Parents and residents press Woodbridge board on contracts, special-education services, enrollment and e-bike safety

WOODBRIDGE, N.J. ' Several residents used the Aug. 14 Woodbridge Township Board of Education public-comment period to press the district for more information about contracts and services for students and staff, school enrollment and class-size data, and safety education for e-bikes and other electric personal mobility devices. Tom Maris, who identified himself during public comment, asked detailed questions about several agenda items the board had just approved for the 2025-26 school year. He asked for clarification about two superintendent-agenda items the district filed under "required" updates: the anti-bullying self-assessment required by state law and the Title I parental involvement policy, which Dr. Massimino described as a compliance item under the New Jersey Department of Education consolidated state plan. Maris also asked about two vendor renewals listed on the agenda. He said the agenda listed a renewal to "Rethink Ed" for $54,450 for the 2025-26 school year for the district's autism program and asked "what does that cover?" He asked further about an agenda item listed as payment to the Center for Behavioral Health for psychiatric and neurodevelopmental evaluations, which he said the agenda showed as roughly $575,170 combined; he also asked about a per-session rate listed in the discussion as $675 and about no-show fees. Dr. Massimino responded in the meeting that the anti-bullying item is an annual mandated self-assessment submitted to the New Jersey Department of Education and posted to the district website, and that the Title I parental involvement policy reflects state Title I requirements so those items are recurring. He said the Rethink Ed entry is a routine renewal for the district's autism class curriculum and that the Center for Behavioral Health item covers outsourced psychiatric and neurodevelopmental evaluations ' for students or in rare cases for staff "fit for duty" determinations ' when the district's child-study team cannot manage a case internally. He directed more-detailed finance questions (including class-size reporting and payment breakdowns) to the business administrator, Mr. Wolffman. Other residents addressed contract performance and food-service vendor issues. One commenter asked whether vendors who "back out" of contracts because they are not making money face penalties; Dr. Massimino said contract terms vary by vendor and service and include specific contingencies and remedies that apply on a case-by-case basis and recommended following up with Mr. Wolffman for specifics. The agenda also listed district payment-of-bills and department invoices, including a payment-of-bills total and line items for capital projects and food services as presented on the agenda. Several speakers urged the board to track enrollment and class-size trends more granularly than statewide reporting, and asked whether the district can supply classroom-level achievement data. Dr. Massimino said state reporting groups results by grade, not by individual classroom, and that the specific classroom-level data requested may not exist in the form requested. He offered to follow up. Finally, Maris and others urged the district to partner with the township and police on safety education about e-bikes and other electric vehicles, noting a township ordinance amendment under consideration. Dr. Massimino said the district would support an educational partnership if the township asks and noted the Woodbridge Police Department already has a presence in district buildings. These items were raised during the public-comment portion of the meeting; no formal board action on the specific contract or data requests was taken during the session. The board adjourned after the public-comment period.