Melody Travisano v. Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 8/8/2022, (#190-22)

190-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Melody Travisano,
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 Teacher of English standard certificate because she
had not successfully completed the required number of semester hour credits in English. Petitioner
requested credit for journalism courses, as well as her experience working as a journalist, to satisfy the
semester hour requirements for English certification; however, the SBE did not accept petitioner’s
alternative college courses or experience, finding that petitioner failed to establish a compelling one-to-one
correspondence between the Teacher of English certification requirements and her journalism education
and experience. 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 Teacher of English certificate;
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1 sets forth the requirements for issuance of a standard instructional certificate; the SBE
determined that petitioner did not satisfy the requirements for certification because she lacks eighteen
semester-hour credits in English, of which twelve must be advanced courses; petitioner’s 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 Teacher of English certificate was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the ALJ affirmed the SBE’s decision and dismissed the petition.
Upon comprehensive 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; nonetheless, the record of this matter
demonstrates that the petitioner did not complete the required course work and that the SBE’s decision to
deny her application was consistent with the applicable regulatory provisions. Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL was modified with respect to the appropriate standard of review and the petition
was dismissed.
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.

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03126-22
Agency Dkt. No. 58-3/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Melody Travisano,
Petitioner,
v.
Department of Education, State Board of
Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this case, petitioner Melody Travisano filed a petition of appeal under N.J.A.C. 6A:3.1
et seq. challenging the State Board of Examiners’ (Board) decision denying her application for a
Teacher of English certificate. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the
petitioner did not satisfy the requirements necessary to obtain the certificate because she
lacked the required semester hour credits in English courses, and that her journalism classes
and newspaper experience are not one-to-one equivalents to the required courses in the
subject area.
As a threshold matter, a discussion of the applicable standard of review for petitions of
appeal that are filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3 is necessary. When there is a challenge to a
determination made by an office within the Department of Education, the Commissioner is not
190-22

2
mandated to give deference to her staff, but instead determines if the finding was legally
appropriate. See, Jaroslaw Nimczyk v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners, Commissioner
Decision No. 98-22, dated May 16, 2022 (comprehensively detailing the appropriate standard of
review to be applied in matters filed against the Board of Examiners pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3);
and Board of Trustees of the Passaic County Elks Cerebral Palsy Center v. New Jersey Dept. of
Educ., Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance, Commissioner’s Decision No. 334-14,
dated August 14, 2014 (finding that a decision of the Office of Fiscal Accountability and
Compliance is not given deference by the Commissioner). Moreover, where the Department of
Education has limited the scope of review of a subordinate office or division, it has done so by
regulation, i.e. appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 challenging a decision of the State Board of
Examiners revoking/suspending a certificate, or a decision of the School Ethics Commission.
Despite several decisions in which the Commissioner has clearly articulated the
appropriate standard of review for matters filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3, here the ALJ mistakenly
referenced N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) in the Initial Decision and stated that the Board’s decision will
not be overturned unless the petitioner proves that the Board acted in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.1 It is important to recognize that a decision by the
Board denying an application for a certificate is not entitled to the arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable standard of review that is afforded to appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4,
challenging a decision of the Board revoking or suspending a certificate. See, Jessica Walder v.
New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, Commissioner’s Decision No.
503-14, decided December 29, 2014 (finding that the Commissioner does not give deference to
1 The Motion to Dismiss filed by the Board of Examiners also referenced N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) and the incorrect
standard of review that applies in this matter.

