Stephanie Florio v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 1/23/2024, (#66-24)

66-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Stephanie Florio,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this matter on remand, pro-se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State
Board of Examiners (SBE) that she had not met the requirements for issuance of a Reading Specialist
Certificate because she failed to complete the required three credit hours in a supervised practicum in
reading. 	Petitioner argued that her alternative education and experience satisfied a one-to-one
correspondence to the missing credits, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.13(b). The SBE did not accept
petitioner’s alternative education and experience, finding that petitioner did not establish a compelling
one-to-one correspondence with the Reading Specialist certification requirements. 	The Commissioner
rejected an Initial Decision issued by the Office of Administrative Law in November 2022 and remanded the
matter to the OAL for reconsideration under the correct standard of review, which is whether the SBE’s
decision was consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:3.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13, which sets forth criteria for a reading
specialist certification, does not define “Supervised practicum in reading”; the burden of proof is upon the
petitioner to establish that the SBE’s decision did not comport with the applicable statutory and regulatory
provisions; 	petitioner submitted her work in a course entitled “Assessment and Remediation of Severe
Reading Disabilities” (SPED 609) as the course meeting the supervised reading practicum requirement for a
reading specialist certification; SPED 609 is a three credit course which in fact does contain a supervised
reading practicum; 	while the SBE acknowledged that the course petitioner submitted to fulfill the
practicum requirement did have a practicum component, the course was rejected because “the focus in the
school setting was limited to one type of reading problem and a specific methodology, rather than covering
a broad array of methods, strategies and techniques in the correction of reading problems”; however, the
SBE did not, prior to issuing its decision, specify by rule amendment, or other writing, what the supervised
reading practicum requirement actually was. The ALJ concluded that the SBE’s decision in this matter was
not consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, as the SBE expanded “supervised
reading practicum” from what is stated in the governing rule. Accordingly, the SBE’s denial of petitioner’s
Reading Specialist Certificate was reversed.
Upon review, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that: while the SBE contended that the practicum must
involve a broad array of topics related to reading disabilities, the applicable regulation contains no such
requirement, and a regulation must be construed according to its plain reading. 	Accordingly, the
Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter.
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.

66-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00609-23
(EDU 06851-22 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 172-7/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Stephanie Florio,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the New Jersey State Board of Examiners (Board) pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and petitioner’s reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
In this matter, petitioner challenges the Board’s denial of her application for a Reading
Specialist Certificate. The Board denied petitioner’s application because she did not satisfy
three credit hours in a supervised practicum in reading. Petitioner argued that her alternative
education and experience satisfied a one-to-one correspondence to the missing credits, in
accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(b). Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) concluded that petitioner had met her burden of proof to demonstrate that her
completion of a course entitled “Assessment and Remediation of Severe Reading Disabilities”
(SPED 609) met the requirement of a supervised reading practicum and that the Board’s

2
decision denying her application was not consistent with the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions.
In its exceptions, the Board argues that petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that her alternate education or experience demonstrated a one-to-one
correspondence to the missing coursework as required by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12. According to the
Board, if the ALJ believed there was a question regarding the interpretation of what
“supervised reading practicum” means, the ALJ should have engaged in an analysis of the
principles of statutory construction. The Board contends that merely proffering a course that
had a practicum component does not automatically mean that petitioner has met the
requirements for the Reading Specialist Certificate. The Board argues that the SPED 609 course
was limited to only one specific type of reading difficulty and one specific methodology, rather
than a course focused on a broad array of methods, strategies, and techniques in the correction
of reading problems. Accordingly, the Board urges the Commissioner to reject the
Initial Decision and dismiss the petition of appeal.
In reply, petitioner argues that the ALJ correctly found that the SPED 609 course
included a supervised practicum in reading and that she has therefore met the requirements
for a Reading Specialist Certificate.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has demonstrated
that her completion of the SPED 609 course meets the requirement of N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
14.13(b)(2)(iv) for a supervised practicum in reading. The course syllabus for SPED 609
specifically states:
Students will be required to develop an intervention plan based upon the results
of their assessment and to deliver that remediation in the practicum placement.

