L.G., on behalf of minor child, D.G. v. Board of Education of the West Morris Regional High School District, Morris County, 2/20/2024, (#118-24)

118-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.G., on behalf of minor child, D.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the West Morris Regional
High School District, Morris County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner L.G. sought permission to have her son, D.G., a junior at West Morris Central High
School, register for IB-HL Calculus/Analysis 3 for the 2023-2024 school year. “IB” in the course name
stands for “International Baccalaureate.” Both the respondent Board’s Program of Studies and the
International Baccalaureate Organization mandate that IB/HL Calculus 3 be offered solely to students in
Grade Twelve (12) who have satisfied the necessary prerequisites. Petitioner alleged that the Board’s
refusal to permit D.G. to register for the class was based on his age and therefore in violation of
N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2). A hearing in the matter was held on September 28, 2023 and the record closed
thereafter on December 22, 2023.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: school board decisions are entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be disturbed unless there is an affirmative showing that the decision was arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable; where board actions are challenged, the petitioner bears the burden of proof to show
that the Board’s actions were unlawful, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable; in matters involving the
exercise of a local board of education’s discretion, the Commissioner’s role is not to substitute his
judgment for that of the board, but to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the board’s
conclusions; 	here, petitioner’s reliance on N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2) to support her argument that the
Board discriminated against D.G. based on his age when they denied his requested placement in IB-HL
Calculus/Analysis 3 as a junior is without merit; the Board provided a rational basis for its policy to limit
enrollment in IB/HL Calc 3 to twelfth (12 th ) grade students only; D.G. was entitled to take the course in
the 2023-2024 school year, but D.G. and his family chose to enroll in “senior option” for this year,
effectively negating his ability to enroll in the desired math course. The ALJ concluded that the Board’s
actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Accordingly, the petitioner’s appeal was denied.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions. 	Accordingly, the
Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, for the reasons stated
therein. The petition was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader
and has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

118-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU
03332-23 Agency Dkt. No.
52-3/23 New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.G., on behalf of minor child, D.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the West Morris Regional
High School District, Morris 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 that the
West Morris Regional High School District Board of Education’s decision to deny D.G. the opportunity to
enroll in IB-HL Calculus/Analysis 3 – a course limited to twelfth-grade students – as an eleventh-grade
student was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and does not violate N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2).
Accordingly, the OAL decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: February 20, 2024
Date of Mailing: February 22, 2024
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.

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 52-3/23
L.G. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, D.G.,
Petitioner,
v
WEST MORRIS REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BOARD OF EDUCATION, MORRIS
COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________________
L.G., petitioner, pro se
Danielle A. Panizzi, Esq., for respondent , (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri &
Jacobs, LLC)
Record Closed: December 22, 2023 	Decided: January 22, 2024
BEFORE ELISSA MIZZONE TESTA, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, L.G., seeks to have the West Morris Regional High School District,
Board of Education, Morris County (“BOE”, “WMRHSD” or “respondent”) permit her son
D.G. to register for the next Calculus class in his pathway for the 2023-2024 school

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
2
year; in particular, IB/HL Calculus/Analysis 3 (also referred to as “IB/HL Calculus III and
IB/HL Calc III”). 	Petitioner alleges that the BOE’s refusal to permit D.G. to register for
the class is based on his age and thus, is in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2). 	“IB
stands for International Baccalaureate”.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about February 26, 2023, petitioner L.G. on behalf of her son, D.G. filed a
pro se Petition with the New Jersey Department of Education (“NJDOE”) Office of
Controversies and Disputes seeking that the respondent should allow D.G. to register
for the next math class in his pathway IB/HL Calculus/Analysis 3, for the 2023-2024
school year, recognizing that D.G. has completed the prerequisite course and has
teacher recommendation to move on to IB/HL Calculus/Analysis 3 for the 2023-2024
school year, and WMRHSD should recognize that prohibiting any general education
student 	from 	registering 	for 	a 	class 	due 	to 	age 	is 	a 	violation 	of 	New 	Jersey
Administrative Code 6A:7-1.7(b)(2). Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on April
12, 2023. 	The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) on
April 13, 2023. 	A hearing was conducted on September 28, 2023. 	Post-hearing
summation briefs were submitted by the parties and the record was closed based on the
last submission date of December 22,2023.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence presented at the hearing,
the following facts are undisputed and thus, I FIND:
The District’s principal place of business is 10 South Four Bridges Road Chester,
New Jersey 07930. 	Petitioner L.G., on behalf of minor child D.G., resides at 186 Old
Turnpike Road, Port Murray, New Jersey 07865. 	D.G. is currently sixteen (16) years
old and is an eleventh (11 th) grade student at West Morris Central High School. During
his ninth (9 th) grade year in the 2021-2022 school year, D.G. successfully completed
Geometry Honors and Algebra II Honors at West Morris Central High School. D.G. also
completed 	College 	Calculus 	I 	through 	the 	County 	College 	of 	Morris 	Challenger

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
3
Program. 	He successfully passed an Accuplacer examination allowing him to skip
Pre-Calculus 	Honors 	following 	the 	completion 	of 	the 	College 	Calculus 	I 	course.
