under N.J.S.A. 18A.-28-9. In considering these challenges, we are mindful of the appropriate standard of review. In Dennery v. Board of Education, supra, 131 N.J. 626, 622 A.2d 858 this Court stated that, “[it] will not reverse the determination of an administrative agency unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable or is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.” Id. at 641, 622 A.2d 858 (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580, 410 A.2d 686 (1980)). The Court in Dennery noted that it “adhere[s] to that standard to resolve disputes arising under school laws.” Ibid. (citing Dore v. Bd. of Educ., 185 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 449 A.2d 547 (App.Div.1982)). See also Capodilupo v. Bd. of Educ., 218 N.J.Super. 510, 515, 528 A.2d 73 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 109 N.J. 514, 537 A.2d 1300
holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school board president constituted the decision of the board holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that final decision of state board of education should not be upset unless unreasonable and unsupported by the record or violative of the legislative will holding vagenerated documents to be in the possession of the secretary and the board at the time of the board decision and thus constructively part of the record of proceedings as mandated by 38 usc  7252b holding that we will not review such a decision unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion