Jaroslaw Nimczyk v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners, 5/16/2022, (#98-22)

98-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jaroslaw Nimczyk,
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 he had not met the requirements for issuance of an administrative certificate with a Supervisor
endorsement pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6. Specifically, the SBE determined that petitioner had not
successfully completed the required number of graduate credits necessary for a Supervisor certificate.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the pivotal issue in this case is whether petitioner satisfied his 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 Supervisor certificate; N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
12.6(a) sets forth the eligibility requirements for a standard administrative certificate with a supervisor
endorsement; the SBE determined that petitioner did not satisfy the three graduate credits in general
principles of curriculum design and development for preschool through grade twelve which is required to
qualify for a Supervisor certificate; petitioner’s proffered alternative education was not deemed equivalent
to satisfy that deficiency; and petitioner failed to establish that the SBE’s decision to deny his application
for a Supervisor 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 his 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 15422-19
Agency Dkt. No. 242-9/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Jaroslaw Nimczyk,
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 Jaroslaw Nimczyk filed a petition of appeal under N.J.A.C. 6A:3.1
et seq. challenging the State Board of Examiners’ (Board) decision denying his application for an
administrative certificate with a Supervisor endorsement. After a hearing at the OAL, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements
necessary to obtain a Supervisor endorsement pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6 because he had
not attained the requisite graduate credits.
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
mandated to give deference to her staff, but instead determines if the finding was legally
98-22

2
appropriate. See, 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.
In the Initial Decision, the ALJ mistakenly referenced N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a) and stated that
the Board’s decision in this case will not be overturned unless the petitioner proves that the
Board acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law. 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 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 consists of completely different regulatory provisions than
N.J.A.C. 6A:4; these two Administrative Code Sections should never be conflated. As such, the
standard of review that governs appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 does not apply to this case.

3
Therefore, the appropriate standard of review of the Boards’ 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 Supervisor certificate under
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6. Although the ALJ applied an inaccurate standard of review, the record of
the matter, which includes the transcript from the October 26, 2020 hearing at the OAL,
demonstrates that the petitioner did not complete the required course work and that the
Board’s decision to deny his 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.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
May 16, 2022
May 18, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 242-9/19
JAROSLAW NIMCZYK,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF
EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
__________________________
Jaroslaw Nimczyk, petitioner, pro se
Michal Czarnecki, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Acting Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: March 15, 2021 	Decided: April 1, 2022
BEFORE MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Jaroslaw Nimczyk appeals the determination by respondent, the New
Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners (Board of Examiners),

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
2
denying his application for a Supervisor certificate. 	The denial is predicated on
petitioner’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirement of three graduate credits in general
principles of curriculum design and development for preschool through grade twelve set
forth in N.J.A.C 6A:9B-12.6(a)(2)(ii)(2), and the Board of Examiners’ determination that
petitioner’s offered alternative education was not the equivalent of this deficiency.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about September 11, 2019, petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the
Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) contesting the Board of Examiners’ denial
of his application for a Supervisor certificate. 	On October 28, 2019, the Board of
Examiners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition of Appeal in lieu of an answer, and the
Department of Education transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law, where
it was filed for determination as a contested case. 	On December 30, 2019, I issued an
Order denying the Board of Examiners’ motion, and the Board of Examiners filed an
Answer to the Verified Petition of Appeal on or about January 9, 2020. 	Following prior
adjournments of the hearing, the hearing was held, via Zoom, on October 26, 2020, after
which the record remained open for the receipt of a transcript of the hearing and post-
hearing briefs. 	The parties submitted briefs in support of their respective positions and
the record closed upon receipt of the last submission.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
At the hearing, petitioner testified on his own behalf and the Board of Examiners
offered testimony by the Director of the Office of Certification and Induction, Rani Singh.
