Nware Burge v. New Jersey Department of Education, State Board of Examiners, 11/21/2024, (#436-24)

436-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Nware Burge,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education,
State Board of Examiners,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent New Jersey State Board of Examiners (SBE)
denying his request for a third extension of his provisional teaching certificates, which were first issued in
2016. The SBE filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that there is no legal basis to permit another renewal of
petitioner’s provisional certificates and that such action is explicitly barred by N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5 et seq.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioner was issued his first provisional certificate in 2016; it was then
renewed for two years in August 2018 and again, in October 2020, for another two years; the last renewal
expired in July 2022; petitioner requested another renewal of his provisional certificate in 2023, which was
rejected by the SBE in January 2024; 	after filing the within appeal, petitioner appeared for an initial
conference but then failed to appear for two subsequent telephone conferences and further failed to offer
any explanation for his failure to appear; he also failed to oppose the SBE’s motion to dismiss; the SBE
noted in its order denying petitioner’s request for a third renewal that a full certificate had not been
granted under his previous provisional certificates because petitioner had failed to earn sufficient
“effective” or “highly effective” ratings in the evaluation process; and N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5(c) states that “The
two-year provisional certificate may be renewed twice for a maximum provisional period of six years…”.
The ALJ concluded that the SBE’s decision to deny petitioner’s request for a third extension was not
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. 	Accordingly, the ALJ granted the SBE’s motion to dismiss the
petition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. 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.

436-24
OAL Dkt. No. 08755-24
Agency Dkt. No. 171-5/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Nware Burge,
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 and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner
has already been granted two renewals of his provisional certificate, the maximum permitted by law.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The State Board
of Examiners’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 21, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	November 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 171-5/24
NWARE BURGE,
Petitioner
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Nware Burge, pro se
David Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: October 11, 2024 	Decided: October 23, 2024
BEFORE: MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, Nware Burge appeals the March 1, 2024 denial of his third renewal
request of his provisional teaching certificates that had first been issued in 2016, then