3
The focus of the remediation portion of the course will be structured sequential
multi-sensory reading program interventions, Orton Gillingham based, to
address phonemic awareness development, decoding skills, word recognition.
Clearly, the SPED 609 course includes a reading practicum. While the Board contends that the
practicum must involve a broad array of topics related to reading disabilities, the applicable
regulation contains no such requirement, and a regulation must be construed according to its
plain reading.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The
Board’s denial of petitioner’s application for a Reading Specialist Certificate is reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 23, 2024
Date of Mailing: January 25, 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
AGY. DKT. NO. 172-7/22
STEPHANIE FLORIO,
Petitioner, 	ON REMAND
vs. 	OAL DKT. NO.: EDU 06851-22
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
_________________________________
Perry Florio, Esq., for Petitioner (Waters, McPherson, McNeill, attorneys)
Colin Klika, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 18, 2023 	Decided: November 15, 2023
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Stephanie Florio, applied for a Reading Specialist Certification. 	The
State Board of Examiners (Board) determined that Petitioner satisfied all requirements,
except for a one-to-one correspondence between alternative education and experience
presented and the practicum requirement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
2
Petitioner appealed that decision to the Office of Controversies and Disputes.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested
case, where it was filed on August 8, 2022, under Docket No. EDU 06851-22. 	In this
matter Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the undersigned by
Order dated November 15, 2022.
The Acting Commissioner of Education remanded the matter to the undersigned
as noted in her Final Decision dated December 14, 2022. 	In said Final Decision the
Acting Commissioner noted that the undersigned applied the incorrect standard of
review for an appeal filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:-3. 	The correct standard of review is
whether a decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
The remanded matter was filed with the OAL on January 18, 2023, under Docket
No. EDU 00609-23.
A prehearing conference on the remanded matter was held on January 31, 2023,
and a prehearing Order was entered on the same date.
Respondent had filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer in the prior matter.
Accordingly, Respondent filed its Answer on February 1, 2023.
A hearing on the remanded matter was held on July 5, 2023. 	The parties were
afforded the opportunity to submit post hearing briefs. 	Each party filed their respective
post hearing briefs on September 18, 2023, whereupon the record closed.
ISSUE
Whether Board’s denial is supported by the evidence and is consistent with the
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 	The board, in its decision of April 7,
2022, determined that Petitioner failed to meet the practicum requirement for a reading
specialist certificate.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
3
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY
Stephanie Florio, Petitioner, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
She is a teacher employed by the Randolph Board of Education. 	She teaches
reading and writing.
She is a graduate of The College of New Jersey (TCNJ) and holds a Bachelor’s
degree in Education, a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology and a Master’s degree in
Psychology.
In 2017 she decided to apply for a reading specialist certificate.
Ms. 	Florio 	then 	reviewed 	the 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners’ 	decision 	on 	her
application for a reading specialist certificate. 	(J-2) 	She noted the requirements for
such a certificate. At the time of making her application she believed that her education
met the criteria. 	The application was denied and she appealed to the Board of
Examiners. 	The application was denied as the practicum she participated in did not
meet requirements. The decision, J-2, did not list specifics as to the reading practicum.
She participated in a course at TCNJ which had supervised practicum in reading.
She had inquired of the Board as to the criteria for the reading practicum. 	She never
received a response.
Referring 	back 	to 	J-2 	she 	reviewed 	a 	letter 	from 	TCNJ 	outlining 	course
descriptions and was presented to the Board.
Ms. Florio then described a practicum as a practical application under the
supervision of a professor based on the skill taught in the classroom. 	The class she
took had a reading practicum.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
4
CROSS EXAMINATION
The classes she taught were in her capacity as either an English Language Arts
teacher or a special education teacher.
The first class she taught was strictly teaching reading and writing.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
English Language Arts is synonymous to reading and writing. The terms are
interchangeable.
