W.O. and C.O., on behalf of minor child, T.O. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Haddonfield, Camden County, 4/15/26 (#130-26)

130-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 15159-25
Agency Dkt. No. 232-7/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
W.O. and C.O., on behalf of minor child, T.O.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Haddonfield,
Camden County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that petitioners
have not demonstrated that respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably when it revised
the science graduation requirement in Policy 5460 and denied petitioners’ request for an exemption
therefrom.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision 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: 	April 15, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	April 15, 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
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 232-7/25
W.O. AND C.O. ON BEHALF OF T.O.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOROUGH OF HADDONFIELD BOARD OF
EDUCATION, CAMDEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________________
W.O. and C.O., petitioners, pro se, on behalf of their minor son T.O.
Joseph F. Betley, Esq., and Crosley L. Gagnon, Esq. for respondent (Capehart
Scatchard, P.A., attorneys)
Record Closed: January 5, 2026 	Decided: February 13, 2026
BEFORE KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent Haddonfield Board of Education (Board) approved a revision for a
new science course sequence with new science course offerings to Board Policy 5460,
which changed the graduation requirements for the graduating Class of 2027. Under the
change, as a member of the Class of 2027, petitioners’ son, T.O., would be required to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
2
take at least 2.5 credits each in laboratory/inquiry-based environmental science and
physics. 	As T.O. intended to take a full year of physics in his junior year, followed by
either Advance Placement (AP) Physics or Advance Placement (AP) Chemistry in his
senior year, this curriculum change required him to take an additional semester-long
science course that he had not planned or anticipated. The issue is whether the impact
of the Board’s decision changing the science graduation requirements for the Class of
2027 was arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 14, 2025, petitioners filed their Petition of Appeal of the Board’s decision,
denying their request for an exemption from the new science policy under revised Board
Policy 5460. On August 20, 2025, the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss in lieu of an Answer.
On 	August 	21, 	2025, 	the 	Department 	of 	Education, 	Controversies 	and 	Disputes,
transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to be heard as a
contested case.
After 	considering 	petitioners’ 	opposition 	and 	respondent’s 	reply, 	I 	denied
respondent’s motion to dismiss by order, dated October 27, 2025.
During our next telephone conference, the parties agreed that there were no
material facts in dispute and intended to proceed by motion and cross-motion for
summary decision. 	On November 13, 2025, respondent filed its brief, with supporting
exhibits1 R-A through R-O, Certification of Superintendent Charles Klaus (Cert. Klaus),
Certification of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Gino Priolo (Cert. Priolo), and Certification
of Board President Jaime Grookett (Cert. Grookett). 	On December 1, 2025, petitioners
filled their opposition and cross-motion for summary decision with exhibits P-1 through P-
11, and Certifications from T.O., C.O., and W.O. 	Replies were filed by respondent on
December 12, 2025, and petitioners on December 18, 2025.
1 As the exhibits filed by the parties in support of their respective positions were considered by me as
evidence, the exhibits will be referred to as either “R” followed by the respective exhibit letter or “P” followed
by the respective exhibit number.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The undisputed material FACTS are as follows:
As an incoming freshman in the graduating Class of 2027, at Haddonfield Memorial
High School (Haddonfield), T.O. received Haddonfield’s Program of Studies 2023-2024,
to guide his course selection process to meet his graduation requirements. 	T.O., with
guidance from his parents, charted a four-year course plan that satisfied Haddonfield’s
requirements and his future college goals. T.O.’s goal is to apply to a competitive college
engineering program, which requires a full year of Physics, followed by either AP Physics
or AP Chemistry. As required by Haddonfield, T.O. took Biology his freshman year and
Chemistry his sophomore year.
During the 2024-2025 school year, Haddonfield School District (District) convened
a Science Audit Committee to conduct an audit of the District’s science curriculum. Matt
DiDonato, the District’s Content Area Supervisor for Math and Science, headed the
committee. 	In anticipation of the Board meeting scheduled for December 12, 2024, the
curriculum committee met on December 4, 2024, to discuss its recommendations.
At the Board meeting, Mr. DiDonato gave a presentation during public session on
the committee’s recommendations, focusing on High School science requirements and
courses. The committee recommended amending Policy 5460, requiring students to take
one physics and one environmental science course and maintaining the requirements
that students take biology and chemistry. 	The recommendation included both full year
courses and semester long courses for physics and environmental science to allow
flexibility. 	As part of his presentation, Mr. DiDonato informed the Board that the Audit
Committee conducted an analysis of students’ schedules to determine the potential
impact of the new science requirements. 	The committee concluded that the students
would be able to take the courses they were interested in while still meeting the new
science graduation requirements.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
4
In early January 2025, T.O. learned of the new science graduation requirement
from his sophomore chemistry teacher, Vincent Gallo. On January 7, 2025, Haddonfield
held a Course Selection Information Session for parents, in which the new science
graduation requirements were presented.