Based upon a review of the testimony and the documentary evidence presented and
having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor and assess the credibility of the
witnesses who testified, I FIND the following FACTS:
Petitioner holds a Teacher of Mathematics certificate and a Master of Arts in
Teaching from Montclair State University. 	(See J-10; J-11.) 	He is employed as a
mathematics teacher in the Linden Public School District (Linden). (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
3
Petitioner applied for a Supervisor certificate. On November 1, 2018, the Office of
Certification and Induction issued an “Evaluation of Credentials-Supervisor” to petitioner
regarding his application, which advised that petitioner did not meet the requirements for
a Supervisor certificate. 	(J-9.) 	Specifically, it was determined that petitioner had
completed the master’s degree requirement, the certification requirement, and the three
years of experience requirement. 	However, it was also determined that petitioner met
only two of the four graduate-level semester-hour credit requirements; namely, petitioner
had not completed three graduate credits in general principles of curriculum design and
development, and three graduate elective credits in curriculum design and development.
By e-mail dated November 2, 2018, Melissa Orlowski, an examiner with the Office
of Certification and Induction, informed petitioner:
After reviewing the syllabus, it was determined the course is
not a course in curriculum development in grades P-12 or a
course 	in a curriculum 	development elective. 	For 	these
requirements, you need courses where the sole focus is to
design, develop and create curriculum from scratch, not add to
existing curriculum. 	Both Montclair and NJCU have two
approved curriculum courses that meet this requirement. 	(J-
6.)
Subsequently, petitioner requested the Board of Examiners to consider his
experience as a mathematics teacher in Linden, and the coursework he took during his
Master of Arts in Teaching program at Montclair, as demonstrating alternative experience
and/or education equivalent to the noted areas of deficiency. (See J-11.) The Board of
Examiners considered petitioner’s application at its meeting on May 17, 2019, and later
issued a written decision. (See J-10.) Rani Singh, who is employed by the Department
of Education as the Director of the Office of Certification and Induction and serves as the
Secretary of the Board of Examiners, provided petitioner with a copy of the Board of
Examiners’ decision under letter dated July 1, 2019. (J-12.)
The Board of Examiners’ decision memorializes the finding that petitioner had
satisfied the requirements for issuance of a Supervisor certificate set forth in N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-12.6(a)(2)(ii) except for the requirements of (1) three graduate semester-hour

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
4
credits in general principles of curriculum design and development for preschool through
grade 12 and (2) three graduate semester-hour elective credits in curriculum design and
development. 	(J-10.) 	The Board of Examiners concluded that petitioner “established a
compelling one-to-one correspondence between his experience in developing and
designing the Applications of Linear Algebra course in Linden and the elective in
Curriculum Design and Development that he lacks,” and that petitioner “will therefore
receive three credits in that area.” 	(Ibid.) 	However, the Board of Examiners also
determined that “the other coursework [petitioner] submitted for consideration was not the
equivalent of the remaining area he needs.” (Ibid.) Rather, “[t]hat course was math based
and focused on one specific area rather than a more broad-based design development
foundation as is required.” 	(Ibid.) 	Accordingly, the Board of Examiners granted
petitioner’s application in part and denied it in part. (Ibid.)
In his appeal to the Board of Examiners, petitioner submitted that courses CURR
560, CURR 561 and CURR 562 were the equivalent of the missing requirement. (See J-
2.) 	The course description for CURR 560, titled “Inquiry into Knowledge, Learning and
Education,” states:
This course focuses on the development of three distinct, but
interconnected, understandings about knowledge, learning,
and adolescent identity within urban communities outside of
school. 	Through 	personal 	learning 	autobiographies 	and
hands-on learning activities, students come to understand how
and why they learn and how their personal learning histories
affect them in different contexts. They also study the lives and
learning of urban youth, and explore the urban community.
Through reflection they acquire new understandings about the
nature 	of 	knowledge, 	the 	lives 	of 	urban 	youth 	and
communities, and the processes and products of learning.
Their understanding of knowledge construction and learning is
applied to the teaching and learning of math and science in
non-traditional settings. 	Field trips, internships in community-
based organizations, book groups, an online discussion forum
and a student study form the core activities of this fulltime
experience . . . . (See J-1; J-2.)
The course description for CURR 561, titled “Inquiry into Knowledge, Learning,
and Schooling,” states:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
5
This course focuses on assessing and building on students’
prior knowledge, strengths, and needs, planning curriculum
and instruction, and teaching math or science. Residents learn
to use student data to plan differentiated math or science
instruction. 	They explore how students’ learning histories
affect their classroom achievement and learn about students’
lives outside the classroom. 	They also plan math/science
teaching around how students do their best learning, gather
data about what student learning looks like through formal and
informal assessments, and create action plans for addressing
the learning needs of students. These concepts are developed
primarily through an apprenticeship with a classroom-based
mentor in math or science during which residents co-teach the
mentor’s full teaching assignment, develop and teach units and
lessons, and collaboratively engage in action research with the
mentor. 	Additionally, 	residents participate in 	instructional
rounds and a weekly half-day seminar and are observed by
university education, subject area, and school based faculty.
(J-4.)
The syllabus for that course indicates that one of the assignments, which started on
September 27, 2012, and ended on November 1, 2012, entailed “designing a mini-
curricular unit.” (J-4.)
The course description for CURR 562, titled “Inquiry into Teaching and Schooling,”
states:
Builds on teacher residents’ prior knowledge & experience
planning for student learning in math & science. 	Residents
employ 	pedagogical 	content 	knowledge 	in 	designing 	&
implementing classroom activities, assessments, & units of
study. 	They learn to evaluate their teaching effectiveness &
adjust their instruction based on monitoring learning through
formative & summative assessments. 	Special attention is
given to addressing the needs of students with disabilities &
English 	lang[uage] 	learners, 	& 	supporting 	differentiated
instruction through the use of educational technologies. The
residents engage in math/science curriculum study. 	They
explore how curriculum is developed, why it is selected, & the
epistemological 	theory 	that 	informs 	the 	curriculum 	& 	its
implementation. 	Residents examine the school culture &
engage in professional relationships with all members of the
school 	community. 	Takes 	place 	primarily 	through 	an

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
6
apprenticeship with a classroom-based mentor during which
residents co-teach the mentor’s full teaching assignment,
develop & teach units & lessons, & collaboratively engage in
action research 	with the mentor. 	Additionally, 	residents
participate 	in 	instructional 	rounds 	& 	a 	weekly 	half-day
seminar, & are observed by university education, subject area
& school based faculty . . . . (See J-1; J-2.)
The State has pre-approved courses that satisfy the three graduate credits in
general principles of curriculum design and development requirement. New Jersey City
University 	course 	EDLD 	662, 	titled 	“Principles 	of 	Curriculum 	Development 	and
Evaluation,” is one of the State approved courses. The course description for EDLD 662
states:
This course offers an overview of the factors, principles and
elements of curriculum development in the elementary and
secondary school. 	Emphasis is on the philosophical and
psychological influences in education, as well as designing and
evaluating curricular patterns for urban schools. (J-5.)
In addition to the evidence that forms the foundation of the above findings of facts,
a summary of other pertinent testimony follows.
The Testimony
Rani Singh
Singh testified that a candidate for a certificate must meet all the requirements for
the particular endorsement sought by the candidate. She explained that the purpose of
the requirements “is to ensure that we have equitable requirements for all candidates
across all content areas,” and to ensure that “the educators that are teaching the students
are meeting the exact requirements coming into the classroom.” Regarding the general
principles of curriculum design and development credits, Singh described that it is “a
broad based design development course that focuses on the overall design of a
curriculum 	from 	scratch,” 	and 	“the 	entire 	philosophical 	historical 	and 	pedagogical
perspectives of creating a curriculum from scratch.” 	It is “an overview of the principles
and developing curriculum, the historical perspective of curriculum throughout education,”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
7
and “it’s geared towards . . . writing curriculum from kindergarten all the way up to grade
twelve” and “[e]valuating in different school settings from elementary all the way up to
high school [and] [u]rban versus suburban versus rural.” 	Singh testified that “it is
important” that these graduate credits are taken “because the supervisor endorsement is
for grades K through twelve,” and it is important to have “an overview of designing and
developing curriculum in all of those levels” and “a good strong historical background of
design and curriculum [s]o, if you are placed at any type of setting you’re able to design
and develop curriculum in that setting.” 	She noted that a supervisor can supervise any
subject and be placed anywhere depending on the needs of the school district. 	Singh
described that the significance of these general principles of curriculum design and
development is “to ensure that . . . someone who receives a supervisor certificate . . . [is]
able to modify and adjust according to the grade level, the school, [and] the content that
they’re placed in because . . . this certificate is very general” and it is a K-12 supervisor.
“[T]hese general courses [are] to make sure that the educator has a proper . . .
background in curriculum design and development so they are able to design curriculum
from scratch and [in] any type of content or school setting.”
