What Actions Would the NJ Department of Education Have Been Justified in Pursuing in 2023 Concerning the Hoboken Superintendent's Doctorate Fiasco

As many people in Hoboken are aware, on May 15, 2023 it was revealed by Hudson County View that for at least 14 years, the current Hoboken Superintendent of Schools Christine Johnson went by Dr. Johnson. However, she did not receive her doctorate until August 2022, according to public records. Documents and publications such as annual financial reports, minutes of school board meetings, and yearbooks routinely referred to her as Dr. Johnson – the same way she would sign letters to parents and what her nameplate at Board meetings stated.  

This actual event was posed as a question and what follows is a detailed response as to some of the steps that should have taken place once this situation was brought to the public's attention.  

It is important to understand that none of the following suggestions were actually done by the NJ Department of Education and, in fact, the President and Vice President of the Hoboken Board of Education.

QUESTION: If a superintendent was hired under the assumption of holding a doctorate, lied about having a doctorate for over 14 years, and some Board of Education members contributed to the deception by making public statements that were untrue, the expected actions taken by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) would likely involve several of the following steps:

1. Investigation: The NJDOE could conduct a thorough investigation into the matter to gather evidence and assess the extent of the deception. This investigation would likely involve reviewing documentation related to the superintendent's hiring, employment records, communications, and any public statements made by the Board of Education members.
2. Compliance Review: The NJDOE could review the school district's compliance with state regulations and ethical standards regarding the hiring and qualifications of educational leaders. This review would assess whether proper procedures were followed during the superintendent's hiring process and whether any violations occurred.
3. Enforcement Actions: If violations of state regulations or ethical standards are found, the NJDOE could take enforcement actions against the school district, superintendent, and/or Board of Education members involved. This could include sanctions, fines, or other penalties as deemed appropriate under state law.
4. Corrective Measures: The NJDOE may require the school district to take corrective measures to address the deception and prevent similar incidents in the future. This could involve implementing new policies, procedures, or training programs to ensure transparency and integrity in hiring practices and governance.
5. Public Accountability: The NJDOE could issue public statements or reports to inform the public about the findings of its investigation and the actions taken in response to the deception. This would serve to hold accountable those responsible for the wrongdoing and reassure the public of the NJDOE's commitment to upholding standards of integrity in education.

Overall, the NJDOE would likely take decisive action to address the deception and ensure accountability within the school district and its governing bodies. The goal would be to uphold the integrity of the educational system and maintain public trust in the administration of schools.

What did the New Jersey Department of Education actually do...absolutely nothing.