Alyssa Danielle DeBlasis v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 8/12/26 (#300-26)

300-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 16435-25 (EDU 02645-25 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 407-12/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Alyssa Danielle DeBlasis,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, State
Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the hearing transcript, and the Initial Decision of the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) have been reviewed and considered. 	The parties did not file
exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner challenges the denial of her application for a Teacher of
Elementary K-6 Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing (CEAS). 	Upon review of the
expanded record developed on remand, and for the reasons expressed in the comprehensive
Initial Decision issued after remand, the Commissioner adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
The 	Commissioner 	concurs 	with 	the 	ALJ 	that 	petitioner 	failed 	to 	prove 	by 	a
preponderance of the credible evidence that she satisfied the liberal arts and/or science credit
requirement for certification found at N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-10.2(b)(2), or that her alternative education
and experience demonstrated a one-to-one correspondence with the credit deficiency. 	The

2
Commissioner also concurs with the ALJ that respondent’s decision to deny petitioner’s initial
application for certification and subsequent credential review appeal is supported by the record
and consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision issued after remand is adopted as the final decision in this
matter, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	August 12, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	August 12, 2026
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
AGENCY DKT NO. 407-12/24
ALYSSA DANIELLE DeBLASIS,
Petitioner, 	ON REMAND
v. 	OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02645-25
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, STATE BOARD OF
EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
Alyssa Danielle DeBlasis, petitioner, pro se
Nataly K. Dennis, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Jennifer Davenport,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: April 22, 2026 	Decided: June 8, 2026
BEFORE IRENE JONES, ALJ/(Ret., on recall):
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Alyssa Danielle DeBlasis, filed an application with the New Jersey
Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, seeking a Teacher of Elementary

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
2
K-6 Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing (“CEAS”). 	At its meeting on
September 19, 2024, the State Board of Examiners (“Board”) considered petitioner’s
application pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12 and the certification requirements set forth in
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.2 and N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-10.2. Petitioner appeared at the meeting.
The Board determined that petitioner satisfied some of the requirements for
certification but was deficient twenty-one and one-half (21.5) semester-hour credits in
liberal arts and/or sciences. In lieu of the missing credits, petitioner asked the Board to
consider 	her 	teaching 	experience 	in 	a 	parochial 	school, 	nine 	and 	one-half 	(9.5)
instructional hours from Hillsdale College, and professional development seminars. The
Board 	denied 	petitioner’s 	request 	after 	concluding 	that 	the 	submitted 	experience,
instructional 	hours, 	and 	professional 	development 	did 	not 	establish 	a 	one-to-one
equivalency with the missing liberal arts and/or science credits.
Following the denial, petitioner filed a pro se Petition of Appeal with the New Jersey
Department of Education (DOE) on December 30, 2024. 	The DOE filed a Motion to
Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer. 	On February 3, 2025, the matter was transmitted to the
Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested case. 	Petitioner was given time to
retain counsel but ultimately elected to proceed pro se and filed a response to the motion.
On July 25, 2025, the undersigned granted the Board’s motion to dismiss. 	On
September 12, 2025, the Commissioner rejected the initial decision and remanded the
matter to develop a more comprehensive record. 	The matter was thereafter assigned
OAL Docket No. EDU 16435-2025. 	A prehearing conference was held on October 8,
2025. A virtual evidentiary hearing was conducted on January 27, 2026.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the record, I FIND the following facts:
1. 	Petitioner is a 2022 graduate of Cabrini University. 	She graduated cum
laude with a Bachelor of Science in Education and a certification focus in
special education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
3
2. 	In 2023, petitioner applied to the New Jersey Department of Education for
a Teacher of Elementary K-6 CEAS.
3. 	Petitioner passed all required Praxis assessments.
4. 	Petitioner has teaching experience at a Catholic school, completed 9.5
instructional hours, and attended or completed professional development
seminars.
5. 	The DOE examiner credited petitioner with 38.5 acceptable liberal arts
and/or science credits, leaving a deficiency of 21.5 credits.
6. 	The Board denied petitioner’s request because petitioner did not meet the
required 	number 	of 	liberal 	arts 	and/or 	science 	credits 	and 	did 	not
demonstrate that her alternative education or experience was equivalent,
on a one-to-one basis, to the 21.5-credit deficiency.
TESTIMONY
Rani Singh, Director of the Office of Recruitment, Preparation and Certification
(“RCP”) and Secretary of the State Board of Examiners, testified on behalf of respondent.
Singh has worked for the DOE for approximately twenty-five years and has held various
positions, including lead examiner. 	Prior to joining the DOE, Singh was a biology and
elementary education teacher.
Singh explained that examiners are responsible for reviewing educator certification
applications to determine whether applicants satisfy the requirements imposed by statute
and regulation. Lead examiners are responsible for ensuring consistency in application
review and compliance with applicable regulations.
Singh reviewed the requirements for a K-6 CEAS. She testified that an applicant
must possess a bachelor’s degree with a minimum GPA of 3.0, complete the required

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
4
educator preparation program, complete all required assessments, and satisfy the
applicable liberal arts and/or science credit requirement. 	Singh explained that the
regulations define liberal arts as coursework intended primarily to provide general
knowledge and develop a person’s general intellectual capacities to reason and evaluate,
as opposed to coursework directed primarily toward professional or vocational skills.
Singh identified respondent’s exhibits, including petitioner’s credential review
appeal. 	The Board denied the appeal because petitioner had an insufficient number of
acceptable liberal arts and/or science credits. 	The Board concluded that petitioner’s
proposed 	alternative 	education, 	teaching 	experience, 	instructional 	hours, 	and
professional development did not establish an equivalency to the missing 21.5 credits.
Singh 	acknowledged 	that 	the 	Board 	may 	consider 	alternative 	education 	or
experience where the applicant demonstrates a one-to-one equivalency with the identified
deficiency. 	She explained that, in evaluating alternative education or experience, the
examiner reviews the applicant’s transcripts, course titles, syllabi, course descriptions,
course coding, and any supporting documentation. The examiner evaluates whether the
claimed alternative education or experience is equivalent in substance and scope to the
missing liberal arts and/or science credits.
Because 	petitioner 	requested 	credit 	for 	work 	experience 	and 	professional
development, 	the 	examiner 	also 	reviewed 	documentation 	concerning 	petitioner’s
teaching 	position 	and 	professional 	development. 	The 	examiner 	concluded 	that
petitioner’s teaching experience and professional development did not correspond, on a
one-to-one basis, to the missing 21.5 liberal arts and/or science credits.
Singh further testified that, although petitioner earned a Bachelor of Science in
Education, several courses on petitioner’s transcript were not credited toward the liberal
arts and/or science requirement because they did not satisfy the regulatory definition.
Some courses were not credited because the syllabi or course descriptions did not
provide sufficient information to determine that the coursework developed general
intellectual capacities rather than professional or vocational skills. 	Other courses were
not counted because they were pedagogical or institution-specific. 	Singh also testified