3
a decision of the State Board of Examiners denying a request for issuance of a certificate). The
petition of appeal in this matter was filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3, which contains
completely different regulatory provisions than N.J.A.C. 6A:4; these two Administrative Code
Sections should never be conflated. Nimczyk, supra at 2. As such, the standard of review that
governs appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 does not apply to this case. Therefore, the
appropriate standard of review of the Board’s decision is whether the decision is consistent
with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record and applying the appropriate standard of
review, the Commissioner is in accord with the Board’s determination that the petitioner did
not satisfy the requirements necessary to qualify for a Teacher of English certificate under
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.7 and 9.1. Although the ALJ applied an inaccurate standard of review, the
record of the matter demonstrates that the petitioner did not complete the required course
work and that the Board’s decision to deny her application was consistent with the applicable
regulatory provisions.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is modified with respect to the appropriate standard of
review and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division
within 45 days from the date of mailing of this decision.
August 8, 2022
August 8, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 58-3/22
MELODY TRAVISANO,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD
OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Melody Travisano, petitioner pro se
Colin Klika, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent, (Matthew J. Platkin,
Acting Attorney General, attorneys)
Record Closed: June 10, 2022 	Decided: June 22, 2022
BEFORE GAIL M. COOKSON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners (Board)
denied 	petitioner’s 	request 	for 	the 	issuance 	of 	a 	Teacher 	of 	English 	standard
certification, because she lacked the required semester hour credits in English courses.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
2
Petitioner 	appeals the Board’s decision and 	requests 	credit for other 	educational
courses, specifically, journalism, and experience as a journalist to satisfy the required
semester hour credits to be issued the certification.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Board rendered its written decision on March 4, 2022, denying petitioner’s
request. 	The petitioner filed a petition with the Bureau of Controversies and Disputes
on March 23, 2022. 	The Deputy Attorney General for the Board filed a motion to
dismiss in lieu of an Answer on April 18, 2022. The matter was transmitted to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL) and filed on April 20, 2022, to be heard as a contested
case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13.
I convened a case management conference on May 9, 2022, at which time a
briefing schedule was agreed upon regarding the respondent’s pending motion to
dismiss, to be considered as a motion for summary decision. 	Petitioner filed a letter
response on May 13, 2022. 	Respondent’s final reply was served on June 10, 2022.
Oral argument was not requested, and the matter is now ripe for determination.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks the issuance of a K-12 Teacher of English certificate. 	She
presently teaches Bilingual Language Arts at the middle school level. 	Petitioner was
found by the Board to have satisfied the certification requirements except for eighteen
(18) semester-hour credits in English, of which twelve (12) must be advanced courses.
Petitioner applied for recognition of her college journalism credits and her journalism
career experience. 	Travisano obtained her Bachelor of Arts in Journalism from Penn
State in 1995. 	She also worked in journalism for twenty (20) years before switching
careers in 2015 to teaching. 	After petitioner went into education, she obtained a
Masters of Arts in Bilingual Education from Fairleigh Dickinson University in 2019.
The Board did not accept those alternative college courses or experience, finding
they were not adequate substitutes. Specifically, the Board ruled:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
3
After full consideration of Travisano’s submission, the Board
finds that she did not establish a compelling one-to-one
correspondence between the Teacher of English certification
requirements 	and 	her 	education 	and 	experience....
Travisano’s degree in Journalism is not equivalent to 18
semester-hour 	credits 	in 	English 	as 	a 	subject 	area
specifically. 	And, while Travisano’s journalism background
is a valuable tool in teaching certain writing techniques, this
experience demonstrates neither the breadth of knowledge
and skills associated with a variety of rhetorical techniques
nor the critical theory and analysis of literature.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
In an administrative law action, summary decision “may be rendered if the papers
and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is
entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). The non-moving party will
prevail if they are able to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding.” Id.
This standard is also set forth in New Jersey Court Rule 4:46-2, regarding a
motion for summary judgment, which is the equivalent to an administrative law summary
decision motion. In Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995),
the New Jersey Supreme Court stated:
[A] determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational
factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party.
[Brill at 540.]
The “judge’s function is not . . . to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Brill at 540, citing
Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Summary judgment, like

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
4
summary decision, “is designed to provide a prompt, businesslike and inexpensive
method of disposing of any case which a discriminating search of the merits in the
pleadings, depositions and admissions on file, together with the affidavits submitted on
the motion clearly shows not to present any genuine issue of material fact requiring
disposition at trial.” Brill at 530, citations omitted. “An evidentiary hearing is mandated
only when the proposed administrative action is based on disputed adjudicatory facts.”
Contini v. Board of Education of Newark, 286 N.J. Super. 106, 120 (App. Div. 1995),
cert. denied, 145 N.J. 372 (1996), citations omitted.
An applicant seeking to be issued an instructional teaching certification pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8, must satisfy the requirements outlined in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1. One
of the requirements is that the applicant shall:
1. 	Complete 	one 	or 	more 	of 	the 	following 	coursework
requirements for the subject area in which the candidate is
seeking the endorsement:
i. Complete an undergraduate major in the subject area . .
.;
ii. Hold a graduate degree in the subject area; or
iii. Complete at least 30 credits in a coherent sequence of
courses appropriate to the subject area as documented
by an official transcript from a regionally accredited
college or university, of which 12 semester-hour credits
must be at the advanced level of study, including junior-
, senior-, or graduate-level study as documented by the
official transcript of a four-year, regionally accredited
college or university . . .
[N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1(a).]
The Board of Examiners is responsible for determining if an instructional teaching
certificate may be issued to an applicant. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. If an applicant for a
teaching certificate has been advised of a deficiency in their certification requirements,
they “may provide the Board of Examiners with evidence of alternative education and/or
experience that he or she believes is equivalent to the area(s) of deficiency.” N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.12(b). The Board is not permitted to waive any requirements, but can consider