BY THE ALJ
The partial denial by the Board was for the reading practicum. The practicum did
not meet the requirements of the Department.
Rani Singh testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
She 	is 	employed 	as 	the 	Director 	of 	the 	Office 	of 	Recruitment, 	Prep 	and
Certification at the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE). 	She has been
employed at DOE for twenty-one years. 	Prior to that she was a teacher. 	She taught
biology and elementary. 	She never taught reading. 	She does not hold a reading
specialist certification. She does not hold a degree in education. She was an alternate
route teacher.
Ms. Singh then reviewed J-1: Respondent’s Responses to Petitioner’s First Set
of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 	She signed on behalf of
DOE. 	She provided the responses. 	She provided no response to the question asking
to name all persons who have knowledge of facts relating to the within matter.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
5
She also provided no response to the question asking to set forth all facts relied
upon in denying Ms. Florio’s application. 	The answer just refers to the Board’s written
decision.
The response to question 22 refers to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13 in response to a
question for the criteria for supervised practicum in reading relating to a reading
specialist endorsement. The response to Question 23, asking for detail in the content of
supervised practicum in reading relating to reading specialist endorsement, was “see
interrogatory 22”.
No details were provided.
Ms. Singh was asked to review J-2, which were the documents she produced in
response to Petitioner’s request for production of documents. 	She reviewed N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-14.13 and stated that is the sole criteria for a reading specialist certification.
She was present at the telephone conference where the Board heard Ms. Florio’s
appeal. She is the Board secretary.
She confirmed that 6A:9B-14.13 merely states “supervised practicum in reading”.
Nothing was provided that provides any detail or insight into what a reading
practicum must contain.
Ms. Singh then read into the record the description of SPED 609 found in J-2,
page NJDOE 0011. 	She then reviewed page DOE 0097 of J-2, and confirmed that the
course is for the assessment and remediation of reading disabilities for students who
have special needs. This was submitted to the Board by Ms. Florio.
THERE WAS NO CROSS EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
MS. SINGH WAS CALLED AS RESPONDENT’S WITNESS

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
6
DIRECT EXAMANTION OF MS. SINGH AS RESPONDENT’S WITNESS
Ms. Singh described the duties of her office. 	She described the steps for
requesting certificate or an endorsement. 	After an application is received an examiner
reviews it. The examiner reviews all supporting documentation provided.
If an applicant had not completed an approved program the examiner does a
course by course review to make sure it meets the criteria that’s listed in Code. 	This is
what occurred with Ms. Florio’s application.
Ms. Singh then described what occurs after a denial and the appeal process to
the Board.
She then described the role of someone with a reading specialist certification.
She then reviewed what Ms. Florio submitted as alternative education experience
in support of her application.
Ms. Singh then reviewed the various courses submitted and opined that they did
not contain a supervised practicum. 	When asked this question as to SPED 609 she
stated "There’s no practicum component here.” When directed by the undersigned, Ms.
Singh read the following part of the course description:
“Students will be required to develop an intervention plan
based upon the results of their assessment and to deliver
that remediation in the practicum placement. 	The focus of
the 	remediation 	portion 	of 	the 	course 	will 	be 	structured
sequential 	multi-sensory 	reading 	program 	interventions,
Orton Gillingham based, to address phonemic awareness
development, decoding skills, word recognition.”
When asked by the undersigned if this means there is a practicum element to the
course, Ms. Singh replied she was not sure.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
7
Ms. Singh then described the types of reading difficulties and methodologies a
reading specialist needs to be familiar with.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Ms. Singh again reviewed N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13 and noted it does not say a
reading practicum must cover all grade levels. 	She could not answer how a three hour
course could cover all grade levels.
CREDIBILITY
When witnesses present conflicting testimonies, it is the duty of the trier of fact to
weigh each witness’s credibility and make a factual finding. In other words, credibility is
the value a fact finder assigns to the testimony of a witness, and it incorporates the
overall assessment of the witness’s story in light of its rationality, consistency, and how
it 	comports 	with 	other 	evidence. Carbo 	v. 	United 	States, 	314 F.2d 	718 	(9th 	Cir.