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
2
renewed for two years in August, 2018 and then for an additional two years in October,
2020.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In October 2016, petitioner, Nware Burge, was issued provisional teacher’s
certificates in Social Studies and Students with Disabilities. Those certificates were first
renewed by the New Jersey State Board of Examiners in August 2018 and then again in
October 2020, with that renewal expiring in July 2022. 	In 2023, Mr. Burge requested
another renewal of his provisional certificates. 	That request was denied during the
meeting of January 19, 2024 and that decision was ratified on March 1, 2024.
On May 29, 2024, Mr. Burge emailed a Petition for Appeal to the State Department
of Education’s Office of Controversies & Disputes (“OCD”). That appeal was transmitted
to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) where it was received on June 26, 2024 for a
hearing as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
Prior to the matter being forwarded to the OAL, on June 16, 2024, in reply to the
filing, the State Board of Examiners filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer.
An initial conference was held on August 15, 2024 at which time, after a detailed
discussion of the case, a briefing schedule was set with Mr. Burge being given until
September 19, 2024 to either hire an attorney, file opposition to the Motion to Dismiss or
withdraw his appeal. 	A follow-up telephone conference was scheduled for September
19, 2024 and Mr. Burge failed to appear or contact the Court. The matter was scheduled
for another telephone conference on October 11, 2024 and Mr. Burge similarly failed to
appear or contact the Court.
Having given Mr. Burge more than sufficient time in which to communicate with the
Court and having not heard from him, the record on the Motion was formally closed on
October 21, 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
3
INITIAL FINDINGS OF UNDISPUTED FACT
The following FACTS of the case are not in dispute:
1. 	In October 2016, appellant, 	Nware Burge was 	issued 	provisional
Teacher of Social Studies and Teacher of Students with Disabilities (“TOSD”)
certificates by the State Board of Examiners as well as Certificates of Eligibility
with Advanced Standing (“CEAS”) in both areas.
2. 	Per N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5(a), in August 2018 and October 2020, Mr.
Burge’s provisional certificates were renewed since he had not yet completed
the requirements for the standard certificates. 	The last renewal expired in
July, 2022.
3. 	During the 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, Mr. Burge was
employed by the Camden School District. In the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school
years, he worked at the LEAD Charter School in Newark. After taking a break
from working in the public school system, Mr. Burge was hired by Barringer
High School in Newark as a substitute teacher.
4. 	On or about December 20, 2023, Mr. Burge applied for another two-year
renewal of his certificates. That application was initially denied since he had
failed to earn two consecutive summative evaluations of “effective” or “highly
effective”.
5. 	Mr. Burge appealed that denial and at its January 19, 2024 meeting, that
appeal was denied by the State Board of Examiners. 	That decision was
formalized in an Order dated March 1, 2024. (Exhibit R-2.)
6. 	That decision was appealed by Mr. Burge on or about May 29, 2024.
(Exhibit R-3.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
4
7. 	To date, Mr. Burge has yet to complete the requirements for standard
certificates and he has failed to oppose the Board’s Motion to Dismiss.
APPEAL
In his appeal to the Board, Mr. Burge wrote:
My name is Nware R. Burge and I am sending in another appeal
because I did not disclose the direct affect and reasons for the
ineffective and partial effective evaluation ratings. 	From 2016
to 2022, I have been in a constant and consistent court battle
for custody of my children as well as divorce proceedings. So
much so that I enclosed a letter from a New York State Senator
who gave me support during these trying times. To add, as an
educator and documentary filmmaker, I recently completed a
film titled: “For Mothers who won’t let Fathers see their Children”
which discusses some of the lows that fathers endure due to
such tragedy. 	I will add the link to documentary for record
evidence. 	During this period, this stressful ordeal directly
affected my attendance as well as evaluations, reviews, and
meetings. I have added some of the judicial documentation as
evidence and records.
I did not wish to disclose this information for the initial State
appeal due to the private and personal nature of this matter. I
also did not disclose these records as I felt that my resume, bio
and years of experience and accomplishments as an educator
in urban schools, programs, and high ed., would serve as good
merits. Because of my time away from teaching in High School,
to work as an Adjunct Professor, I did not have access to any
former records. To add there was a lack of correspondence for
records as I consistently sent emails and made calls for records
with no correspondence. The only records I found was a copy
of an effective rating that I luckily and randomly copy and posted
from an old computer.
Since 2021 I have gained valuable teaching knowledge as I
continue to teach, work and live in an urban setting. I am also
in a better mental space regarding my child custody and
divorce. 	If 	given 	a 	successful 	appeal 	and 	a 	provisional
certificate so that I can eventually earn my standard certificate,
I will only receive effective rating which will in turn allow me to
continue teaching and serving communities of need. I hope that
the committee understands the severity of the evidence given
and how it directly impacts my evaluations.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
5
(Exhibit P-1.)
MOTION
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that there is no legal basis to permit
another renewal of appellant’s provisional certificate and that same is explicitly barred by
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5 et seq., which provides the Commissioner of Education no discretion in
considering the application.
It is argued that the Motion to Dismiss is appropriate here since, per N.J.A.C. 6A:3-
1.10, even if appellant’s factual allegations are all found to be true, there is no legal basis
for his appeal.
Mr. Burge has not responded to the Motion. However, he did present argument in his
initial appeal which will be reviewed below.
TIMELINE
A 	more 	visceral 	view 	of 	Mr. 	Burge’s 	provisional 	certificate 	history 	is 	best
demonstrated by the following timeline:
October, 2016 – Issuance of two-year provisional certificates
August, 2018 – Grant of application for a first renewal of provisional certificates
October, 2020 – Grant of application for a second renewal of provisional
certificates
July, 2022 – Expiration of second renewal of provisional certificates
December 20, 2023 – Application for a third renewal of provisional certificates
January 19, 2024 – Denial of application for a third renewal of provisional
certificates

