Eliza Schleifstein is a longtime resident and taxpayer of Randolph, NJ. She is the mother of two daughters who both attended Randolph Township Schools from kindergarten through graduation. She writes and comments on local education, with a focus on school district transparency and spending.

A School Board and Administrative Accountability Crisis in New Jersey

Concerns surrounding a school photography vendor used by many New Jersey school districts (and across the United States) recently gained traction across social media—amplifying uncertainty among parents. Those concerns were driven in part by the vendor’s ownership structure, which, nearly a decade ago, included a distant and indirect connection to Jeffrey Epstein through private equity relationships.

But how quickly the concerns grew and how widespread they became shows a deeper problem.  In many cases from coast to coast, early questions from parents went completely unanswered, allowing an information vacuum to form.  And if they were answered, it was very late, very reactive and after the parents’ trust in their school administrations had been already damaged.

This is not simply an issue with one, potentially problematic vendor; it is a communications and accountability failure. When school systems do not respond, speculation fills the gap—and trust erodes.

And critically—this was all wholly preventable.

Had school districts addressed parent concerns early, clearly, and directly, the issue would likely never have reached the level of public attention it did.

But the concern about this vendor is not the heart of the problem.  It is the result of the problem. The heart of the problem is an accountability gap where those in charge of our school districts believe that they can simply ignore communications from parents and taxpayers without consequence.  And to be honest, right now, they can.

Randolph: A Real-Time Example of the Problem

As a resident of Randolph, I am watching this play out in real time.

At a February 26, 2026, Board of Education meeting, a parent stood before the Board to ask why multiple emails to her child’s principal and the superintendent—regarding the vendor and the security of her child’s images—had gone unanswered.

She received no acknowledgment. No response. No follow-up.  Not even a thank you for taking time out of her schedule to attend and speak at a meeting scheduled for a Tuesday night at dinnertime.

Three weeks later, on March 19, she returned and asked the same questions—including a straightforward request about the district’s contract with the vendor.

Again, nothing.

No acknowledgment. No engagement. No accountability.

This was not a misunderstanding. It was not a delay.  It was a choice not to respond to the parent (or, apparently, to anyone else who spoke at the meeting).

And while I use the photography vendor as an example, the example could really be one of thousands of “fill-in-the blanks”:  from students requesting a higher level math class and to have a Hebrew Culture Club, to parents standing at the podium to ask why teachers are giving extra credit to students who respond to their pleas for tissues and cleaning supplies and coaches are asking students to donate softballs and baseballs.

The Real Accountability Gap

This is the core issue:  Boards of Education and school administrators are increasingly operating as though communication with the public is optional because parents and other stakeholders are a captive audience.

Parents send emails—no response.  Taxpayers ask questions—no acknowledgment. Residents raise concerns at meetings—no engagement.

Not because answers don’t exist.  But because there is no requirement—or consequence—for ignoring them.

Every Board of Education meeting begins with a disclaimer: “Issues raised by members of the public may or may not be responded to…”

What was intended as a procedural boundary has become a governing philosophy.  In practice, it gives districts cover to:

• Ignore direct questions
• Delay responses indefinitely
• Avoid addressing uncomfortable issues

In Randolph, that philosophy has translated into repeated, visible silence—even on a clearly defined issue like school pictures or, for those who remember, the Columbus Day fiasco five years ago when the Board of Education renamed Columbus Day and every other holiday “Day-off,” leading to weeks of negative media coverage that went international.

The Mindset Driving the Behavior

The problem is not just process—it is perspective.

A former Randolph Board of Education member publicly stated to him that the Superintendent expressed the view that parents “have to use” the school district.

That statement should concern every parent and taxpayer across the State of New Jersey.

Because if our school district leadership believes families have no alternative, then responsiveness is no longer necessary.

And when responsiveness is no longer necessary, accountability disappears.

The School Photo Vendor Issue Was Just the Trigger

Parents concerned about the security of their children’s images taken for school photos did not create this problem.  It exposed it.

Even if the district ultimately determined that there is no risk associated with the vendor (and that company has been very transparent and stated that there is no risk), the refusal by the Board of Education to communicate about it is a failure in and of itself.

The issue is not just the decision.  It is the refusal to explain the decision.

What is happening in my town is not unique.

Across New Jersey, parents and taxpayers report the same experience all over social media:

• Emails ignored
• Questions deflected
• Responses delayed until pressure builds
• Engagement only after escalation

The pattern is consistent—and enabled by a system that lacks enforcement.

A System with No Consequences

New Jersey’s current structure makes accountability difficult to enforce:

• Complaints must move through multiple layers
• Timelines are unclear or nonexistent
• Escalation requires persistence, resources and frequently retaining legal counsel.

Most families do not have the time or money to navigate this process. And districts know it.

So, the default becomes: ignore, delay, deflect.

Boards cannot distance themselves from this.

While the School administrators pick the vendors, our Boards of Education approve vendor contracts.  They also oversee the superintendent, who sets the tone for the staff.  They are responsible for ensuring that our schools are run well.  They set expectations for engagement.

And they sit in public meetings, face-to-face with their community, and choose whether to respond.

In Randolph and many other school districts in New Jersey, that choice has been made more than once.  And it has been silence.

It’s Time for the State to Step In

Governor Mikie Sherrill ran on a promise of greater transparency and better communication in government. That commitment must extend to public education—the single largest recipient of property taxes in New Jersey.

Because right now, too many districts operate under a different standard: one where they don’t have to answer, don’t have to engage, and don’t have to improve.

That must change.

The New Jersey Department of Education should establish clear, enforceable standards for:

• Timely responses to parent inquiries
• Transparent communication on student safety and data privacy
• Defined accountability for superintendents and school leadership

Parents should not have to show up month after month, repeating the same questions, hoping to be heard. In fact, they shouldn’t have to take time away from their children – often during dinner, homework and bath time – to speak at a Board of Education meeting because their previous emails and calls have been ignored. 

It is time for Trenton to set expectations—and enforce them.  Because public education is not just a system. It is a public trust.