1963); see Polk, supra, 90 N.J. 550. Credibility findings “are often influenced by matters
such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human
experience that are not transmitted by the record.” State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463
(1999). A fact finder is expected to base decisions of credibility on his or her common
sense, intuition, or experience. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S. Ct. 2357,
37 L. Ed. 2d 380 (1973).
The finder of fact is not bound to believe the testimony of any witness, and
credibility does not automatically rest astride the party with more witnesses. In re
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514 (1950). Testimony may be disbelieved, but may not be disregarded
at an administrative proceeding. Middletown Twp. v. Murdoch, 73 N.J. Super. 511 (App.
Div. 1962). Credible testimony must not only proceed from the mouth of credible
witnesses but must be credible in itself. Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 (1954).
When facts are contested, the trier of fact must assess and weigh the credibility
of the witnesses for purposes of making factual findings. Credibility is the value that a

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
8
finder of fact gives to a witness’s testimony. 	It requires an overall assessment of the
witness’s story in light of its rationality, its internal consistency, and the manner in which
it “hangs together” with the other evidence. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749
(8th Cir. 1963).
I had difficulty with Ms. Singh’s testimony. 	I was particularly concerned with her
response to the question about SPED 609 where she stated, "There’s no practicum
component here.” 	Clearly the course description identifies a practicum component.
She either answered the question not knowing what the course description stated, or
misrepresented what the course description stated. 	Either way, the response renders
her testimony in this regard not credible. 	Ms. Singh was proffered by the Board to
support their denial of Ms. Florio’s application. It is important to note that the denial was
based solely on the Board’s position that she lacked three credit hours in reading
practicum.
JOINT STIPULATION OF FACTS
1. 	Appellant applied to the NJDOE for a reading specialist certificate in 2017.
2. 	On August 6, 2021 the NJDOE determined that Appellant had met the
requirements of a Master’s Degree and had completed 2 years of teaching
experience, but advised that Appellant would need to complete an additional 12
graduate semester-hour credits to include “Reading Foundations,” “Diagnosis of
Reading 	Problems”, 	“Correction 	of 	Reading 	Problems” 	and 	a 	“Supervised
Practicum in Reading”.
3. 	After further submissions to and review by the NJDOE, on September 28,
2021, the NJDOE re-evaluated Appellant’s application and advised that Appellant
would need to complete an additional 6 graduate semester-hour credits to
include “Reading Foundations” and a “Supervised Practicum in Reading”.
4. 	Thereafter, Appellant appealed the decision of the NJDOE examiner to the
State Board of Examiners and requested that the Board consider alternative

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
9
education and experience to substitute as equivalent to her semester-hour
credits deficiency.
5. 	After review and consideration of this information, the Board determined
that the alternative education and experience Appellant provided was sufficient to
satisfy 	the 	foundations 	requirement. 	However, 	the 	Board 	determined 	that
Appellant failed to meet the practicum requirement and Appellant’s application
was denied on April 7, 2022.
6. 	On July 1, 2022, Appellant filed a petition of appeal of the Board’s decision
with the Bureau of Controversies and Disputes.
7. 	The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law and
following a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of Respondent, the court dismissed
the Appellant’s petition.
8. 	On December 14, 2022, the Acting Commissioner of the State of New
Jersey determined that the Administrative Law Judge applied a standard of
whether or not the Board’s denial was “arbitrary, capricious , or unreasonable” in
denying the petition when the appropriate standard was whether “the Boards’
decision is consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions” and
remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I FIND the following FACTS¸ in addition to the Stipulated Facts:
1. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13, which sets forth criteria for a reading specialist
certification does not define “Supervised practicum in reading”.