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
6
March 1, 2024 – Formal decision denying the third renewal of provisional
certificates
May 29, 2024 – Appeal filed with Board of Examiners
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A Motion to Dismiss filed per N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g) is the functional equivalent of a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed in civil court per R. 4:6-2(e). Graves
v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark & Cami Anderson, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS
2417 (App Div., Sept. 26, 2017). The Court stated the standard for the granting of same:
When 	reviewing 	a 	Rule 	4:6-2(e) 	motion, 	a 	court 	must
determine the adequacy of the pleading and decide whether
a cause of action is "suggested" by the facts. 	Printing Mart-
Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989)
(quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189,
192 (1988)). The court must "search[] the complaint in depth
and with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a
cause of action may be gleaned even from an obscure
statement of claim, opportunity being given to amend if
necessary." Ibid. (quoting Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove Mem'l
Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957)).
Id. at *7.
The rules covering the renewal of provisional teaching certificates is
N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5, which reads as follows:
(a) 	The school district may recommend a provisional teacher
for renewal of the teacher’s two-year provisional certificate if
the candidate has not yet completed the requirements for the
standard certificate within the first two years of employment,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9A-8.7.
1. 	A provisional teacher who meets the criteria
at 	(a) 	above 	but 	is 	not 	renewed 	for
employment within the same school district
following the two-year provisional certificate
may 	seek 	and 	accept, 	under 	the 	same

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
7
endorsement, a position with another school
district, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.4(d).
(b) 	Except as indicated at N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.8, 10, and 111, a
candidate shall meet the following requirements to be eligible
for one renewal of a provisional certificate:
1. 	Hold a CE or CEAS in the endorsement area
required for the teaching assignment;
2. 	Be 	employed 	or 	accept 	an 	offer 	of
employment in a position that requires an
instructional certificate;
3. 	Complete a district mentoring program;
4. 	Be enrolled in or have completed a CE
educator 	preparation 	program, 	if 	the
candidate has a CE; and
5. 	Be 	recommended 	for 	renewal 	by 	the
candidate’s principal pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:9B-8.6.
(c) 	The two-year provisional certificate may be renewed
twice for a maximum provisional period of six years if the
candidate fulfills the renewal requirements at (b) above and
one of the following criteria:
1. 	Holds a CE with a teacher of students with
disabilities endorsement, or a CE with a
bilingual/bicultural endorsement, and a CE
with 	an 	endorsement 	appropriate 	to 	the
subject or grade level to be taught; or holds
a CE with an English as a second language
endorsement. 	The 	duration 	of 	the 	CE
educator preparation program and required
coursework 	for 	the 	endorsement(s) 	also
extends 	beyond the four-year provisional
period; or
2. 	Does not receive from the school district, by
July 	31 	of 	the 	fourth 	year, 	the 	annual
summative rating as required for a standard
certificate, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.4.
1 None of which apply in this instance.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
8
(d) 	A candidate issued a temporary instructional certificate,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.10, shall not be eligible for a
renewal of a temporary provisional certificate in the specific
endorsement area issued pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.4(f)
It should also be noted that per N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.4(c):
A provisional certificate shall last a maximum of two school
years 	and 	shall 	expire 	on 	July 	31 	of 	the 	second 	year
regardless of issuance date.
MARCH 1, 2024 ORDER
On or about December 20, 2023, more than a year following the expiration of his
second two-year extension in July, 2022, Mr. Burge applied for another renewal of his
provisional certificates. This application was considered by the Board during its meeting
of January 19, 2024 and was formally denied by Order dated March 1, 2024. 	In that
Order, the Board cited the relevant administrative code provisions and noted that the
Office of Certification’s records reflect the following summative ratings;
• 	2016-2017 school year: Partially Effective
• 	2017-2018 school year: Effective
• 	2018-2019 school year: Ineffective
• 	2019-2020 school year: Partially Effective
• 	2020-2021 school year: Ineffective
The Board noted his two prior provisional certificate renewals (in August, 2018 and
October, 2020), with a full certificate not being granted given his failure “to earn a second
effective or highly effective rating” in the relevant time period.
The substance of the Order reads as follows;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
9
While Burge does not address his ratings directly in his
submission, he included his effective rating from Camden for
the 2017-2018 school year as well as favorable observations
and evaluations as an adjunct professor at Essex County
College, Kean University, and the City University of New York.
As the observations and evaluations as an adjunct professor
do not constitute formal ratings as a K-12 public school
setting, 	the 	Board 	cannot 	consider 	them 	to 	meet 	the
regulatory 	requirement 	in 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:9B-8.6(b).
Furthermore, the Board notes that Burge has exceeded the
limitation of two renewals of his provisional certificates set
forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5(c).
As Burge only earned one effective rating during his five years
of teaching in public schools and has already been given two
renewals 	of 	his 	provisional 	certificates 	which 	gave 	him
sufficient time to earn the required ratings, the Board will not
grant Burge an additional renewal of his provisional Teacher
of Social Studies and TOSD certificates.
[Exhibit R-1.]
As detailed above, Mr. Burge has already been granted two renewals of his
provisional certificate, which, per N.J.A.C. 6A:9B-8.5, is the maximum permitted by law.
Further, his provisional certificate has covered six school years (2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-
19, 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22), also the maximum permitted by the Code.
While there is little relevant law concerning this issue, it was addressed in Cash v.
New Jersey Dept. of Educ.; OAL Dkt. No. EDU 01325-23 (Initial Decision, July 18, 2023),
aff’d. Comm’r, 2023 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 422 (Aug. 22, 2023). In Cash, the appellant alleged
that he was misinformed by his district employer regarding the necessity for completing
various requirements to obtain full certification under the alternate route program. 	His
initial provisional certification was issued in August, 2018. 	After being granted an initial
extension through August, 2022, his application for a second extension was denied by
the Board the following month.
The Court found that despite Mr. Cash’s accomplishments and the fact that he had
completed many of the requirements to obtain a full certificate, he simply did not meet the
requirements for a second extension. 	It was noted that neither the judge nor the Board
“have the discretion to consider the totality of the circumstances to extend/renew his