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
5
that certain religious studies courses were not accepted because the DOE determined
that they were specific to religious instruction rather than general liberal arts coursework
under the applicable regulatory criteria. Singh noted that, given their specific instructional
material, religious courses are generally not accepted as suitable liberal arts credits.
Petitioner testified on her own behalf. 	She holds a Bachelor of Science in
Education from Cabrini University, where she majored in PreK-4 Education with a focus
on Special Education. 	She graduated cum laude in May 2022. 	Petitioner testified that
her transcript reflects seventy-one liberal arts credits and that, although she attended
college in Pennsylvania, she always intended to teach in New Jersey. 	She stated that
she was unaware that certain credits would not be accepted by the New Jersey
Department of Education.
Petitioner maintained that the exclusion of her religious studies coursework was
improper because those courses were rigorous and developed general knowledge in the
humanities. She also disputed the Board’s refusal to give additional credit for her teaching
experience and professional development. 	Petitioner emphasized that New Jersey is
experiencing a teacher shortage and argued that denying her certification despite her
education, experience, and Praxis scores was unfair.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner argues that the purpose of the liberal arts and/or humanities requirement
is to ensure that teachers possess the broad intellectual preparation necessary to guide
students in understanding human culture, ideas, and values. 	She contends that her
coursework provided that preparation, even though some credits were categorized as
religious studies or education rather than as traditional liberal arts or humanities courses.
Petitioner asserts that her religious studies and teaching-focused coursework
required critical thinking, textual analysis, ethical reasoning, cultural understanding,
historical context, analytical writing, and engagement with philosophical and historical
ideas. 	She argues that religious studies is closely connected to history, philosophy,
ethics, literature, and cultural studies, all of which are central to the humanities.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
6
Petitioner further argues that her education and pedagogy courses strengthened
her ability to interpret complex material, communicate ideas clearly, and translate
knowledge into effective instruction. 	According to petitioner, these courses were not
merely professional training but also required engagement with educational philosophy,
the history of education, and critical thinking concerning how knowledge is taught and
understood. (“PB”)1
Respondent argues that petitioner has not established that she satisfied the
applicable 60-credit liberal arts and/or science requirement. Respondent maintains that
petitioner seeks a re-review of her transcript and asks the Board to treat her proposed
alternative education and experience as equivalent to the missing credits. 	However,
respondent asserts that petitioner has not explained how her teaching experience,
instructional hours, or professional development equals the 21.5-credit deficiency.2
Respondent further argues that petitioner’s documentation does not demonstrate
a one-to-one correspondence between the claimed alternative education or experience
and the missing liberal arts and/or science credits. Respondent contends that petitioner’s
financial concerns regarding additional coursework and her references to a teacher
apprenticeship program are not relevant to whether she satisfied the applicable regulatory
requirements.
Respondent concludes that the Board followed the governing regulations and
reasonably determined that petitioner’s experience and professional development were
insufficient to satisfy the liberal arts and/or science credit requirement.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Board of Examiners is responsible for determining whether an instructional
teaching certificate may be issued to an applicant. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. When an applicant
1 “PB” refers to the petitioner’s letter brief.
2 “RB” refers to the respondent’s letter brief.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
7
is advised of a deficiency in certification requirements, the applicant may provide
evidence of alternative education and/or experience that the applicant believes is
equivalent to the area of deficiency. N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). However, the Board is not
authorized to waive certification requirements. 	Rather, it may consider alternative
education or experience only where the applicant demonstrates that the alternative
education or experience is equivalent to the identified deficiency.
The applicable regulations require a candidate for a K-6 CEAS to satisfy the liberal
arts and/or science coursework requirements documented on a transcript from an
accredited 	college 	or 	university. 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-8.2; 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-10.2. 	The
regulations define a liberal arts major as one that includes, but is not limited to,
philosophy, history, literature, sociology, world language, mathematics, science, or
engineering, and that is intended primarily to provide general knowledge and develop an
individual’s general intellectual capacities to reason and evaluate, as opposed to
professional or vocational skills. N.J.A.C. 6A:9-2.1.
Petitioner bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, that she is entitled to the certification she seeks. See Walder v. N.J. Dep’t of
Educ., State Bd. of Exam’rs, EDU 08530-14, Initial Decision (Nov. 10, 2014), adopted,
Comm’r 	(Dec. 	29, 	2014). 	Respondent, 	by 	contrast, 	must 	demonstrate 	that 	its
determination was consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions and
supported by the record.
The issue here is not whether petitioner is devoted, capable, or experienced. Nor
is the issue whether petitioner’s teaching experience has practical value. 	The issue is
whether 	petitioner 	satisfied 	the 	specific 	certification 	requirements 	established 	by
regulation or, alternatively, demonstrated that her proposed alternative education and
experience were equivalent to the 21.5 missing liberal arts and/or science credits.
I FIND Singh’s testimony credible and persuasive. 	Singh explained the review
process, the regulatory distinction between liberal arts coursework and pedagogy or
vocationally directed coursework, and the manner in which petitioner’s transcript and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
8
supporting documentation were evaluated. 	Her testimony was consistent with the
regulatory scheme and supported by the record.
I further FIND that petitioner did not establish that the Board improperly excluded
the disputed credits. Although petitioner testified that her religious studies courses were
rigorous and involved humanities-related skills, the relevant inquiry is not merely whether
a course was challenging or intellectually meaningful. The inquiry is whether the course
satisfies the regulatory definition of liberal arts and whether the record contains sufficient
documentation for the Board to make that determination. 	I am persuaded that where
course descriptions or syllabi were missing, incomplete, institution-specific, pedagogical
in nature, or otherwise insufficient to establish that the course primarily developed general
intellectual capacities, the examiner had a reasonable basis to decline credit.
Similarly, petitioner’s teaching experience and professional development are
admirable but do not, without more, establish one-to-one equivalency with 21.5 liberal
arts and/or science credits. 	Teaching experience may demonstrate classroom skills,
professional growth, and commitment to students. 	However, the liberal arts and/or
science requirement serves a distinct purpose: ensuring that elementary teachers
possess a broad academic foundation across subject areas they may be required to
teach, including language arts literacy, mathematics, science, social studies, world
languages, computer literacy, and basic skills in reading, writing, and spelling. Petitioner
did not present evidence demonstrating that her teaching experience, instructional hours,
or professional development covered the substance, scope, academic rigor, and credit
equivalency of 21.5 semester hours in liberal arts and/or science coursework.
Petitioner’s arguments concerning fairness, teacher shortages, and financial
burden are understandable. However, those concerns do not authorize the Board or this
tribunal to disregard or waive mandatory certification requirements. The Board’s authority
is limited by regulation. 	Therefore, even where an applicant presents sympathetic
circumstances, the Board may only grant relief if the applicant satisfies the regulatory
requirements or proves qualifying alternative education or experience equivalent to the
deficiency.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
9
Based on the credible evidence in the record, I FIND and CONCLUDE that
petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that she satisfied
the liberal arts and/or science credit requirement or that her alternative education and
experience were equivalent to the 21.5-credit deficiency. 	I further CONCLUDE that the
Board’s denial of petitioner’s application was supported by the record and consistent with
the applicable statutory and regulatory framework.
Accordingly, the petition for appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s appeal 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 16435-25
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. 	Exceptions 	may 	be 	filed 	by 	email 	to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
June 8, 2026
DATE 	IRENE JONES, ALJ /(Ret., on recall):
Date Received at Agency: 	June 8, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	June 8, 2026
IJ/lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 16435-25
11
EXHIBITS
Witnesses
For petitioner:
Alyssa Danielle DeBlasis, petitioner
For respondent:
Rani Singh
Exhibits in Evidence
Joint Exhibits:
J-1 	Official university transcript
For petitioner:
P-1 	DeBlasis/DOE e-mail of 5/13/24
P-2 	DOE response to DeBlasis
P-3 	Apprenticeship newspaper article
For respondent:
R-1 	Petitioner’s appeal of July 2024
R-2 	Board denial, dated 11/1/24