2. 	Petitioner submitted her course work in SPED 609 as the course meeting
the 	“supervised 	reading 	practicum 	requirement” 	for 	a 	reading 	specialist
certification. (J-2, Bates NJDOE 0011 and NJDOE 0097-00100)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
10
3. SPED 609 is a three credit course. (J-2, Bates NJDOE 0011)
4. 	The Board, in its decision of April 7, 2022, stated: “However, the Board
finds she did not provide compelling evidence of a one-to-one correspondence
between the remaining requirement of a supervised reading practicum and the
alternative experience and education she presented.” 	The Board went on to
explain what this practicum should entail. (J-7, Bates NJDOE 0114)
5. 	The Board noted that the course Petitioner submitted for the practicum
requirement, Assessment and Remediation of Severe Reading Disabilities, did
have a practicum component “but the focus in the school setting was limited to
one type of reading problem and a specific methodology, rather than covering a
broad array of methods, strategies and techniques in the correction of reading
problems.” (J-7, Bates NJDOE 0114)
6. 	The 	Board 	did 	not, 	prior 	to 	issuing 	its 	decision, 	specify 	by 	rule
amendment, or other writing, what the supervised reading practicum requirement
was.
7. 	SPED 609 contains a supervised reading practicum. 	(J-2, Bates NJDOE
0097)
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
All teaching staff members in the state’s public schools must hold a valid
certificate before serving in any role in which they "teach, administer, direct or supervise
the 	teaching, 	instruction, 	or 	educational 	guidance" 	of 	students. N.J.S.A. 	18A:26-
2. Under N.J.S.A. 	18A:6-38 and N.J.S.A. 	18A:26-2.7, the 	Board 	promulgated
regulations for the required certification of persons employed in a public school district.
Under those regulations, the Board issues three categories of educational certificates:
instructional, 	administrative, 	and 	educational 	services. 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9-5.2(a).
Endorsements for an educational services certificate include staff members such as a
school psychologist or a school social worker. See N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.5, -14.9. These
endorsements “coincide with the educational subjects or positions that share common

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
11
attributes and thus are grouped under a particular certificate.” Dennery v. Bd. of
Educ., 131 N.J. 626, 633 (1993). Accordingly, a person can work in the particular field
based upon the endorsement(s) enumerated on the certificate.
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13 states:
(a) The reading specialist endorsement authorizes the holder
to serve as a reading specialist in preschool through grade
12. 	A 	reading 	specialist 	conducts 	in-service 	training 	of
teachers 	and 	administrators; 	coordinates 	instruction 	for
students or groups of students having difficulty learning to
read; diagnoses the nature and cause of a student's difficulty
in learning to read; plans developmental programs in reading
for all students; recommends methods and materials to be
used in the school district reading program; and contributes
to the evaluation of the reading achievement of students.
(b) A candidate for this endorsement shall have completed a
master's 	degree 	from 	a 	regionally 	accredited 	college 	or
university, two years of successful teaching experience, and
one of the following:
1. 	A Department-approved graduate-degree program in reading; or
2. 	A program of graduate studies of 30 semester-hour credits
consisting of the following:
i. Reading foundations;
ii. Diagnosis of reading problems;
iii. Correction of reading problems;
iv. Supervised practicum in reading; and
v. Study 	in 	at 	least 	three 	of 	the 	following 	areas:
children's 	or 	adolescent 	literature; 	measurement;
organization 	of 	reading 	programs; 	psychology; 	staff
supervision; 	linguistics; 	special 	education; 	research; 	and
foundations of education.
(c) 	An emergency certificate may be issued to a candidate
who has obtained the following:
1. A master's degree from a regionally accredited college or university;
2. Two years of successful teaching experience; and
3. Completion of 12 graduate credits in the areas listed in (b)2 above.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
12
While the Board cannot waive the requirements, it can consider alternative
education or experience if Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, that the alternative education or experience is the one-to-one equivalent with
the 	statutory 	requirements. Hutchinson 	v. 	New 	Jersey 	State 	Board 	of 	Examiners,
EDU16373-12, Initial Decision (April 5, 2013), aff’d, Commissioner (May 15, 2013).
