Stephanie Florio v. New Jersey Department of Education, Board of Examiners, 12/14/22, (#336-22)

336-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Stephanie Florio,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBE)
that she had not met the requirements for issuance of a Reading Specialist Certificate because she failed to
complete the required three credit hours in a supervised practicum in reading. Petitioner argued that her
alternative education and experience satisfied a one-to-one-correspondence to the missing credits, in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). 	The SBE did not accept petitioner’s alternative education and
experience, finding that petitioner did not establish a compelling one-to-one correspondence with the
Reading Specialist certification requirements. Petitioner thereafter filed the within appeal.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the issue in this case is whether petitioner satisfied her burden of
demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law when it determined not to accept petitioner’s alternative education to satisfy
the 	remaining 	requirements 	that 	petitioner 	needed 	to 	receive 	a 	Reading 	Specialist 	Certificate;
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13 sets forth the requirements for issuance of this certificate; the SBE determined that
petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for certification because she lacks three credit hour credits in a
supervised practicum in reading and her alternative education and experience was not deemed equivalent
to satisfy that deficiency; and petitioner failed to establish that the SBE’s decision to deny her application
for a Reading Specialist Certificate was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the ALJ affirmed
the SBE’s decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that: the ALJ mistakenly applied the wrong standard of
review in the Initial Decision, stating that the SBE’s decision will not be overturned unless the petitioner
proves that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law; the appropriate
standard of review here is whether the SBE’s decision was consistent with the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:3; 	applying the appropriate standard of review, the Commissioner
found that the record does not contain sufficient information to determine whether the Board’s denial of
petitioner’s application was consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions; petitioner
has raised material issues of fact that preclude dismissal at this stage, as a full record must be developed
and considered pursuant to the appropriate standard of review before a decision can be made as to
whether the Board’s decision should be affirmed or reversed. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL
was rejected and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.