Singh explained that petitioner was not given the three graduate credits for general
principles of curriculum design and development because the “coursework that he
submitted and also his experience was very math and content focused . . . on one specific
area which was math.” The Board determined that petitioner’s submitted coursework was
not the equivalent of the remaining needed area and that it was “math based and focused
on one specific area rather than a more broad-based design development foundation as
is required.” (J-10.) Singh testified that CURR 560 did not qualify for the credits because
“[t]he course was focused on teaching and also focused on specific teaching and learning
of math and science.” CURR 562 did not qualify for the credits because it was “teaching
based and it was focused more on designing Math and Science, a specific curriculum.”
CURR 	561 	did 	not 	qualify 	because, 	according 	to 	the 	syllabus, 	the 	course 	was
concentrated on math and science teaching. In addition, the project from September to
November described in the syllabus for CURR 561 was not sufficient “[b]ecause this . . .
was designing a particular mini unit of curriculum, it wasn’t designing an entire curriculum
from scratch.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
8
Singh testified that the State approved course (EDLD 662) qualifies for the three
graduate credits because “it provides the overview of the curriculum development and
design . . . in New Jersey education”; “[i]t focuses on the philosophical, historical and
psychological influences . . . in education”; “[i]t is a general overview dealing with all skills
associated in developing a curriculum”; and “[i]t looks at the organizational systems in the
schools and looks at all types of variables that are used to design and develop a
curriculum.” 	She explained that this course differs from the classes that petitioner took
because it “is a general overview of K-12 in all settings,” whereas petitioner’s classes
were “more focused on teaching, teaching curriculum and interpreting and using existing
curriculum for the classrooms” and were “very . . . focused on content.” Petitioner’s work
experience did not qualify for the missing coursework because “this experience was
specifically Math content based.” 	Petitioner’s Master of Arts in Teaching also did not
qualify because it is a master’s degree “focused on teaching.”
Singh explained that the Board determines whether the applicant’s documentation
demonstrates a one-to-one relationship with the particular certification requirement that
is lacking. (See J-10.) Regarding whether there can be a three to one relationship, Singh
testified, “It’s always been one to one.” 	Regarding whether an applicant can substitute
three or four classes to demonstrate meeting one requirement, she stated, “It is usually--
usually it’s always been one to one” but “[a]pplicants do submit various courses and
experiences to meet . . . that requirement but it’s usually one to one relationship.”
Regarding whether there is a situation when more than one course can be considered,
Singh explained that “we can consider more than one” but “it is up to the Petitioner to
provide that one to one correspondence [e]ither with the course work they have taken or
the experience they have accumulated.” She stated that the one-to-one correspondence
could be established by three courses in total, noting that her office does use a
combination of coursework, experience, and alternative education. 	An applicant’s
experience can satisfy the requirement, which Singh indicated is “still a one to one
relationship.” 	It is “using the experience that is provided to meet the deficiencies,” and
that would satisfy a specific course even though not everything in that course was
covered.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
9
Jaroslaw Nimczyk
Petitioner articulated his position that “the culmination” of the courses he took (i.e.,
CURR 560, CURR 561 and CURR 562) “cover everything that is . . . covered in EDLD
662” and compare to the course description for EDLD 662. 	Petitioner testified that the
courses he took “focus on developing the curriculum” and “an overview.” He stated that
his education was “mainly based on Math and Science but it was . . . a program from
middle school through high school,” which “encompasses more than half the grades.”
Petitioner noted that CURR 561 was a nine-credit course, and the mini-curricular unit
assignment was worked on for approximately seven weeks, which he opined would equal
approximately five credit hours and at least three credit hours. He acknowledged that the
project was not the sole focus for the entire seven weeks but described that “it did take a
bulk of time and it was one of the major assignments or projects.”
