Wayne Ernst v. New Jersey Department of Education, Board of Examiners, 11/14/22, (#311-22)

311-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Wayne Ernst,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro-se petitioner challenged the denial of his application for a Teacher of Physical Science Certificate by the
New Jersey Department of Education, Board of Examiners (the Board). The Board denied the application
because petitioner did not meet the specified requirements under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-10.4, as he satisfied the
physics requirement but lacked seven (7) semester-hour credits in chemistry. Petitioner contended that
the Board erred by not accepting as equivalent his similar coursework from disciplines that overlap with
chemistry and his professional experience teaching chemistry. The Board filed a motion to dismiss.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: when a decision by the Board has been appealed, the Commissioner must
determine whether that decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and will not
disturb the decision unless the appellant has demonstrated that the Board acted in a manner that was
arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; 	pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38, the Board is responsible for
determining if an instructional teaching certificate may be issued to an applicant; if an applicant has been
advised of a deficiency in their certification requirements, they may provide the Board with evidence of
alternative education and/or experience that he or she believes is equivalent to the area(s) of deficiency; in
this case, the Board determined not to accept petitioner’s alternative education to satisfy the remaining
requirements that he needed to receive a Teacher of Physical Science certificate; and the Board’s decision
in this matter was reasonable and consistent with applicable regulations. The ALJ concluded that petitioner
did not meet requirements for a Teacher of Physical Science Certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1 and
10.4; accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s motion to dismiss.
Upon comprehensive review, the Commissioner found, inter alia, that: the ALJ mistakenly applied the
wrong standard of review in the Initial Decision, stating that the SBE’s decision will not be overturned
unless the petitioner proves that the SBE acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to
law; 	the appropriate standard of review here is whether the SBE’s decision was consistent with the
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:3; nonetheless, the record of this matter
demonstrates that the petitioner did not complete the required course work and that the SBE’s decision to
deny 	his 	application 	was 	consistent 	with 	the 	applicable 	regulatory 	provisions. 	Accordingly, 	the
Initial Decision of the OAL was modified with respect to the appropriate standard of review and the petition
was dismissed.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It
has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05270-22
Agency Dkt. No. 137-6/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Wayne Ernst,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
In this matter, petitioner challenges the New Jersey State Board of Examiners’ (Board)
denial of his application for a Teacher of Physical Science Certificate. Petitioner currently holds a
Teacher of Physics Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing and a Teacher of Physics
Certificate. The Board denied his application because he was missing seven (7) semester-hour
credits in chemistry. Petitioner argued that his alternative education and experience satisfied a
one-to-one-correspondence to the missing chemistry credits, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
4.12(b). The Board found that while the physics courses petitioner took may have included
chemistry concepts, they did not include the in-depth chemistry instruction required under N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-10.4; further, the topics petitioner taught in a chemistry course were not comparable to the
coursework required for a Teacher of Physical Science, which includes chemistry at the advanced
level. Following a motion to dismiss, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioner did
311-22

2
not meet requirements for a Teacher of Physical Science Certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1
and 10.4.
As a threshold matter, a discussion of the applicable standard of review for petitions of
appeal that are filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:3 is necessary. When there is a challenge to a determination
made by an office within the Department of Education, the Commissioner is not mandated to give
deference to her staff, but instead determines if the finding was legally appropriate. See, Board of
Trustees of the Passaic County Elks Cerebral Palsy Center v. New Jersey Dept. of Educ.,
Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance, Commissioner’s Decision No. 334-14, dated
August 14, 2014 (finding that a decision of the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance is not
given deference by the Commissioner). Moreover, where the Department of Education has limited
the scope of review of a subordinate office or division, it has done so by regulation, i.e. appeals filed
under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 challenging a decision of the State Board of Examiners revoking/suspending a
certificate, or a decision of the School Ethics Commission.
In the Initial Decision, the ALJ mistakenly referenced N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a), applied deference
to the Board, and stated that the Board’s decision in this case would not be overturned unless the
petitioner proves that the Board acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.
It is important to recognize that a decision by the Board denying an application for a certificate is
not entitled to the arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable standard of review that is afforded to
appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4, challenging a decision of the Board revoking or suspending a
certificate. See, Jessica Walder v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners,
Commissioner’s Decision No. 503-14, decided December 29, 2014 (finding that the Commissioner
does not give deference to a decision of the State Board of Examiners denying a request for
issuance of a certificate). The petition of appeal in this matter was filed in accordance with N.J.A.C.