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
10
status.” Id. at 5. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner in Cash v. New Jersey
Dept. of Educ., 2023 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 422 (Aug. 22, 2023). 	See also Finlay v. New
Jersey Dept. of Educ., OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09353-23 (Initial Decision, Apr. 9, 2024), aff’d
Comm’r, 2024 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 226 (May 15, 2024).
In his appeal to the Board, Mr. Burge advises that he “did not disclose the direct
affect and reasons for the ineffective and partial effective evaluation ratings” that he
received. 	Those included a divorce and a child custody dispute, evidence of which he
has supplied. 	These issues “directly affected (his) attendance as well as evaluations,
reviews, and meetings.” 	He also claimed to have been unable to access “any former
records”, except, perhaps not coincidentally, the only “effective” summative review rating
he received.
Finally, 	he 	argues 	that 	since 	2021, 	he 	has 	“gained 	valuable 	teaching
knowledge…in an urban setting” and the outside stressors in his life have eased. He truly
believes that if given the opportunity, he would “only receive effective ratings”, which
would allow him “to continue teaching and serving communities of need.”
Here however, the factual scenario facing Mr. Burge is even less favorable than
that facing appellant in Cash. Whether he was qualified for the second extension or not,
Mr. Cash at least had a viable administrative pathway to obtain it. 	Here, similar to the
appellant in Finlay, Mr. Burge has already exhausted all of the options afforded by the
Code. 	I agree with respondent’s counsel that given the limitations on the number and
duration of the extensions, even if Mr. Burge had demonstrated good cause for an
extension (and, frankly, he has not), as noted in Cash, there is “(no) discretion to consider
the totality of the circumstances to extend/review his status.”
Given the above, I FIND that Mr. Burge is ineligible for a third extension of his
provisional certificate. Ultimately, I CONCLUDE that given the respondent’s decision to
deny appellant’s request for the third extension was appropriate and that no facts have
been presented to demonstrate that it was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious or that it
was inconsistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. Walder v. New

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
11
Jersey Dept. of Educ., St. Bd. of Exam’rs, 2014 N.J. Agen. LEXIS 1259 at *4-*5 (Dec. 29,
2014)
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's Motion to
Dismiss be and is hereby GRANTED and;
It is further ORDERED that Mr. Burge’s appeal be and is hereby 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
12
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.
October 23, 2024
DATE 	MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	__October 23, 2024________________
Date Mailed to Parties: 	__October 23, 2024________________
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08755-24
13
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
FOR APPELLEE:
None
FOR RESPONDENT:
R-1 	Board of Examiners decision (March 1, 2024)
R-2 	Petitioner’s Credential Review Summary Appeal Packet (December 20,
2023)
R-3 	Petitioner’s Petition of Appeal (May 29, 2024)