Regarding EDLD 662, petitioner noted that one of the course objectives listed in
the syllabus states, “Develop a new or revised curriculum plan,” and the listed projects
for the course do not specify a subject or grade level and refer to revising curriculum, not
developing it from scratch. 	(See J-5.) 	The listed “Project 1-Curriculum Development
Process” states, “Part 1 has to do with the curriculum development process for updating
and rewriting curricula that a district follows,” and “Project 2- Curriculum Plan” states,
“Working collaboratively in a group of three or four colleagues revise or develop an
innovative curriculum plan (not the actual curriculum) for an area of study relevant to
today.” Petitioner testified that, although Ms. Orlowski indicated in her e-mail the need to
develop curriculum from scratch, according to the syllabus for EDLD 662, “you do not
have to create it from scratch.” The syllabus for EDLD 662 states under “Class Activities”:
Students will spend most of their class time involved in
readings/activities 	and 	discussions. 	Class 	activities 	will
emphasize student interaction with ideas, text and each other,
as well as application of principles of curriculum development
and evaluation to real and hypothetical educational situations.
All curriculum ideas and practices will be subject to analysis
and evaluation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
10
Petitioner opined that EDLD 662 “describes a very similar scenario of the class activities
through the three courses” he completed. He described that, “[n]ot only were we focusing
on hypothetical educational situations, we were actually dealing with real students and
applying them to real-life courses,” and “trying these methods in a real classroom while
discussing it with other students in the course.”
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board of Examiners is entrusted with the issuance of certificates to teach, or
to administer, direct or supervise the teaching, instruction or educational guidance of,
pupils in public schools under the rules and regulations prescribed by the State Board.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38.
N.J.A.C 	6A:9B-12.6(a) 	sets 	forth 	the 	eligibility 	requirements 	for 	a 	standard
administrative certificate with a supervisor endorsement. The regulation provides that the
candidate must:
1. 	Hold 	a 	master’s 	or 	higher 	degree 	from 	a 	regionally
accredited college or university;
2. Successfully complete one of the following:
i. 	A 	Commissioner-approved 	college 	curriculum 	that
specifically prepares the candidate for the endorsement;
ii. 	Twelve graduate-level semester-hour credits, including
the following:
(1) 	Three credits in general principles of instructional
staff supervision in preschool through grade 12;
(2) 	Three credits in general principles of curriculum
design and development for preschool through grade
12;
(3) 	Three elective credits in curriculum design and
development; and
(4) 	Three 	elective 	credits 	in 	instructional 	staff
supervision and/or curriculum design and development;
or
iii. 	A Commissioner-approved training program that is
implemented by a Commissioner-approved provider and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
11
specifically prepares the candidate for the endorsement;
and
3. 	Hold a standard New Jersey instructional or educational
services certificate, or its out-of-State equivalent, and complete
three years of successful, full-time teaching and/or educational
services experience. 	Teaching and/or educational services
experience completed in a New Jersey school district must
have been under an appropriate New Jersey certificate.
“If the candidate is not eligible for the certificate sought, the Office shall issue a
written evaluation that identifies the deficiency(ies) for certification.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
5.3(c). 	The “Office” is defined as “the office within the Department that is assigned to
provide staff support to the Board of Examiners in the exercise of its statutory and
regulatory responsibilities.” N.J.A.C. 6A:9-2.1; see N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-2.1. “A candidate for
certification may appeal to the Board of Examiners an adverse decision of the Office
regarding his or her certification eligibility.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(a). 	“If a candidate
receives 	an 	evaluation 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-5.3(c) 	that 	identifies 	areas 	of
deficiency in the certification requirements, the candidate 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
of Examiners may not, however, “[w]aive any test, GPA, degree completion, or approved
educator preparation program completion requirements” or “[p]ermit a candidate to
substitute education and/or experience for any test, GPA, degree, or approved educator
preparation program completion requirements[.]” N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(c) (1) and (2).
Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, that he is entitled to the endorsement he seeks. See Miller v. N.J. State Bd. of
Examiners, EDU 03040-17, Initial Decision (September 19. 2018), adopted, Comm’r
(November 1, 2018) https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; McQuilken v. N.J. State Bd.
of Examiners, EDU 8375-11, Initial Decision (December 13, 2011), adopted, Comm’r
(January 27, 2012) https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; Farrar v. N.J. State Bd. of
Examiners, EDU 13763-08, Initial Decision (April 27, 2010), adopted, Comm’r (July 26,
2010) https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. 	In this regard, petitioner shoulders the
burden of establishing a one-to-one correspondence between his alternative education

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
12
and the licensing deficiency. 	See Neuhoff v. N.J. State Bd. of Examiners, EDU 11780-
17, 	Initial 	Decision 	(March 	6, 	2018), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(April 	13, 	2018)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; Hutchinson v. N.J. State Bd. of Examiners, EDU
16373-12, 	Initial 	Decision 	(April 	5, 	2013), 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(May 	15, 	2013)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/.; Farrar, EDU 13763-08.
