State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
FINAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDS 02011-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2025-38491
M.K.W. ON BEHALF OF M.W.
Petitioner,
v.
LAKELAND REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION
Respondent.
Jamie Epstein, Esq., for petitioner
Jessica Kleen, Esq., for respondent (Machado Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: June 16, 2025
Decided: July 28, 2025
BEFORE DANIEL J. BROWN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Does the refusal of the respondent (Board) to change M.W.’s English class from Foundations to College Prep and remove M.W.’s one to one aide based upon the petitioner’s request a denial of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE)? No. A school district denies FAPE when it precludes a disabled student from receiving meaningful educational benefit because of their disability in the absence of reasonable accommodations. 34 C.F.R. 104.33(b), (c); Chambers v. Sch. Dist. of Phila. Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 189 (3d Cir. 2009); Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260, 280-81 (3d Cir. 2012).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 9, 2024, the petitioner applied for a due process hearing with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) alleging that the Board failed to offer M.W. an IEP reasonably calculated to provide M.W. a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. M.W. alleged that the Board changed accommodation for M.W., which caused M.W. to be denied a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Specifically, the petitioner cited the Board’s decision to change M.W.’s English class from College Prep to Foundations of English. The petitioner also alleged that the Board denied M.W. a FAPE in the least restrictive environment by denying the petitioner’s request to remove M.W.’s one-to-one aide on a trial basis for one marking period. On December 26, 2024, the Board filed an answer.
On January 27, 2025, OSEP transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to ‑23, for hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to ‑21.6, and the Special Education Program, N.J.A.C. 1:6A-1.1 to -18.4.
The hearing was held on April 10, 2025, April 15, 2025, May 2, 2025, May 21, 2025, and June 9, 2025. On the last day of the hearing, the parties asked to submit written summations, and I agreed to that request. The Petitioner then objected to extensions of time to file written summations and a written opinion. After I received notice of the petitioner’s objections, I emailed the parties asking them to clarify in writing whether the parties wished to file written summations. The Board responded that they wished to file written summations. The Petitioner failed to respond. Based upon the petitioner’s objection to the extension request and failure to clarify that the petitioner wanted to file a written summation, I disallowed written summations and closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the testimony provided, and my assessment of its credibility, together with the documents presented and admitted[1], and my assessment of their sufficiency, I FIND the following as FACT:
Audrey Poggioli, director of special services at Lakeland Regional High School (Lakeland), testified on behalf of the Board. Ms. Poggioli testified that she has been the director since September 2016. Ms. Poggioli testified that she has been familiar with the petitioner and M.W. since M.W. registered in ninth grade as a classified student at Lakeland in August 2022. Ms. Poggioli testified that she is acquainted with M.W.’s academic needs because she is a member of M.W.’s IEP team and she has spoken to his teachers. Additionally, she testified that she has reviewed his work samples and grades.
M.W. was formerly a student at Ringwood as an eighth grader prior to registering at Lakeland. Lakeland received an IEP and a transcript from Ringwood. The IEP contained social, educational and psychological evaluations completed in 2014 when M.W. was in kindergarten. There were also evaluations completed in 2016 and 2020 but those evaluations were not included with the IEP and were not provided to Lakeland. Ringwood did not provide any other records as the petitioner would not consent to it. Ms. Poggioli testified that when a classified student enters the school there should be a review of the IEP and recommendations for evaluations to update the IEP. Lakeland attempted to do evaluations in October 2022, but those evaluations did not occur as the petitioner did not agree to them. The Petitioner wished Lakeland to implement the Ringwood IEP from October 2020. The petitioner agreed to evaluations by the Board of M.W. but the petitioner revoked her consent based upon the petitioner’s requirement to record the evaluation via zoom. The Board rejected the request to record as it violates the Board’s policy regarding the privacy of the individuals conducting the evaluations. The Board rejected the request to have a third-party present because the Board believed that the presence of a third party would corrupt the evaluative process.