3
6A:3, which consists of completely different regulatory provisions than N.J.A.C. 6A:4; these two
Administrative Code Sections should never be conflated. As such, the standard of review that
governs appeals filed under N.J.A.C. 6A:4 does not apply to this case. Therefore, the appropriate
standard of review of the Boards’ decision is whether the decision is consistent with the applicable
statutory and regulatory provisions.
Upon review of the record and applying the appropriate standard of review, the
Commissioner agrees with the ALJ’s ultimate determination that petitioner has not met the
requirements for a Teacher of Physical Sciences Certificate pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-9.1 and 10.4.
Petitioner is seven (7) semester-hour credits short of the requirement in chemistry and his physics
coursework does not satisfy a one-to-one equivalent to the missing chemistry courses, as both
physics and chemistry courses are required for the Physical Sciences endorsement.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is modified with respect to the appropriate
standard of review and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
November 14, 2022
November 16, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 137-6/22
IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF
THE TEACHING CERTIFICATE OF
WAYNE ERNST, NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
BOARD OF EXAMINERS.
Wayne Ernst, petitioner, pro se
Sydney Finkelstein, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent, New Jersey
Department of Education, Board of Examiners (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting
Attorney General, attorney)
Record Closed: September 1, 2022 	Decided: September 30, 2022
BEFORE KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Wayne Ernst, challenged the denial of his application for a Teacher of
Physical Science Certificate by the New Jersey Department of Education, Board of
Examiners (the Board). 	The Board denied the application because Ernst did not meet

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
2
the 	specified 	requirements 	under 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-10.4; 	he 	satisfied 	the 	physics
requirement but lacked seven semester-hour credits in chemistry. 	Petitioner contends
that the Board erred by not accepting his similar coursework from disciplines that
overlap 	with 	chemistry 	and 	his 	professional 	experience 	teaching 	chemistry 	as
equivalent to his area of deficiency.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 4, 2022, the Board rendered its written decision denying petitioner’s
request. 	On June 1, 2022, petitioner filed an appeal of the Board’s decision with the
Bureau of Controversies and Disputes. On June 21, 2022, respondent filed a Motion to
Dismiss in lieu of an Answer, and the contested case was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on June 28, 2022. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15
and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13.
After 	a 	telephone 	conference, 	I 	set 	a 	briefing 	schedule 	regarding 	the
respondent’s pending Motion to Dismiss. 	On August 23, 2022, petitioner filed his
opposition to respondent’s motion. 	Respondent replied by letter brief on September 1,
2022, at which time the record closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
A Motion to Dismiss is recognized in the Administrative Code at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.5(g). While the Commissioner may dismiss the petition based on such motion prior to
referral of the matter to the OAL, it is also the Commissioner's prerogative to transfer
determination of the motion to the OAL. 	In assessing such a motion, the claims made
by the party who filed the petition must be deemed to be true and all reasonable
inferences such allegations may support must be accepted. 	The standard utilized by
the courts in judging such motion is traditionally quite liberal towards the non-moving
party. Green v. Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 451 (2013).
Herein, respondent maintained that petitioner has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 	The standard to be applied in deciding this motion is

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
3
essentially the same that govern a motion under R. 4:46-2 for summary judgment in civil
litigation. Contini v. Bd. of Educ. of Newark, 286 N.J. Super. 106, 121, (App. Div. 1995),
certif. denied, 145 N.J. 372 (1996). 	Under this standard, the court or agency must
determine “whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the
light 	most 	favorable 	to 	the 	non-moving 	party 	in 	consideration 	of 	the 	applicable
evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged
disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party." 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995). 	When making a summary decision, the “judge’s function is
not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine
whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 540.
Accordingly, for the purposes of the motion, all facts alleged by the petition will
be deemed admitted, and I FIND as follows:
Ernst received his Bachelor of Science degree in physics with a concentration in
astronomy and a minor in mathematics from Montclair State University. 	He currently
holds a Teacher of Physics Certificate of Eligibility with Advanced Standing (CEAS),
issued in June 2013, and a Teacher of Physics Certificate, issued in November 2015.
In the spring of 2021, Ernst filed an application for an additional endorsement in
Physical Science. 	To meet the endorsement requirements under N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-
9.1(a)1iii, Ernst was required to have completed “[a] 30-credit coherent sequence of
courses in physics and a minimum of 15 credits in chemistry.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-10.4.
Ernst 	met 	the 	requirement 	for physics but not for chemistry. 	As 	shown 	on his
transcripts, Ernst earned eight credits in chemistry-specific courses, leaving him seven
credits short.
In his appeal, Ernst asked the Board to consider alternative education and
professional experience as equivalent to the seven chemistry credits. 	Ernst believes
that certain courses at Montclair State University should have been credited toward the
chemistry requirement because these courses covered topics, concepts, and skills that
overlap with chemistry courses. 	His position is that the unique relationship between
physics and chemistry and the overlap between these disciplines should not be divided