A decision by the Board of Examiners will not be disturbed unless petitioner “has
demonstrated [that] 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). 	See McQuilken, EDU
8375-11; Glennon v. N.J. State Bd. of Examiners, EDU 07419-07, Initial Decision (August
4, 2009), adopted, Comm’r (Sept. 18, 2009) https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/;
Flaherty v. N.J. State Bd. of Examiners, EDU 5327-98, Comm’r (June 30, 1999)
https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/; Marshello v. N.J. State Bd. of Examiners, 92
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 378. In other words, the scope of the Commissioner’s review is limited.
The Commissioner’s role is not to substitute his or her judgement for that of the Board of
Examiners, but to “ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible
evidence in the record[.]” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). Our courts have defined “arbitrary” and
“capricious” as “having no rational basis,” and “[a]rbitrary and capricious action of
administrative bodies means willful and unreasoning action, without consideration and in
disregard of circumstances.” 	Bayshore Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Envt’l. Prot., 122 N.J.
Super. 184, 199 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App Div. 1974). And “[w]here
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.” Ibid.
In the within matter, the Board of Examiners determined that petitioner did not
satisfy the requirement of three graduate credits in general principles of curriculum design
and development for preschool through grade twelve necessary to qualify for a Supervisor
certificate and that petitioner’s offered alternative education was not the equivalent of that
deficiency. Accordingly, the pivotal issue presented is whether petitioner has satisfied his
burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Board of
Examiners acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law when it

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
13
determined not to accept petitioner’s offered alternative education to satisfy the remaining
requirement that petitioner needed to receive a Supervisor certificate.
The crux of petitioner’s post-hearing submissions reiterates the position that the
culmination of petitioner’s three courses should be deemed the equivalent of the missing
requirement. He argues that “there are numerous topics/areas/portions that show a 1-1
correspondence” 	between 	the 	State 	approved 	course 	and 	petitioner’s 	completed
courses.1 Petitioner also postulates that the culmination of his courses encompass the
claimed missing historical, philosophical and psychological components.2 	Petitioner
asserts that, although it was claimed that his courses do not qualify because the
curriculum has not been designed from scratch, the two projects in the State approved
course “do not mention anything about being developed from scratch,” and the totality of
the mini-curricular unit assignment in CURR 561 “took about 7 weeks which works out to
about 5 credit hours alone as this was a 9-credit course.” Petitioner avers that, although
it was claimed that his “courses were not broad enough (focused on math and science),”
in the syllabus for EDLD 662, “the descriptions of Projects 1 and 2, do not specify subject
or grade level, allowing the student a project of their choosing without restrictions to any
1 In this regard, petitioner contends that the “overview of the factors, principles, and elements of curriculum
development in the elementary and secondary school” set forth in the course description for EDLD 662
corresponds to the course descriptions for CURR 562 (“explore how curriculum is developed, why it is
selected, & the epistemological theory that informs the curriculum & its implementation”) and CURR 561
(“This course focuses on assessing and building on students’ prior knowledge, strengths, and needs,
planning curriculum and instruction”). Petitioner asserts that the described emphasis “on philosophical and
psychological influences in education, as well as designing and evaluating curricular patterns for urban
schools” set forth in the course description for EDLD 662 corresponds to the course descriptions for CURR
560 (“This course focuses on the development of three distinct, but interconnected, understandings about
knowledge, learning, and adolescent identity within urban communities outside of school. Through personal
learning autobiographies and hands-on learning activities, students come to understand how and why they
learn and how their personal learning histories affect them in different contexts. They also study the lives
and learning of urban youth, and explore the urban community”); CURR 561 (“They explore how students’
learning histories affect their classroom achievement and learn about students’ lives outside the
classroom”); and CURR 562 (“They explore how curriculum is developed, why it is selected, & the
epistemological theory that informs the curriculum & its implementation”).