The Board implemented the 2020 IEP from Ringwood in M.W.’s freshman and sophomore years because of other pending matters at the Office of Administrative Law. There was no IEP meeting for the 2023 – 2024 school year because the stay put IEP was in place. The Board began emailing and sending invitations for a review of the IEP beginning in August 2023. The petitioner did not agree to meet and did not consent to evaluations to update the IEP. There was a meeting on May 16, 2024, and a proposed IEP resulted from that meeting. That IEP would have expired in May 2025 when M.W. was in the eleventh grade. At the IEP meeting, there was a discussion of a financial literacy course that is a graduation requirement. The petitioner asked if it could be taken as a summer course. That did not occur so M.W.’s fall schedule had to be modified to include the financial literacy course. A study skills class was removed so that the financial literacy class could be included. Ms. Poggi testified that the extra study skills class could be removed without affecting M.W.’s meaningful progress. Ms. Poggioli testified that there was also discussion regarding the petitioner’s challenge to the Foundations level English class that M.W. was placed in for his junior year and the Board’s refusal to remove the one-to-one aide based upon the petitioner’s request. Ms. Poggioli testified that the English class and one-to-one aide were not changed because the Board believed it was in the best interest of the student. Specifically, in address the English class, the IEP team referenced the level of independence that M.W. needed to work on and build on what could be done through the Foundations in English class. The team observed that there were deficits in M.W.’s writing and reading comprehension that would be better remediated through the Foundations of English class. Ms. Poggioli opined that the Foundations class was reasonably calculated, along with accommodation to allow M.W. to make meaningful progress. Ms. Poggioli testified that the petitioner doesn’t require compensatory education. Based upon her testimony, M.W.’s work product and his transcript, I agree.
Ms. Poggioli testified that M.W.’s grades were especially important in this case because evaluations are not available as the petitioner did not consent to them. Ms. Poggioli testified that M.W.’s grades, which are excellent, show that with accommodation
M.W. has access to the general education curriculum and has made reasonable progress. I FIND that this testimony was very credible. I agree with it and I give great weight to it. I FIND this based on my review of M.W.’s work samples which were admitted into evidence. I FIND this also based on my review of MW’s transcript which shows that he is achieving very good grades each year.
Ms. Rachaele Cianci testified as an expert for the petitioner. Ms. Cianci testified that she reviewed evaluations of M.W. which were about ten to fifteen years old and showed speech and language deficits. Additionally, Ms. Cianci testified that a speech evaluation was offered to the petitioner as part of the 2024 IEP process. I note that the petitioner refused this and other evaluations that were offered as part of the 2024 IEP process. Ms. Cianci testified concerning a psychological evaluation of M.W. in 2020. Ms. Cianci highlighted that the evaluation noted a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD. Additionally, Ms. Cianci highlighted M.W.’s discontent with the instructional assistant, or one-to-one aide. Ms. Cianci indicated that non-verbal scores were in the below average range. Ms. Cianci testified that her review of evaluations indicated tension problems were clinically significant but not addressed in the stay-put IEP or 2024 IEP. Ms. Cianci gave the same testimony regarding social skills, executive functioning and functional communication. Ms. Cianci testified that she placed great significance on a comment from M.W.’s special education teacher that M.W. is motivated to succeed. Ms. Cianci testified that M.W. sees himself as an average student with average social, emotional, and behavioral abilities. Ms. Cianci observed M.W. in a classroom setting and noted that he was typically on task. Ms. Cianci observed M.W. being engaged in the classroom, generally following instructions and needing some additional support in the classroom. Ms. Cianci reviewed M.W.’s grades and noted that he was performing above average. Ms. Cianci specifically noted that M.W. had an overall B average in the college prep class. Ms. Cianci opined that M.W. was at expectations with accommodation and modifications in his English class.
Ms. Cianci testified that she observed M.W. in math class and noted that the second teacher in the classroom did check-ins and showed M.W. examples. Ms. Ciani stated that M.W. was able to move through the class with that level of support. Ms. Ciani testified that the one-to-one aide should be removed because it stigmatized M.W. or set him apart with very little benefit. Ms. Cianci stated that she would suggest more visual prompting be given to M.W. throughout the day. I FIND this testimony to be contradictory as an aide could certainly be a source of more visual prompting in class. Ms. Cianci testified that M.W.’s reading skills were average. His deficits were in verbal comprehension. Ms. Cianci described that M.W.’s reading accuracy was within average range, but his pace was below average. M.W.’s spelling was below average but his ability to respond to a written prompt was within average range. M.W.’s math fluency is below average but his math problem solving tested better. M.W. was slightly below the average range regarding applied problem solving. Ms. Cianci testified that M.W.’s report card is generally As and Bs and that she would consider that above average across the board. Ms. Cianci testified that the grades should be based on a student’s performance in class on the material with their special ed program and their accommodation. I agree with this testimony. I FIND it credible, and I give it great weight. I FIND that based upon the testimony, M.W. is an above average student with As and Bs in his classes. Ms. Cianci noted that an evaluation that she reviewed recommended counseling. Ms. Cianci recommended a vocational assessment to start planning for M.W.’s future.