On January 13, 2025, Mrs. and Mrs. O sent an email to guidance counselor, Ms.
Walsh-Lindey, Science Department Supervisor, Mr. DiDonato, and Science Department
Facilitator, Mr. Williams, outlining their concerns and the detrimental impact this new
science graduation requirement would have on their son. (R-D.) 	On February 26, 2025,
petitioners met with T.O.’s guidance counselor for course selection for the 2025-2026
school year and restated their concerns about the new science requirement and stated
their intention to appeal.
At the Board meeting on February 27, 2025, the Board approved on first reading
the revised language for Board Policy 5460 – High School Graduation.
On March 11, 2025, Haddonfield convened a Level 1 – Building Level Meeting with
the parents to discuss their concerns with the new policy. 	In attendance were Principal
McHale, Mr. DiDonato, and Mr. and Mrs. O. Principal McHale defended the new science
offerings and highlighted their value to the students. She also noted that between study
halls and summer on-line offerings, there was flexibility in T.O.’s schedule for him to meet
this 	requirement. 	The parents’ 	counter 	position 	was 	that 	T.O.’s 	study 	halls 	were
intentionally planned to support his ambitious workload. 	They also questioned whether
environmental science was a New Jersey State requirement and whether it was needed
for State graduation requirements. With Principal McHale’s denial of their request for an
exemption, petitioners pursued their appeal to Level 11 - Assistant Superintendent
Appeal. (R-J.)
On March 18, 2025, Mr. DiDonato met with the Curriculum Committee, which
included the Board President, Jaimie Grookett, Board members, Nousheen Yousuf-

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
5
Sadiq, and Jessice Drass, and Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Priolo. At this meeting, the
Committee reviewed and discussed feedback, data, reporting, and teacher feedback
collected as part of the science audit, and the potential impacts of adopting the Science
Audit Committee’s recommendations. (R-G.)
At 	the 	Board 	meeting 	on 	March 	20, 	2025, 	Mr. 	DiDonato 	gave 	a 	second
presentation to the Board and the public on the Science Audit Committee’s findings and
recommendations. 	(R-H.) 	After 	reviewing 	the 	Science 	Audit 	Committee’s 	full
recommendations and listening to the presentation of the Audit Committee’s findings
including the data compiled by the Audit Committee, the Board voted in favor of adopting
revised 	Policy 	5460 	– 	High 	School 	Graduation, 	including 	the 	science 	curriculum
graduation requirements. (Cert, Grookett, par. 14.)
In response to their email request, the parents met with Assistant Superintendent,
Dr. Priolo, on March 26, 2025, as their Level II Appeal. By email, dated March 28, 2025,
Dr. Priolo denied petitioners request for an exception to the Board’s recently approved
graduation requirement. Dr. Priolo stated the primary reasons for his decision:
1. Peer Consistency: [T.O.’s] current and projected course
load 	is 	comparable 	to 	many 	of 	his 	peers. 	While 	we
acknowledge that junior and senior years are demanding, the
new science requirement applies uniformly to all students in
his cohort.
2. 	General Stress of Upperclassmen: 	We recognize the
inherent 	stress 	associated 	with 	junior 	and 	senior 	years,
including 	standardized 	testing, 	college 	applications, 	and
extracurricular commitments. 	This is a common experience
for most students in this stage of their academic journey.
3. 	Study Hall Support: 	To help alleviate [T.O.’s] workload,
he will have several dedicated weekly study hall periods next
year. This structured time will provide him with opportunities
for focused study and academic support.
4. 	Summer Course Flexibility: If you and [T.O.] desire
additional 	flexibility 	in 	their 	schedule, 	we 	recommend

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
6
exploring online summer course options. This allows students
to complete required coursework at their own pace and
potentially free up space in their regular school year schedule.
[R-K.]
By email, dated March 30, 2025, petitioners stated their position disputing Dr.
Priolo’s reasoning. 	Petitioners believed that in its haste to meet New Jersey Student
Learning Standards (NJSLS), Haddonfield failed to abide by the standard practice of not
changing graduation requirements midstream for students. 	They further argued that the
new requirement would add more stress to the inherent stress of junior and senior years,
by increasing workload. 	Using study halls is not an option because these periods were
purposely built into T.O.’s schedule as support. Summer is already scheduled and adding
an additional cost was not a reasonable or fair option. 	In closing, petitioners reiterated
that T.O. plans to apply to top-tier engineering schools and competing in another
international music competition would be jeopardized by adding an additional graduation
requirement with only two years left in high school. Ibid. 	Petitioners requested a meeting
with Superintendent Klaus and renewed their request for an exemption.