2 	In support of this stance petitioner cites the course descriptions for CURR 560 (“Through personal
learning autobiographies and hands-on learning activities, students come to understand how and why they
learn and how their personal learning histories affect them in different contexts”); CURR 561 (“They explore
how students’ learning histories affect their classroom achievement and learn about students’ lives outside
the classroom”); and CURR 562 (“Residents employ pedagogical content knowledge in designing &
implementing classroom activities, assessments, & units of study . . . . 	Special attention is given to
addressing the needs of students with disabilities and English lang[uage] learners, & supporting
differentiated instruction through the use of educational technologies. 	The residents engage in
math/science curriculum study. 	They explore how curriculum is developed, why it is selected, & the
epistemological theory that informs the curriculum & its implementation”).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
14
specific area of study or grade level,” and the course description for EDLD 662 “only
focuses on urban schools” similar to the course description for CURR 560. Additionally,
petitioner maintains that his educational program covered middle school and high school,
which “encompasses 7 out of the 12 grades” or “almost 60% of all the grade levels.”
Petitioner argues that Singh confirmed that “you can have experience satisfy part of the
[S]tate’s requirement which in turn would satisfy the full requirement”; Singh’s testimony
“shows that the [S]tate will accept portions of a requirement and utilize it to satisfy the
requirement itself”; and petitioner’s courses “clearly” demonstrate that he has “met,
completed and satisfied most if not all areas required by the [S]tate.” 	Finally, petitioner
asserts that “[o]ver time, the board has changed [its] justification for not accepting [his]
completed courses” (i.e. the Board “initially claimed that the curriculum must be from
scratch then reverses course and says that it does not need to be from scratch but now
apparently the courses are missing a general overview and the historical aspect”), which,
petitioner argues, “seems very subjective, ambiguous and capricious.”
Against 	this 	backdrop, 	petitioner 	bears 	a 	substantial 	evidentiary 	burden 	to
establish a case sufficient to set aside a decision by the Board of Examiners. A decision
by the Board of Examiners will not be disturbed unless petitioner “has demonstrated [that]
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). 	It is not within the province of this forum to
substitute its judgment for that of the Board of Examiners even if there is room for two
opinions regarding the sufficiency of petitioner’s coursework. Rather, the pertinent inquiry
is to “ascertain whether the decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record[.]” N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). Judged against this standard of review and based on a
consideration of the testimony and documentary evidence presented, I CONCLUDE that
petitioner has failed to shoulder his burden of proof and that the Board of Examiners’
decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence.
Petitioner sought a credentials review in connection with his application for a
Supervisor certificate and requested the Board of Examiners to consider his experience
as a Mathematics teacher in Linden and coursework during his Masters of Arts Teaching
program 	at 	Montclair 	as 	demonstrating 	alternative 	experience 	and/or 	education
equivalent to the requirements of three graduate credits in general principles of curriculum

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
15
design and development for preschool through grade 12 and three graduate elective
credits in curriculum design and development. 	(J-10.) 	The Board of Examiners
concluded that petitioner “established a compelling one-to-one correspondence between
his experience in developing and designing the Applications of Linear Algebra course in
Linden and the elective in Curriculum Design and Development that he lacks” and,
therefore, determined that he will receive three credits in that area. (Ibid.) However, the
Board of Examiners also determined that the “coursework [petitioner] submitted for
consideration was not the equivalent” of the requirement of three graduate semester-hour
credits in general principles of curriculum design and development for preschool through
grade 12. (Ibid.) In this regard, the Board of Examiners explained that petitioner’s “course
was math based and focused on one specific area rather than a more broad-based design
development foundation as is required.” (Ibid.)
Succinctly 	stated, 	the 	Board 	of 	Examiners’ 	determination 	that 	the 	courses
petitioner offered as alternative education were not the equivalent of the missing
certification requirement was a reasoned exercise of its discretionary authority pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). 	The stated basis for the conclusion reached focused on the
fact that petitioner’s coursework was too limited in that it was math based and focused on
one specific area instead of the more broad-based design development foundation that
is required. 	The record fails to support that the Board of Examiners’ determination was
without ample consideration or in disregard of the circumstances. 	Equally lacking is
evidence establishing that the Board of Examiners’ determination, after review of
petitioners’ documents, was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. 	Petitioner has not
offered any pertinent evidence that was not considered by the Board of Examiners, but,
instead, simply disagrees with the conclusion drawn by the Board of Examiners.