Ms. Cianci was not aware that none of the evaluations that she reviewed, and none of her recommendations were provided to the Board. Ms. Cianci noted that a school district can only be held accountable for the information that it has or that is communicated to it. Ms. Cianci acknowledged that the more information that the Board has the better it is for the student. Ms. Cianci was aware that the petitioner refused certain assessments but was not aware that the petitioner refused the IEP team’s request to take a behavioral assessment of M.W. Ms. Cianci agreed that her report with recommendations was complete before the IEP team met in May 2024 and that it would have been beneficial for the IEP team to have her report. Ms. Cianci testified that she is aware of prohibitions of third parties in the room during an evaluation because it could evaluate the results. Additionally, Ms. Cianci testified that she is aware that videoing of an evaluation is not allowed as it may violate copyright law and compromise the integrity and security of the test. I give great weight to this testimony as it buttresses the Board’s refusal of the petitioner’s request to video evaluations or have a third-party present. Ms. Cianci testified that a Board may move forward with an IEP meeting if a parent is notified about the date and time of the meeting and does not attend.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The IDEA provides federal funds to assist participating states in educating disabled children. Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179–80 (1982). One of the purposes of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). To qualify for this financial assistance, New Jersey must effectuate procedures that ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the state have available to them a FAPE consisting of special education and related services provided in conformity with an IEP. 20 U.S.C §§ 1401(9), 1412(a)(1). The responsibility to provide a FAPE rest with the local public-school district. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-1.1(d). The district shoulders the burden of proving that a FAPE has been offered. N.J.S.A. 18A:46-1.1.
A FAPE includes both “special education” and “related services.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). “Special education” is “specially designed instruction... to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability” and “related services” are the support services “required to assist a child... to benefit from” that instruction. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A) and (29). The FAPE mandate requires the provision of “personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.
In order “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988, 999 (2017). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that “this standard is markedly more demanding than the ‘merely more than de minimis’ test,” and “a student offered an educational program providing ‘merely more than de minimis’ progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” Id. at 1000–01. In addressing the quantum of educational benefit required, the Third Circuit has also made clear that more than a “trivial” or “de minimis” educational benefit is required and articulated that the appropriate standard is whether the IEP provides for “significant learning” and confers “meaningful” educational benefit to the child. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir. 2003); T.R. v. Kingwood Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, 577 (3d Cir. 2000); Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 247 (3d Cir. 1999); Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171, 180, 182–84 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. den. sub. nom. Cent. Columbia Sch. Dist. v. Polk, 488 U.S. 1030 (1989). The determination of whether a given IEP has satisfied the required standard must be assessed in light of the individual potential and educational needs of the student. T.R., 205 F.3d at 578; Ridgewood, 172 F.3d at 247–48.
The IEP has been described as “the centerpiece of the statute’s education delivery system for disabled children.” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988). It is the means by which special education and related services are “tailored to the unique needs” of a particular student. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181. An IEP must be in effect at the beginning of each school year and be reviewed at least annually. 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(2) and (4); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(a)(1) and (i). It must “be drafted in compliance with a detailed set of procedures,” which “emphasize collaboration among parents and educators and require careful consideration of the child’s individual circumstances.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at
994. The IEP team shall review any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general curriculum; the results of any reevaluation; information about the student, including information provided by the parents, current classroom-based assessments and observations, and the observations of teachers and related-services providers; the student's anticipated needs; and other relevant matters. N.J.A.C. 6A:14–3.7(j).
An IEP must also include various elements. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e). It must include a statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and a statement of measurable annual academic and functional goals. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e)(1) and (2). The annual academic and functional goals must be “measurable and apprise parents and educational personnel... of the expected level of achievement attendant to each goal” and include benchmarks or short-term objectives related to meeting the student’s needs. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e)(2) and (3). The IEP must further include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services that will be provided for the student, along with any program modifications or supports. N.J.A.C. 6A:14–3.7(e)(4). It must include, beginning with the IEP in place for the school year when the student will turn age sixteen, “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age-appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, if appropriate, independent living, and the transition services including a course of study needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.” N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e)(12). Additionally, beginning at age fourteen, the IEP must include “a statement of the State and local graduation requirements that the student shall be expected to meet,” which shall be reviewed annually. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e)(9). “If a student with a disability is exempted from, or there is a modification to, local or State high school graduation requirements, the statement shall include... [c]onsistent with N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.11, a rationale for the exemption or modification based on the student's educational needs; and... [a] description of the alternate proficiencies to be achieved by the student to qualify for a State-endorsed diploma.” Ibid. In turn, N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.11(a) provides that a student with a disability “shall meet the high school graduation requirements pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1, except as specified in the student’s IEP,” and “[t]he IEP shall specify which requirements would qualify the student with a disability for the State-endorsed diploma issued by the district board of education responsible for his or her education.”
In the words of the New Jersey Supreme Court, “[w]ithout an adequately drafted IEP, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to measure a child’s progress, a measurement that is necessary to determine changes to be made in the next IEP.” Lascari v. Bd. of Educ. of Ramapo Indian Hills Reg’l High Sch. Dist., 116 N.J. 30, 48 (1989). The case manager, who must “[b]e knowledgeable about the student’s educational needs and program,” is charged with the responsibility of “coordinat[ing] the development, monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the IEP,” “facilitat[ing] communication between home and school,” and “coordinat[ing] the annual review and reevaluation process.” N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.2(b) and (c).