On April 30, 2025, petitioners met with Superintendent Klaus. After consideration,
Mr. Klaus denied petitioners’ request. Mr. Klaus provided petitioners with the history and
the rationale for the change to the science curriculum. 	He explained that the District’s
last science audit was in 2008, which was prior to New Jersey’s adoption of the national
Next Generation Science Standards in 2014. 	Various options were considered to bring
Haddonfield students up to the required standards. The committee felt immediate action
was needed to address the deficiency in state standards. The analysis included an impact
on student schedules, which was reviewed with members of the Board. 	Mr. Klaus
explained the justification for starting this program with rising juniors because many
seniors would have already fulfilled their old science requirements. 	While Mr. Klaus
empathized with petitioners, he did not see compelling enough arguments and reasons
to grant petitioners’ request for an exception. 	Mr. Klaus stressed that the process and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
7
decision-making were thorough and thoughtful. The policy was vetted at several levels,
accepted by the Board, and adopted as graduation requirements. (R-L.)
On May 20, 2025, petitioners emailed Board President, Grookett, stating their
concerns with the new science requirement because they believed it was unreasonable
and undermined T.O.’s legitimate need for reliable scheduling requirements. Id.
Petitioners’ appeal to the Board was heard in executive session at the June 12,
2025, Board meeting. 	Petitioners presented a seven slide PowerPoint. 	(R-O.) 	Board
President Grookett, in her Certification, stated that the Board discussed the impact of the
new science graduation requirements on T.O. as presented by his parents. 	During
deliberations, the Board recognized that when they approved the new policy, they had
considered the impact it would have on the Class of 2027 by requiring them to take a
physics and an environmental science course during their last two years at Haddonfield.
As indicated by the Science Audit Committee findings and the presentations from Mr.
DiDonato, it was feasible for students to meet the new requirements as determined from
a review of students’ schedules. 	Although the Board commended T.O.’s vigorous
academic 	caseload 	and 	extracurricular 	activities, 	they 	did 	not 	find 	extenuating
circumstances that would justify an exemption from the new graduation requirements.
(Cert. of Grookett.) 	After deliberation, the Board denied the petitioners’ appeal seeking
an exemption from Board Policy 5460’s science requirements. (R-N.)
Summary Decision
Under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, “[a]
party may move for summary decision upon all or any of the substantive issues in a
contested case.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). Summary decision may be granted “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). Herein, as there is no dispute as to
any material fact, summary decision is appropriate.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
8
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The Commissioner will not overturn the decision of a local board in the absence of
a finding that the action below was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	T.B.M. v.
Moorestown 	Bd. 	of 	Educ., 	EDU 	2780-07, 	Initial 	Decision 	(February 	6, 	2008),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/> (citing Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89
N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965), aff’d, 46 N.J. 581(1966)). The Commissioner will
not substitute his judgment for that of the board of education, whose exercise of its
discretion may not be disturbed unless shown to be “patently arbitrary, without rational
basis or induced by improper motives.” Kopera v. W. Orange Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super.
288, 294 (App. Div. 1960). 	Our courts have held that “[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.” 	Bayshore Sewage Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 122 N.J. Super. 184, 199-200
(Ch. Div. 1973), aff’d, 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App. Div. 1974). Thus, to prevail, the petitioner
must demonstrate that the Board acted in bad faith, or in utter disregard of the
circumstances before it. 	T.B.M., EDU 2780-07. 	It is a weighty burden; one which I
CONCLUDE these petitioners have not met. 	This record has presented me with no
evidence that would suggest that the actions of this Board, the District’s Curriculum
Committee, or District Administration, were taken in bad faith or in utter disregard of the
circumstances presented when tasked with revising the science curriculum.
In general, a board of education's actions are entitled to a presumption of
lawfulness and good faith… Where board actions are challenged, the challenger bears
the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	such 	actions 	were 	unlawful, 	arbitrary, 	capricious 	or
unreasonable. 	Schuster v. Bd. of Educ. Montgomery Twp., 96 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 670,
676 (citing Schnick v. Westwood Bd. of Educ., 60 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 1960, and
Quinlan v. North Bergen Bd. of Educ., 73 N.J. Super. 40, 46 (App. Div. 1962)). 	This
standard has been defined by the New Jersey courts as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
9
In the law, arbitrary and capricious means having no rational
basis. … Arbitrary and capricious action of administrative
bodies 	means 	willful 	and 	unreasoning 	action, 	without
consideration and in disregard of circumstances. Where there
is no 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 . . . Moreover, the court should not substitute its
judgement for that of an administrative or legislative body if
there is substantial evidence to support the ruling. [Piccoli v.