The conclusion that the Board of Examiners did not act in an arbitrary, capricious,
or 	unreasonable 	manner 	is 	supported 	by 	the 	plain 	language 	of 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-
12.6(a)(2)(ii)(2). 	Unlike the “elective credits in curriculum design and development”
(N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a)(2)(ii)(3)) for which the Board of Examiners determined that
petitioner established a compelling one-to-one correspondence with his experience in
developing and designing the Applications of Linear Algebra course in Linden, the credits
in “general principles of curriculum design and development for preschool through grade

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
16
12” clearly requires, by its reference to “general principles,” a course with a broad
overview of curriculum design and development. It also requires, by its reference to “for
preschool through grade 12,” a course that is applicable to all grade levels. 	In other
words, the purpose of the missing coursework is to establish the necessary knowledge
for curriculum design and development regardless of subject area or grade since a
Supervisor certificate is an endorsement for all grades that can be used to supervise any
subject.
The conclusion that the Board of Examiners did not act in an arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable manner is further supported by the syllabus and course descriptions for
the courses petitioner offered to demonstrate equivalency. 	CURR 561 and CURR 562
specifically state that they are math and/or science focused. 	See J-1 and J-4, course
description and syllabus for CURR 561(“This course focuses on assessing and building
on students’ prior knowledge, strengths, and needs, planning curriculum and instruction,
and teaching math and science”); J-1, course description for CURR 562 (This course
“[b]uilds on teacher residents’ prior knowledge & experience planning for student learning
in math & science”). 	The course description for CURR 560 lacks any mention of
“curriculum” and refers to the “teaching and learning of math and science.” Beyond this,
petitioner candidly acknowledged that his educational program focused on middle and
high school and, thus, petitioner lacks the general principles of curriculum design and
development for preschool through grade five as dictated by the regulatory requirement.
In short, the evidence supports the conclusion that petitioner lacks the broad-based
education in curriculum design and development for all subjects and for all grade levels
and, therefore, does not meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-12.6(a).
I agree with the Board of Examiners’ stance that simply because CURR 561 may
have a similar assignment to EDLD 662 regarding the development of a curriculum does
not lead to the conclusion that the courses are equivalent, and petitioner has completed
all the coursework in the State approved course. 	Likewise, that EDLD 662 references
urban schools does not establish that it is the equivalent of CURR 560 or undermine the
appropriateness of the Board of Examiners’ decision. Rather, as Singh explained, CURR
560 was determined not to be equivalent, not because it focused on urban or rural

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
17
settings, but because it was focused on teaching and focused on specific teaching and
learning of math and science.
Based upon the foregoing, even if the culmination of education from separate
courses is appropriate, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to establish that the Board
of Examiners’ decision to deny his application for a Supervisor certificate, predicated on
petitioner’s 	failure 	to 	establish 	a 	one-to-one 	correspondence 	between 	his 	offered
alternative 	education 	and 	the 	regulatory 	requirement, 	was 	arbitrary, 	capricious,
unreasonable, or contrary to law. 	I CONCLUDE that the Board of Examiners’ denial of
petitioner’s application for a Supervisor certificate was appropriate, within its discretion,
and not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or contrary to law.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the Board of Examiners’ denial of petitioner’s application for a
Supervisor certificate be and hereby is AFFIRMED and petitioner’s Petition of Appeal be
and hereby is 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
18
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.
April 1, 2022
DATE 	MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15422-19
19
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Jaroslaw Nimczyk
For Respondent:
Rani Singh
List of Exhibits in Evidence
Joint:
J-1 	Course Descriptions
J-2 	Course Comparison
J-3 	CURR 561 Analysis
J-4 	CURR 561 Syllabus
J-5 	EDLD 662 Syllabus
J-6 	E-mail from Melissa Orlowski to Jaroslaw Nimczyk dated November 2, 2018
J-7 	Motion to Dismiss
J-8 	Petition of Appeal
J-9 	Evaluation of Credentials-Supervisor
J-10 	Decision by the Board of Examiners
J-11 	Credentials Review Summary
J-12 	Letter from Rani Singh to Jaroslaw Nimczyk dated July 1, 2019
For Appellant:
None
For Respondent:
None