Accordingly, D.G. was placed in B.C. Calculus for the 2022-2023 school year and
successfully completed the course. 	Because both the District Program of Studies and
the International Baccalaureate Organization mandates that IB/HL Calculus III is offered
to Grade Twelve (12) students only, the District denied D.G.’s request to enroll in the
course as a Grade Eleven (11) student. D.G.’s decision to enroll in the District’s “senior
option” track is at his sole discretion. (Emphasis Added).
L.G. is D.G.’s mother and testified on her son’s behalf. 	D.G. is currently a junior
at WMRHSD. 	L.G. is a science teacher in the District. 	She testified with respect to
D.G.’s academic trajectory in math courses at Central. 	Specifically, D.G. completed
Geometry Honors and Algebra II Honors in ninth (9 th) grade. 	He also completed
College Calculus I in ninth (9th) grade via enrollment through the County College of
Morris Challenger Program. Due to his mastery of these subjects, the District permitted
D.G. to skip Pre-Calculus Honors after he successfully passed an end-of-course test.
Accordingly, D.G. took BC Calculus in tenth (10th) grade for the 2022-2023
school year. 	D.G. completed the course with a 98% average. 	L.G. testified that D.G.
would 	like 	to 	become 	a 	quantum 	physicist. 	She 	further 	testified 	that 	the 	most
competitive universities expect their applicants to have completed the highest level of
course work in their school districts with respect to physics and mathematics. 	Because
the highest level of mathematics that the District offers with respect to mathematics is
IB/HL Calculus III, she requested that D.G. be placed in that course for his eleventh
(11 th) grade year. 	She testified that the District did not accept her request because the
District offers IB/HL Calc III to Grade 12 students only. She testified that she disagreed
with the District’s decision to deny D.G.’s enrollment in the course, especially because
he completed BC Calculus already, which is the prerequisite course for IB/HL Calc III.
In her opinion, IB/HL Calc III should be offered to any general education student who
has successfully completed the requisites, and “age should not matter.” 	(Emphasis
added). 	She testified that D.G. will be participating in “senior option” for the 2024-2025
school year, which means that he will be attending four (4) classes in the morning at
Central and attending County College of Morris in the afternoons and evenings. 	She

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
4
testified that because he is exercising this option, he will not have room in his high
school schedule to take a math class in twelfth (12 th) grade. 	L.G. testified that this has
“set up a hardship situation” because he will not be able to be an “ideal candidate” for
ivy league schools without taking IB/HL Calc III. (Emphasis added). 	It is important to
note that it is D.G.’s choice to participate in the senior option route; and at no time did
the District advise or instruct D.G. to do so.
L.G. also testified that because D.G. is not a student in the IB program, the IB
rules requiring that the IB/HL Calc III examination be taken in a student’s twelfth (12 th)
grade year should not apply to D.G. 	She testified that the District’s limits on remote
links for students to take classes virtually in only specific circumstances are “age” and
“socioeconomic” discrimination. L.G. testified that the fact that the IB/HL Calc III course
is offered in-person at Mendham High School, the other District high school and not
Central is a form of discrimination biased against those of us who cannot afford to
reside in the more affluent zones of the District.
L.G. further conceded and stipulated to the fact that there is a difference between
a “grade restriction” with respect to academic course offerings and an “age restriction.”
(Emphasis added). 	She confirmed that D.G. is sixteen years old, and the District has
never relayed to her that he cannot take IB/HL Calc III due to the fact that he is sixteen-
but rather because he is in Grade 11. 	She further admitted that she understood
different grade levels encompass children of all different ages. 	For example, a 12th
grade class can consist of ages from 16 through 19.