Bd. of Educ. of Ramapo Indian Hills Regional School District,
OAL Dkt. EDU 1839-98 (January 22, 1999 (citing, Bayshore
Sewage Co. v. Dept. of Envir. Protection, 122 N.J. Super.
184, 199-200 (Ch. Div. 1973), aff'd 131 N.J. Super. 37 (App.
Div. 1974) (emphasis added).
Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the Commissioner will not substitute
his own judgment for that of the Board of Education. Massaro v. Bd. of Educ of the
Borough of Bergenfield, 1965 S.L.D. 84, 85. 	In Kopera v. Bd. of Educ. of West
Orange, 60 N.J. Super. 288, 294 (App. Div. 1960), the Appellate Division stated the well-
established rule that action of the local board [of education] which lies within the area of
its discretionary powers may not be upset unless patently without rational basis or
induced by improper motives. See also, G.M. v. Roselle Park Borough Bd. of Educ., 95
N.J.A.R.2d (EDU) 107, 109, (Commissioner adopted the decision of the ALJ when in a
challenge to board action, the ALJ stated, it is the management prerogative of boards of
education that will not be usurped or assumed by the Commissioner of Education absent
a definitive showing of bad faith or arbitrary actions taken in bad faith without a rational
basis.)
If the record reflects a rational basis for the action, as well as an absence of bad
faith, the board's action shall be upheld. See Red Bank Teachers Ass'n v. Bd. of Educ.
of 	Red 	Bank, 	OAL 	Dkt. 	EDU 	5328-80 	(April 30, 1981) 	adopted 	Comm. 	Ed.
(June 15, 1981), (where the ALJ upheld a board's approval of a new Mastery Learning
curriculum 	as 	a 	valid 	exercise 	of 	managerial 	prerogative 	that 	was 	rationally
determined.); G.M., 95 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU) 107 (where the ALJ found the board's decision
to change geographic boundaries for kindergarten pupil placement, with a goal of evenly

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
10
distributing the pupils at different schools within the district, to be a reasonable exercise
of authority).
To support their claims, petitioners maintained that it was unfair to T.O. for the
Board to change his graduation requirements midway through high school. 	When T.O.
enrolled in Haddonfield, he was given Haddonfield’s Program of Studies 2023-2024, to
guide his course selection process to meet his graduation requirements and his college
plans. 	Petitioners believed that the Board failed to grasp the impact of this change on
T.O.’s 	already 	burdened 	schedule. 	Petitioners 	doubted 	that 	the 	analysis 	by 	the
Curriculum Committee or the data presented to the Board thoroughly considered the real
cost of adding an additional semester long class to an overburdened student, who only
had two years to comply. The Board’s offer to use study hall time or summer vacation to
lessen the impact on T.O.’s time constraints was rejected by petitioners as unsatisfactory
and not viable. 	For petitioners, the only fair and sensible approach would have been for
the Board to implement the new science graduation requirements with the incoming
freshmen class.
Petitioners’ claims are two-fold. 	Their first argument is that they should prevail
under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The elements of promissory estoppel are "1)
a clear and definite promise, 2) made with the expectation that the promisee will rely upon
it, 3) reasonable reliance upon the promise, 4) which results in definite and substantial
detriment." 	Lobiondo v. O’Callaghan, 357 N.J. Super 488, 497 (App. Div. 2003). 	I
CONCLUDE that petitioners have not made out even a prima facie case for promissory
estoppel.
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-5, the BOE “shall provide each high school pupil and the
parents or legal guardians of such pupil with a copy of said board’s policy on graduation,
including a clear statement of the proficiencies required for graduation and those
programs available to assist in attaining those levels of proficiency.” 	Pursuant to
guidelines established by the Commissioner of Education, the BOE must also “establish
standards for graduation,” which shall include but not be limited to proficiency “in those

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
11
subject areas and skills identified by the board as necessary for graduation other than
those assessed by the Statewide assessment tests.” N.J.S.A. 18A:7C-2.
The Board’s revised science course sequence and programing did not change the
minimum fifteen credit requirement in evidence-based science courses originally stated
in Policy 5460 and required under N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1. 	Rather, the revision adopted on
March 25, 2025, by the BOE provided as follows:
At least fifteen credits in science, including at least five credits
in laboratory biology/life science or the content equivalent; at
least 	five 	credits 	in 	laboratory 	chemistry 	or 	the 	content
equivalent; and at least 2.5 credits each in laboratory/inquiry-
based environmental science and physics.
