mechanical restraints to restrict a child’s freedom of movement. This makes it particularly important to understand why our existing Regulation 5561 defines mechanical restraint without clearly stating that it is prohibited. Similarly, although the bipartisan Keeping All Students Safe Act (H.R. 6617) is pending legislation and not current law, it would prohibit prone and supine restraint. Its bipartisan sponsorship reflects evolving national policy norms and societal expectations concerning the continued acceptability of these practices in schools. The U.S. Department of Education’s own restraint-and-seclusion principles expressly state that policies restricting these practices should apply to all children, not only children with disabilities. This raises an additional question: why are the District’s Policy and Regulation 5561 limited by their terms to students with disabilities?

Does the Accompanying Board Regulation Need to Also Be Reviewed?
After reviewing the proposed policy, I also located the District’s existing Regulation 5561. That regulation was last revised in October 2018 and contains many of the definitions, procedures, and limitations necessary to understand what the proposed policy actually authorizes. This raises a threshold question for me: if Policy 5561 is being revised in 2026, why is Regulation 5561 not being reviewed and presented at the same time? For example, the proposed policy repeatedly refers to physical restraint and seclusion but does not define those terms. Those definitions instead appear in the existing regulation. The regulation defines “physical restraint,” “seclusion technique,” “timeout,” and, notably, a separate category of “mechanical restraint.”

The Policy Does Not Mention Mechanical Restraint, but your 2018 Regulation Does.
I am particularly concerned about the inclusion of “mechanical restraint.” Regulation 5561 defines mechanical restraint as the use of a device or equipment to restrict a student’s freedom of movement, with certain listed exceptions. Yet the proposed Policy 5561 does not mention mechanical restraint at all, and I do not see a separate section in the existing regulation explaining whether, or under what circumstances, mechanical restraint is permitted. Can you provide clarification as to whether mechanical restraint is permitted in this District. If it is permitted, what standards, safeguards, notification requirements, and reporting requirements govern its use? If it is not permitted, why does Regulation 5561 continue to define it? Again, our federal government recommends against this type of restraint.

The Regulation is Too Distant from the Policy for Public Understanding.
The existing regulation does contain several important protections that are not apparent from reading the proposed policy alone. For example, it states that students may not be physically restrained for profanity, verbal disrespect, or noncompliance; that a verbal threat alone does not constitute physical danger without demonstrated means or intent; that restraint must end when the imminent danger ends; and that the school nurse must examine the student following a restraint. These are significant safeguards. However, I do not think parents or members of the public should have to locate and cross-reference a separate regulation last revised in 2018 in order to understand the scope and limitations of a policy currently being considered by the Board. Again, the federal government's 15 principles in the accompanying document advocate for informed parents and guardians seems to call for a more transparent policy/regulation scheme.

I also have several substantive questions after reading the policy and regulation together.

De-Escalation Training Should be Mandatory.
The regulation states that restraint training “may include” prevention and de-escalation techniques and alternatives to physical restraint. Why is de-escalation training optional rather than required? Does the District require less restrictive interventions to be attempted before restraint or seclusion when circumstances permit?

Why Use Prone Restraint at All?
The documents also expressly permit prone restraint when authorized in writing by a student's primary care physician. Has the Board affirmatively considered whether the District should continue to permit prone restraint, rather than simply carrying forward language that allows it?

Why No Parental Notification on Seclusion?
Additionally, both the policy and regulation require immediate parental notification following physical restraint. However, I do not see the same express immediate parent notification requirement following an incident of seclusion. Does the District immediately notify parents whenever a student is secluded? If so, why is that protection not stated in the policy and regulation?

Finally, the proposed policy gives the Board a choice between prohibiting restraint and seclusion and permitting them in emergency circumstances, and the proposed version selects the option permitting them. I would like to understand the basis for that choice and what District-specific need led to the decision to continue authorizing these practices. Given the seriousness of physically restraining or involuntarily secluding a student, I respectfully ask that the Board consider reviewing Policy 5561 and Regulation 5561 together rather than approving a revised policy while leaving the operative regulation unchanged.

Parents, students, staff, and Board members should be able to look at the materials being considered for approval and clearly understand what practices are permitted, who may use them, under what circumstances they may be used, and what protections apply afterward.

Here is the link to the agenda with the policy appearing on page 21 of the agenda. https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1787341839/rihorg/hpzxif9wjy0pncf2hkgh/08242026ProposedCurriculumChangesPublicHearing_RegularPublicMeetingAgenda.pdf

And the actual proposed policy changes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uUcShGpeKDWFoqUYmfnc48EKPi96f75xE3QeVKwAj7o/edit?tab=t.0

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Judy Sullivan

STUDENTS 5561/page 1 of 3 Use of Physical Restraint and Seclusion Techniques for Students with Disabilities Apr 26 M [See POLICY ALERT Nos. 192, 215, 216, and 237] 5561 USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINT AND SECLUSION TECHNIQUES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES [Select Only One Option Below ___ The Bo...