Additionally, with respect to D.G.’s courses and exercising his “senior option,”
L.G. testified that the District did not tell her specifically that D.G. would not be able to
take IB/HL Calc III during his twelfth (12th) grade year, but rather, D.G. chose other
classes aside from Calc III for his four District courses. 	She testified that if D.G. chose
to take Calc III, it would eliminate another course selection that he wanted to take. (1Tr.
39:1-25). Specifically, she stated:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
5
You’re right that was our choice that the four classes that we
have potentially picked definitely was our choice, right. 	And
we chose not to pick the Calculus III for senior year.
(1Tr. 39:11-19). (Emphasis added).
The undersigned followed the District’s cross-examination with several follow-up
questions for purposes of clarification and completeness of the record.
Q. 	Okay. So, the only reason why you’re now seeking for
your son to be in this AB Calculus III class which is
only offered for 12 th grades, while you’re now seeking
it for the 11 th grade is because you’ve chose and your
son has chosen to do the senior option, correct?
A. 	Correct, yes. 	It sets up a hardship to where he can’t
get into it his 12th grade year.
Q. 	Well, 	it’s 	only 	a 	hardship 	because 	you 	chose 	a
different pathway for your son, correct?
A. 	Oh, I see. I see, okay.
Q. 	Yes?
A. 	Yes.
(1Tr. 43: 1-16).
Melissa Heike testified on behalf of the respondent. 	On July 1, 2023, Heike was
appointed and continues to be employed as the District’s Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum and Instruction. 	Before being appointed as the Assistant Superintendent of
Curriculum 	and 	Instruction, 	Heike 	was 	employed 	as 	the 	District’s 	Supervisor 	of
Mathematics, 	Assistant 	Principal, 	and 	Supervisor 	of 	Curriculum, 	Instruction, 	and
Evaluation. Throughout these roles, Heike has had continued oversight of the District’s
Math Department. 	As Math Supervisor, she was responsible for overseeing the
mathematics curriculum and creating the District’s Program of Studies, among other

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
6
roles. 	As 	Assistant 	Superintendent 	of 	Curriculum 	and 	Instruction, 	she 	oversees
curriculum, professional development, and evaluation of all of the District’s departments
and teachers. 	She is a certified teacher of Mathematics, and has a New Jersey State
Supervisor’s Certificate, New Jersey State Principal’s Certificate, and a provisional
certificate for Chief School Administrator.
Heike testified that D.G. is currently a junior at West Morris Central High School
for the 2023-2024 school year. 	Because the District is a regional high school district,
the District has two high schools - Central and Mendham. 	Heike first became familiar
with D.G. in November of 2021 of his freshman year when a guidance counselor
reached out to her with respect to D.G.’s math placement. 	At the time, D.G. was an
“incredibly 	bright 	student” 	enrolled 	in 	Geometry 	Honors 	and 	Algebra 	II 	Honors.
(Emphasis added). 	L.G. had reached out to the District requesting that D.G. be placed
in BC Calculus for his tenth (10 th) grade year. 	(1Tr. 51:1-18). 	The District permitted
D.G. to take the required Accuplacer Assessment to test out of pre-calculus for tenth
(10 th) 	grade. 	He 	achieved 	the 	required 	score 	and 	was 	accordingly 	placed 	into
Advanced Placement Calculus BC for tenth (10 th) grade. 	Heike testified that the
College Board, which governs Advance Placement (“AP”) classes, does not have a
grade restriction for the course. So, D.G. was able to take the class as a sophomore.
Heike next spoke with L.G. in December 2022 of D.G.’s sophomore year. 	Heike
advised L.G. that because IB/HL Calc III is only offered to twelfth (12 th) grade students,
the next appropriate course for D.G. would be placement in AP Statistics. 	She testified
that because IB/HL Calc III is an International Baccalaureate class, the International
Baccalaureate Organization mandates that the course be taken in the student’s senior
year. 	She testified that the Grade 12 Restriction has nothing to do with age, but it is
rather defined by the number of credits a student has accumulated and their anticipated
graduation year. 	She testified that pursuant to the West Morris Program of Studies,
students must have completed BC Calculus first and are planning to take the IB exam in
HL math. 	(R-2). 	Heike testified that IB/HL Calc III has been limited to Grade 12
students in the Program of Studies since the 2020-2021 school year when it was first
offered. (R1 through R-5). 	She testified that because IB/HL Calc III is a higher-level
course, it is completed in a two (2) year sequence. 	She testified that the 2019-2020

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
7
school year was the first year the IB/HL Calc III course appeared in the Program of
Studies - when D.G. was in the seventh (7 th) grade. She testified that at that time, D.G.
was not even on the path for taking the IB/HL Calc III course, so he was not affected by
the Grade 12 restriction.
