J.W., on behalf of minor child, E.W. v. Board of Education of the City of Ocean City, Cape May County, 9/30/26 (#392-26)

392-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 21600-25
Agency Dkt. No. 422-12/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.W., on behalf of minor child, E.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Ocean City, Cape
May 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 summary
decision is appropriate because none of the material facts are disputed. Additionally, the Commissioner
concurs with the ALJ that the Ocean City Board of Education (Board) did not act arbitrarily, capriciously,
or unreasonably when it denied petitioner’s daughter entry into the School Choice Program Lottery
because it is undisputed that she did not meet the academic requirements.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, the Board’s motion
for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 30, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	September 30, 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 21600-2026
AGENCY DKT. NO. 422-12/25
J.W. ON BEHALF OF E.W.,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF OCEAN CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, CAPE MAY COUNTY,
Respondent.
J.W., petitioner, pro se, on behalf of her daughter, E.W.,
Michael P. Stanton, Esq., for respondent (McCrosson & Stanton PC, attorneys)
Record Closed: April 7, 2026 Decided: August 20, 2026
BEFORE CARL V. BUCK III, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF CASE
E.W. was denied entry into the School Choice Program Lottery (Lottery) of the City
of Ocean City (Ocean or respondent), County of Cape May. Petitioner acknowledges
that E.W.’s scores in math and science are both below the requirement levels to enter the
lottery; albeit by 3 and 1 points, respectively. Should the respondent’s determination

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 21600-2025
2
precluding E.W. from entering the Lottery be overturned? No. A school board acting
within the scope of its authority is “entitled to a presumption of correctness . . . unless
there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp. Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div.
1965).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In the 2025-2026 academic year E.W. was an eighth-grade student in the Margate
School District (Margate). She requested to enter the School Choice Program Lottery
(Lottery) with the intention of attending Ocean City High School (H.S.). Her request to
make an application to enter the lottery was denied because E.W. did not have the
academic score(s) required for lottery entry.
On December 5, 2025 petitioner filed a “Pro Se Petition of Appeal” with the State
of New Jersey (State), Department of Education (DOE), Office of Controversies and
Disputes (Office) requesting the State of New Jersey, Department of Education (DOE),
Commissioner of Education (Commissioner) “to consider a controversy which has arisen
between petitioner and respondent pursuant to the authority of the Commissioner to hear
and determine controversies under the school law (N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9), by reason of the
following facts:
My daughter, E.W., was denied entry into the Lottery for the
School Choice Program for the Ocean City School District
(High School) for the 2026-2027 school year. Her NJSLA
Math score was 722, just 3 points below the requirement. Her
final Science grade was 82, just 1 point below the
requirement. While I understand that she did not meet the
criteria, I am asking for her to still be permitted into the lottery,
as the margin of “error” was extremely small. E. has an IEP
for Math, as well as a 504-plan developed last year after she
was diagnosed with a chronic illness.
The DOE transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
it was filed on December 10, 2025, to be heard as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 21600-2025
3
to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23. The case was assigned to me on or about December
23, 2025.
Prehearing conference calls took place on February 24, 2026, and March 25, 2026,
wherein respondent requested leave to file a Motion for Summary Decision (Motion). On
March 26, 2026, respondent filed its Motion. On or about March 30, 2026, petitioner
supplied documents previously used challenging the initial denial to participated in the
lotter and the record closed on April 7, 2026.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their
sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
High School has established a lottery for those students, residing outside of the
Ocean City BOE district, wishing to attend High School. In order to enter lottery, a student
must have, inter alia, a math NJSLA score of 725 and a final science grade of 83. E.W.
had a math NJSLA score of 722 and a final science grade of 82; thus, achieving levels
BELOW those required to enter the lottery.
E.W. has received accommodations at school for various issues. These
accommodations include a 504 plan.
ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard for Summary Decision
Under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a), “[a] party may move for summary decision upon all or
any of the substantive issues in a contested case.” A motion for summary decision is a
common legal ploy to resolve a case without an evidentiary hearing. A motion for
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.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 21600-2025
4
N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). Additionally, “[w]hen a motion for summary decision is made and
supported, an adverse party in order to prevail must by responding affidavit set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue which can only be determined in an
evidentiary proceeding.” Ibid.
A determination of whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the allegedly disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party. Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party . . . offers . . .
only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, ‘Fanciful
frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the court grants
summary judgment.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 529 (1995)
(quoting Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] 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 (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)).
When the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the
trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at
252.
Having read the submissions, certifications and having reviewed the submissions
and exhibits, I CONCLUDE that no issues of fact exist and that the case is ripe for
summary decision.
An action by a board of education “is entitled to a presumption of correctness and
will not be upset unless there is an affirmative showing that such decision was arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable.” 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 their
judgment for that of a board of education, whose exercise of 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 21600-2025
5
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
Sew. 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, petitioner must demonstrate that the
Board acted in bad faith or in utter disregard of the circumstances before it. T.B.M. v.
Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 02780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008),
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/ collections/oal (citing Thomas, 89 N.J. Super. at 332).
Petitioner challenges respondent’s determination to disallow E.W.’s entry to the
lottery; albeit acknowledging that E.W. did not meet certain requirements. Petitioner
seeks an exception base on E.W.’s medical and health issues and that E.W. possesses
a 504 plan accommodation.
Petitioner’s goals are admirable, but standards and qualifications exist for a
purpose.
Respondent has a level which must be satisfied to enter into the lottery. Petitioner
acknowledges that E.W. does not meet the requirements to enter the pool. Twenty-three
students were precluded from entering the lottery as they did not meet the minimum
requirements. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that E.W. were to be allowed to enter
the pool, there are sixty-two students on the waiting list to enter the high school.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that petitioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing
that the Board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner in precluding
E.W. from entering the lottery for a potential placement at Ocean City High School.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the respondent’s motion for
summary decision is GRANTED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 21600-2025
6
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.
August 20, 2026
DATE CARL V. BUCK, III., ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
CVB /tat

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 21600-2025
7
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For petitioner:
Reply to respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision and supporting
documentation
For respondent:
Motion for Summary Decision and supporting documentation