[R-I, Board Policy 5460, Section (A)(1)(d).]
Petitioners recognized that the Board has the power and responsibility to revise
curriculum. 	Petitioners’ argument that T.O. relied upon the Program of Studies 2023-
2024, given to him upon enrollment, to plan his four years of high school course work, as
the basis for a promissory estoppel claim is based on a faulty premise. (P-7.) 	The total
credits required for graduation did not change. The three-year science requirement of at
least fifteen credits did not change. Every year, T.O. participates in the course selection
process, where he must decide among a variety of choices. 	Haddonfield has taken no
action that prevents T.O. from achieving his goals and objectives or taking the classes he
desired. 	While graduation requirements through total credit hours required were
provided, there was nothing promised about course programing, sequence, or changes
to curriculum.
Haddonfield made no promises to T.O. upon enrollment that there would be no
change to the science curriculum or course offerings. 	Moreover, all T.O.’s choices are
still available to him. The classes he needs to fulfill his goals remain available. 	Thus, I
CONCLUDE that petitioners have not set forth a claim of promissory estoppel.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
12
Petitioners’ second argument is that Haddonfield’s decision to apply the revised
science requirement to the Class of 2027, was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
Although petitioners claim that the decision was rushed, and made without proper thought
being given to the detrimental impact it would have upon the schedules of juniors and
seniors, the Board provided sound, rational basis through the Certifications of Dr. Priolo,
Superintendent Klaus, and Board President Grookett to support its decision for the new
science course sequence and amend the graduation requirements to include physics and
environmental science, beginning with the Class of 2027. More importantly, as stated in
the Certifications, due consideration was given to the impact this change would have on
the schedules of the members of the Class of 2027. Under T.O.’s stated plan to take a
year of physics followed by a year of AP Science, he still had two school years to take the
added one semester course in environmental science. 	Respondent recognized that
through 	study 	halls, 	this 	course 	could be accommodated 	within 	that 	time 	frame.
Respondent’s position was not unreasonable. 	Petitioners’ argument that T.O. had
already dedicated his study halls for the next two years to support his overall schedule
was not persuasive.
Petitioners have not shown extraordinary circumstances or detrimental impact to
T.O. from the Board’s decision to revise Policy 5460, effective with the Class of 2027.
The 	Board 	recounted 	the 	decision-making 	process 	utilized 	by 	the 	District, 	which
supported the science curriculum change. The implementation of the revised policy also
provided flexibility for members of the Class of 2027, to comply with the new requirement
over the course of two school years.
I CONCLUDE petitioners have not met their burden to demonstrate that the
decision of the Board, in adopting the revision to Policy 5460 – High School Graduation
was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
13
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s motion for
summary decision is GRANTED and petitioner’s cross-motion for summary decision is
DENIED.
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. 	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.
February 19, 2026
DATE 	KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ
KMC/tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
14
APPENDIX
Exhibits
Petitioner:
P-1 	New Jersey State Minimum Graduation Requirements
P-2 	2020 New Jersey Student learning Standards – Science
P-3 	Course Selection for the Class of 2027 email, dated January 17, 2023
P-4 	Directions for course selection, dated January 11, 2023
P-5 	Copy of PowerPoint presentation - dated January 8, 2025
P-6 	2025-2026 Course Information Night
P-7 	Haddonfield 2023-2024 Program of Studies
P-8 	N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1 (Graduation requirements)
P-9 	Recommended Course of Study for Princeton University
P-10 	5719 Student Grievance
P-11 	0131 Bylaws and Policies
Respondent:
R-A 	5460 High School Graduation Letter, dated March 15, 2024
R-B 	Curriculum Committee – December 4, 2024
R-C 	Minutes, Regular Board Meeting – December 12, 2004
R-D 	Sophomore course selection counselor meeting, dated February 13, 2025
R-E 	Course Selection conference with Mrs. Lindsey
R-F 	Minutes, Regular Board Meeting – February 27, 2025
R-G 	Curriculum Committee - March 18, 2025
R-H 	Minutes, Regular Board Meeting – March 20, 2025
R-I 	5460 High School Graduation – BOE Approval, dated February 28, 2019
R-J 	Confidential – Case Summary
R-K 	Emails regarding new science requirements
R-L 	Emails – Science Class Appeal

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 15159-25
15
R-M 	Emails – May 20, 2025 – May 28, 2025
R-N 	Board’s decision denying grievance, dated June 12, 2025
R-O 	Power Point presentation to Board