Heike further testified that in February of 2023 of D.G.’s tenth (10 th) grade year,
L.G. reached out to Assistant Superintendent Ed Braun, and other District personnel
including Heike and former Superintendent of Schools Michael Ben-David again respect
to D.G.’s math placement for his junior year via e-mail. (P-7). 	She discussed that the
members of the District’s Administration determined through a three-pronged approach
if D.G. could take the class remotely via the course offered at Central High School
during his junior year. The District first assessed whether D.G. needed the course as a
graduation requirement. 	D.G. had already completed his math requirements. 	The
District then assessed whether IB/HL Calc III was a program requirement that he could
not fulfill at Central Highschool. 	Since D.G. is not in the IB program, this reasoning did
not apply. 	Finally, the District assessed whether D.G. had exhausted all of his course
options available in person: he did not - as he had not yet taken AP statistics. 	She
testified that absolutely none of the District’s reasoning for D.G.’s math placement had
to do with his age. 	He has always had and continues to have, the option to take the
course in twelfth (12th) grade. 	She testified that D.G. would be able to take the class
virtually during twelfth (12 th) grade because he would then have exhausted all of his
course offerings in math.
Heike testified that with respect to D.G.’s decision to exercise his “senior option”
for twelfth (12 th) grade, there may be scheduling concerns that he would need to
prioritize which classes are important to him to take - since you can only take four (4)
classes within the District. 	She testified that she has seen scenarios where students
must choose between courses that are scheduled during the same time period.
It is necessary for me to assess and weigh the credibility of the witnesses for the
purposes of making factual findings as to the disputed facts. Credibility is the value that
a finder of the facts gives to a witness’s testimony. It requires an overall assessment of
the witness’s story in light of its rationality, internal consistency, and the manner in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
8
which it “hangs together” with the other evidence. 	Carbo v. Unites States, 314 F.2d
718, 749 (9th Cir. 1963). 	“Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself,” in that “[i]t must be such as
the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable in the
circumstances.” 	In re Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). 	A trier of fact may reject
testimony 	as 	“inherently 	incredible,” 	and 	may 	also 	reject 	testimony 	when 	“it 	is
inconsistent with other testimony or with common experience” or it is “overborne” by the
testimony of other witnesses. 	Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282,
287 (App. Div. 1958). 	Similarly, “[t]he interests, motive, bias or prejudice of a witness
may affect his credibility and justify the [trier of fact], whose province it is to pass upon
the credibility of an interested witness, in disbelieving his testimony.” State v. Salimone,
19 N.J. Super. 600, 608 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 10 N.J. 316 (1952) (citation omitted).
The choice of rejecting the testimony of a witness, in whole or in part, rests with the trier
and finder of the facts, and must simply be a reasonable one. 	Renan Realty Corp. v.
Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs, 182 N.J. Super. 415, 421 (App. Div. 1981).
In evaluating the testimony and evidence, I found L.G. and Heike to be forthright
and credible witnesses. 	They both gave detailed, candid, and sincere testimony
regarding their knowledge of the issue, and which I accept as FACT.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
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:
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
9
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. 1960the 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 	(where the 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.)
As long as 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 distributing the pupils at different schools within the district, to be a reasonable
exercise of authority).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
10
To support her claims that the District somehow discriminated against D.G. with
respect 	to 	his 	math 	placement, 	Petitioner 	relies 	on 	N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2) 	which
provides, in pertinent part:
Each district board of education shall ensure the school
district’s curriculum and instruction are aligned to the New
Jersey Student Learning Standards. 	The district board of
education also shall ensure its curriculum and instruction
address the elimination of discrimination by narrowing the
achievement 	gap, 	by 	providing 	equity 	in 	educational
programs, and by providing opportunities for students to
interact 	positively 	with 	others 	regardless 	of 	race, 	creed,
color, 	national 	origin, 	ancestry, 	age, 	marital 	status,
affectional or sexual orientation, gender, religion, disability,
or socioeconomic status, by:
… 2. Ensuring courses shall not be offered separately on the
basis of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, age,
marital 	status, 	affectional 	or 	sexual 	orientation 	gender,
religion, disability, or socioeconomic status.