The Board determined that Petitioner satisfied the requirements for RSC, except
for 	six 	of 	the 	thirty 	semester 	hours, 	including 	study 	in 	reading 	foundations 	and
supervised practicum in reading. 	Petitioner requested the Board consider alternate
education and/or experience equivalent to the deficiency noted herein. 	Upon review of
what Petitioner supplied, the Board found Petitioner satisfied the required study in the
area of reading foundations. 	It did not find that Petitioner satisfied the requirement of
supervised reading practicum. 	Accordingly, the Board denied the application as to the
three remaining credits in a supervised practicum in ready.
The standard to apply in this matter is whether the Board’s decision is consistent
with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. See Jessica Walder v. St. Bd. of
Exam’rs, Commissioner’s Decision No. 503-14, dated December 29, 2014.
The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to establish the Board’s decision did
not comport with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. 	McQuilken v. St.
Bd. 	of 	Exam’rs, 	OAL 	Dkt. 	No. 	EDU 	8375-11, 	Initial 	Decision 	(Dec. 	13, 	2011),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collection/oal, adopted Comm’r (January 27, 2012) (citing Farrar
v. St. Bd. of Exam’rs, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13768-08, Initial Decision (Sept. 9, 2009),
adopted Comm’r (July 26, 2010). http//njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal).
Petitioner presented the Board with the course she took, SPED 609, which
contained a supervised reading practicum. 	The Board, in its decision, determined that
this 	course 	did 	not 	meet 	the 	requirement 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-14.13.
However, N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-14.13 does not define what the supervised reading practicum
should encompass. 	Nothing, apparently, defines what this encompasses. 	The Board

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
13
set forth what it believes the supervised reading practicum should be. 	However,
nowhere is that defined in the regulation.
The Board is duly authorized to make rules regarding matters over which it has
jurisdiction. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:4-15 states: The state board shall make and enforce, and
may alter and repeal, rules for its own government and for implementing and carrying
out the school laws of this state under which it has jurisdiction. 	In adopting N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-14.13 it failed to define “supervised reading practicum”. 	Its decision, which does
define “supervised reading practicum” is not the governing rule in the matter at hand.
Accordingly, the Board’s decision is not consistent with the applicable statutory and
regulatory provisions, as the Board expanded “supervised reading practicum” from what
is stated in the governing rule. In effect, the Board made a rule expanding on the
requirement without resort to the rule making procedure set forth in the Administrative
Procedures Act. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 et seq.
I CONCLUDE that 	Petitioner 	has 	shouldered 	her 	burden 	of 	proof 	and
that the Board 	of 	Examiners’ decision 	is 	not 	supported 	by 	credible 	evidence, 	nor
consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s denial of the RSC, as set forth in its
Decision dated April 7, 2022, should be REVERSED.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the Board’s denial of the RSC, as set forth in its
Decision dated April 7, 2022, is REVERSED; and,
It is further ORDERED that the Board issue Reading Specialist Certificate (RSC)
to Petitioner.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
14
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.
November 15, 2023 	____________________________
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	____________________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	_____________________________
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00609-23
15
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
Stephanie Florio, Petitioner
Rani Singh
For Respondent:
Rani Singh
List of Exhibits
Joint Exhibits1
J-1 	Respondent’s Answers to Petitioner’s Interrogatories
J-2 	Respondent’s Response to Petitioner's Request for Production of Documents
J-3 	New Jersey Commissioner of Education’s Final Decision
J-4 	Synopsis of New Jersey Commissioner of Education Final Decision
J-5 	Graduate Bulletin for the 2014-2015
J-6 	Response to Petitioners’ OPRA request
J-7 	April 7, 2022 Decision by New Jersey Dept. of Ed. State Board of Examiners
J-8 	Petitioner’s Transcripts from TCNJ
1 The only documents presented were Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 8. Exhibit 1 was marked J-1 and
Exhibit 2 was marked J-2, Were the only exhibits marked during the hearing. However, the undersigned
has admitted all documents contained in Petitioner’s exhibits a joint exhibits. They are all relevant to the
matter at hand.