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
4
by a mere course label of “PHYS” versus “CHEM.” 	As noted on his transcript, Ernst
took a total of forty-seven credit-hours in courses labeled as “PHYS” and eight credit-
hours in courses labeled as “CHEM.” 	He stressed that a review and comparison of the
courses is required to appropriately assess his qualification for this endorsement.
Ernst maintained that three credits he earned in thermodynamics under the
“PHYS” label should have been deemed a one-to-one equivalent for a chemistry
course. 	In support of his argument, Ernst compared the course outline from his
thermodynamics course in the physics department under the “PHYS” label at Montclair
State University with course syllabi from chemistry departments under the “CHEM” label
at other universities. 	These included: Princeton University’s Chemical Dynamics and
Thermodynamics; New Jersey Institute of Technology’s Physical Chemistry I; Rowan
University’s Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics; and the College of New Jersey’s
Chemical Thermodynamics. 	As a further demonstration of the equivalency of his
physics department thermodynamics course, Ernst included an email from Dr. Michael
T. Kelly, who offered a comparison between Chemistry 306 offered at Princeton with
Physics 320 offered at Montclair. 	Dr. Kelly determined that the comparison was “quite
good” with some exceptions.
As demonstrated above, Ernst maintained that he established a one-to-one
equivalency with his thermodynamics physics course, that should have provided him
with three additional chemistry credits. 	Although Ernst maintained that he could easily
make up the four-credit deficit from his other courses, he requested that the Board
approve his professional experience teaching chemistry at Jack M. Barrack Hebrew
Academy for the remaining four credits.
Ernst appeared before the Board at its meeting on January 21, 2022. 	He was
asked no questions. 	The Board considered the alternative education and experiences
that Ernst believed was equivalent to his coursework deficiency. After review, the Board
determined 	that 	Ernst 	“did 	not 	provide 	compelling 	evidence 	of 	a 	one 	to 	one
correspondence between his proffered alternative education and experience and the 7
semester-hour credits in chemistry.” 	In denying his application, the Board noted that
“while Ernst may have taken courses that included concepts covered in chemistry

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
5
courses and taught a chemistry course, the Board finds that it is necessary to complete
the full complement of coursework for eligibility as a Teacher of Physical Science
because the endorsement enables its holder to teach a variety of courses related to the
physical science, including chemistry, at the advanced level.”
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Ernst carries the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that he is entitled to the certification he seeks. Farrar v. State Bd. of Exam’rs,
EDU 	13763-08, 	Initial 	Decision 	(April 	27, 	2010), 	aff’d, 	Comm’r 	(July 	26, 	2010),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. 	When a decision by the Board has been
appealed, the Commissioner “shall ascertain whether the decision is supported by
sufficient credible evidence in the record and shall not disturb the decision unless the
appellant has demonstrated the State Board of Examiners . . . acted in a manner that
was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:4-4.1(a). 	“Arbitrary and
capricious action of administrative bodies means willful and unreasoning action, without
consideration and in disregard of circumstances. Where 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 Sewerage Co. v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 122 N.J.
Super. 184, 199 (App. Div. 1973), citations omitted.
The Board of Examiners is responsible for determining if an instructional teaching
certificate may be issued to an applicant. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38. 	If an applicant for a
teaching certificate has been advised of a deficiency in their certification requirements,
they “may provide the Board of Examiners with evidence of alternative education and/or
experience that he or she believes is equivalent to the area(s) of deficiency.” 	N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-4.12(b). The Board is not permitted to waive any requirements, but can consider
alternative education if the petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the credible
evidence, that the alternative education is the one-to-one equivalent with the statutory
requirements. 	Jessica Walder v. New Jersey State Board of Examiners, EDU 08530-
14, 	Initial 	Decision 	(November 	10, 	2014), 	aff’d, 	Commissioner 	(May 	15, 	2013),
<http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
6
Ernst urges that I undertake the comparison between his physics courses and
chemistry courses that the Board declined to do. But that is not my role. Rather, I must
assess whether the actions of the Board were patently unreasonable and arbitrary when
they decided that, in their view, courses that may include concepts also covered in
chemistry courses do not meet the requirement embodied in the administrative code
that required a minimum of fifteen credits in chemistry. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-10.4. While the
comparison syllabi with Princeton and other prestigious institutions of higher learning
and Dr. Kelly’s assessment of the comparison provided by Ernst offer well-considered
arguments in favor of giving him the credit he seeks, the law demands that I defer to the
viewpoint of the Board, as it is the body delegated with the authority to determine what
credentials qualify applicants to teach the children of New Jersey. 	The Legislature has
delegated the responsibility for the issuance of teaching certificates to the Board.
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-38.
Moreover, I concur with the Board that the regulatory scheme plainly states that
coursework both in physics and chemistry are prerequisites to the certificate Ernst
seeks. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-10.4. 	It would thus be inconsistent with the regulatory scheme
to permit Ernst to satisfy his missing chemistry credits with physics credits. 	The
regulatory scheme required Ernst to have completed a minimum of fifteen credits in
chemistry while also completing a thirty-credit coherent sequence of courses in physics.
Moreover, N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-4.12(c) in pertinent parts provides:
The Board of Examiners shall not:
1. 	Waive any test, GPA, degree completion, or approved
educator preparation program completion requirements;
2. 	Permit 	a 	candidate 	to 	substitute 	education 	and/or
experience 	for 	any 	test, 	GPA, 	degree, 	or 	approved
educator preparation program completion requirements.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s decision relative to Ernst’s application
for certification is reasonable; is consistent with the regulatory intent, which is to
rigorously vet applicants for certification; and is entitled to deference.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05270-22
7
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the Board of Examiners’ Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED and the petition of 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.
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.
September 30, 2022
DATE 	KATHLEEN M. CALEMMO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KMC/jns