N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2).
Although petitioner claims that the District’s decisions with respect to D.G.’s math
placement constitute “age discrimination,” the District provided sound, rational bases at
hearing to support its choice to limit IB/HL Calc III to twelfth (12 th) grade students in its
Program of Studies. 	Indeed, Heike testified that the District must adhere to the
protocols 	and 	regulations 	of 	the 	International 	Baccalaureate 	Organization, 	which
mandates that IB/HL Calc III be taken in a student’s senior year. 	Most importantly, the
petitioner conceded and stipulated to the fact that there is a difference between a “grade
restriction” with respect to academic course offerings and an “age restriction”. 	Indeed,
D.G. is sixteen (16) years old, and the District has never relayed to the petitioner that he
cannot take IB/HL Calc III due to the fact that he is sixteen. Rather, he simply must wait
- just as every other student in the District irrespective of their age- to complete the
course during his twelfth (12 th) grade year. 	To wit, both petitioner herself and Heike
testified that the District has never communicated that D.G. is prohibited from taking the
course due to his age. 	Moreover, the petitioner’s claims that D.G. was thwarted from
his pathway to take the course during his eleventh (11 th) grade year is without merit.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
11
Heike testified that the 2019-2020 school year was the first year the IB/HL Calc III
course appeared in the Program of Studies - when D.G. was in the seventh (7th) grade -
well before D.G. was on the path to taking IB/HL Calc III.
Heike’s testimony further demonstrated the District’s rational basis for denying
petitioner’s request for D.G. to enroll in IB/HL Calc III during his junior year. 	Through
her testimony, Heike explained that although D.G. attends West Morris Central High
School, D.G. IB/HL Calc III is offered virtually at West Morris Mendham High School.
Aside from the fact that IB/HL Calc III is limited to twelfth (12th) grade students, the
District used a three-pronged approach to reason that: 	1) there was no imminent need
for D.G. to be enrolled in the course for junior year as he has already completed his
math requirements; 2) D.G. is not enrolled in the IB program - and thus, he was not
required to be enrolled in course at Central to meet IB program requirements; and 3)
D.G. had not exhausted all of his in-person math requirements, as he did not yet take
AP Statistics. 	Petitioner’s “age discrimination” claims are baseless in fact. 	Moreover,
she 	unfairly 	presumes 	that 	the 	District’s 	exercise 	of 	its 	legitimate 	managerial
prerogatives is prejudicial. 	Although petitioner claims that the District’s decision to limit
IB/HL Calc III to twelfth (12th) grade students poses a hardship to D.G. because he will
only be able to take four (4) courses in-person at the District next year, it is of no
moment to the District that D.G. decided to enroll in “senior option” for the 2023-2024
school year. 	It is not disputed that West Morris is an extremely competitive school
district, and many students are faced with difficult decisions with respect to course
scheduling and prioritizing certain classes to appeal to universities as they move
forward in their respective academic careers.
I CONCLUDE that petitioner failed to present evidence that the District acted in
violation 	of 	N.J.A.C. 6A:7-1.7(b)(2) 	with 	respect 	to 	D.G.’s 	math 	placement. 	The
District’s determination to limit the course to Grade Twelve (12) students and thereby
deny D.G.’s enrollment in the course for his Grade Eleven (11) year is not arbitrary,
unreasonable, or capricious. D.G. may take the course in the 2023-2024 school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
12
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that petitioner’s appeal 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, 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.
January 22, 2024
DATE 	ELISSA MIZZONE TESTA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 22, 2024 	_
Date Mailed to Parties: 	January 22, 2024___________________
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03332-23
13
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For Petitioner:
L.G.
For Respondent:
Melissa Heike
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE
For Petitioner:
None.
For Respondent:
R-1 	Page 35 of the 2023-2024 Program of Studies
R-2 	Page 38 of the 2022-2023 Program of Studies
R-3 	Page 40 of the 2021-2022 Program of Studies
R-4 	Page 40 of the 2020-2021 Program of Studies
R-5 	Page 39 of the 2019-2020 Program of Studies