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
5
alternative education if the petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, that the alternative education is the one-to-one equivalent with the statutory
requirements.
(c) The Board of Examiners shall not:
1. Waive any test, GPA, degree completion, or approved
educator preparation program completion requirements;
2. Permit 	a 	candidate 	to 	substitute 	education 	and/or
experience for any test, GPA, degree, or approved educator
preparation program completion requirements; or
3. Issue a certificate that is expired and/or is not a type of
certificate 	endorsement 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-9
through 11.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12.]
See also Hutchinson v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners, EDU16373-12, Initial
Decision 	(April 	5, 	2013), 	aff’d, 	Commissioner 	(May 	15, 	2013),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
When a decision by the Board has been appealed, the Commissioner “shall
ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record
and shall not disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated the State
Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). “Arbitrary and capricious action of administrative bodies
means 	willful 	and 	unreasoning 	action, 	without 	consideration 	and 	in 	disregard 	of
circumstances. 	Where 	there 	is 	room 	for 	two 	opinions, 	action 	is 	not 	arbitrary 	or
capricious when exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be
believed that an erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Bayshore Sewerage Co. v
Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199 (App. Div. 1973), citations
omitted.
The issue presented here is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact in
dispute that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, when it chose not to
accept the petitioner’s proposed alternative education courses to satisfy the semester

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
6
credits in English courses that she needs to receive a Teacher of English certificate.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1(a). The facts are viewed most favorably to the non-moving party.
Nevertheless, the burden is on petitioner to prove that she has met the certification
requirements by “clear and convincing evidence” of a one-to-one correspondence of
experience 	or 	alternate 	education 	to 	the 	licensing 	deficiencies. 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-
4.12(d)(1); 	McQuilken 	v. 	State 	Bd. 	Of Examiners, 	OAL 	No. 	EDU 	8375-11, 	Initial
Decision (Dec. 12, 2013) (https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal.)
Here, and on the basis of the undisputed facts and records, petitioner cannot be
found to have the required credits in English to be issued the certificate. 	The Board
exercised 	its 	discretion 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-4.12(b) 	and 	found 	that 	the
journalism courses, for which no detailed syllabi or reading lists were even provided,
and newspaper experience offered as alternative or equivalent education were not the
one-to-one equivalent of courses on critical literature analysis and other advanced and
“coherent sequence of courses appropriate to the subject area.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
9.1(a)(1)(iii). 	The Board exercised its discretion honestly and upon due consideration.
It thoughtfully and reasonably chose to give credit to petitioner for some of her college-
hour credits. 	Likewise, the Board thoughtfully and reasonably chose not to give her
credit 	for 	her 	alternative 	journalism 	coursework 	and 	job 	experience, 	finding 	that
journalism is a “valuable tool in teaching certain writing techniques” but does not
encompass the variety of theories and analysis of literature central to the teaching of
English at the high school level.
I CONCLUDE that the motion for summary decision shall be granted. 	Upon a
review of the papers submitted, looked upon most favorably to the petitioner, there is no
genuine issue of material fact in dispute that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and
capricious, unreasonable, or otherwise contrary to the law.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, I hereby ORDER that respondent State Board of
Examiners’ motion for summary decision is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03126-22
7
the application of petitioner Melody Travisano for an appeal from the denial of her
application for a standard teacher of English certificate is hereby DISMISSED.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES
AND DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
June 22, 2022
DATE 	GAIL M. COOKSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	6/22/2022
Date Mailed to Parties: 	6/22/2022
id