“The IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress,” and the “‘reasonably calculated’ qualification reflects a recognition that crafting an appropriate program of education requires a prospective judgment by school officials.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at
999. The issue of whether an IEP is appropriate is fact sensitive in nature. In connection with this determination, “the focus should be on the IEP actually offered and not on one that the school board could have provided if it had been so inclined.” Lascari, 116 N.J. at
30. It is necessary to “determine the appropriateness of an IEP as of the time it was made[.]” D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553, 564–65 (3d. Cir. 2010). “[E]vidence acquired subsequently to the creation of an IEP” should “only” be used “to evaluate the reasonableness of the school district’s decisions at the time that they were made.” Id. at
565. “Neither the statute nor reason countenance ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’ in evaluating the appropriateness of a child’s placement.” Fuhrman v. E. Hanover Bd. of Educ., 993 F.2d 1031, 1040 (3d Cir. 1993). In other words, “the appropriateness of a student’s placement must be assessed in terms of its appropriateness at the time it is created and not at some later date when one has the benefit of the child’s actual experience.” Id. at 1041.
The adequacy of a given IEP will turn “on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 1001. The Endrew F. Court observed that the “absence of a bright-line rule... should not be mistaken for ‘an invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.’” Endrew F.,137 S.Ct. at 1001 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206). This “deference is based on the application of expertise and the exercise of judgment by school authorities,” who are vested “with responsibility for decisions of critical importance to the life of a disabled child.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 1001. In this regard, “[a] reviewing court may fairly expect those authorities to be able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.” Id. at 1002.
The IDEA’s FAPE requirement also includes a mainstreaming component, requiring education in the LRE. S.H., 336 F.3d at 265; 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A). “The least restrictive environment is the one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled.” Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 535 (3d Cir. 1995).
There is a two-part inquiry when reviewing alleged violations of the IDEA: whether the district “complied with the procedures set forth in the Act” and whether the IEP “developed through the Act’s procedures [is] reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. 206–07. Not all procedural violations will rise to a substantive deprivation of FAPE. Rather, this forum may find that a child did not receive a FAPE “only if the procedural inadequacies... impeded the child’s right to a free appropriate public education”; “significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parents’ child”; or “caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(k). I CONCLUDE that M.W. has made meaningful progress, that the Board did not impede M.W.’s right to FAPE, and that the Board notified the petitioner about the 2024 IEP meeting. The petitioner chose not to attend that meeting and not to consent to evaluations of M.W. I do not hold the Board responsible for this, and I CONCLUDE that the Board did not act to deprive M.W. of educational benefit.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, together with the record as a whole, the petition of appeal is DISMISSED.
This decision is final pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (2025) and is appealable by filing a complaint and bringing a civil action either in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey or in a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (2024). If the parent or adult student feels that this decision is not being fully implemented with respect to program or services, this concern should be communicated in writing to the Director, Office of Special Education.
July 28, 2025
DATE
DANIEL J. BROWN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: July 28, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: July 28, 2025
dr
Footnotes
[1] The parties presented a joint stipulation of facts and joint exhibits. This decision incorporates the stipulated facts within the findings of fact.
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
Witnesses| Party | Witnesses |
|---|---|
| Petitioner | Rachaele Cianci |
| Respondent | Audrey Poggioli |
EXHIBITS
Exhibits| Party | Documents |
|---|---|
| Petitioner | P-1 2024-2025 IEP |
| Petitioner | P-2 2022-2023 IEP |
| Petitioner | P-3 2020-2021 IEP |
| Petitioner | P-4 Not in evidence |
| Petitioner | P-5 Not in evidence |
| Petitioner | P-6 Email from Petitioner to Timothy Conway dated August 27, 2024 |
| Petitioner | P-7 December 21, 2023 letter from Gary Wright to Audrey Poggioli |
| Petitioner | P-8 Resume of Rachaele Cianci |
| Petitioner | P-9 Report of Rachaele Cianci |
| Respondent | R-1 Email from petitioner to Nicholas Bernice |
| Respondent | R-2 Email from Gary Wright to Audrey Poggioli |
| Respondent | R-3 Resume for Audrey Poggioli |
| Respondent | R-4 2020 IEP |
| Respondent | R-5 Resume for Peter Squire |
| Respondent | R-6 Final Decision and Settlement for EDS 06974-23 and 06975-23 |
| Respondent | R-7 April 29, 2024 letter from Audrey Poggioli to Petitioner inviting her to May 16, 2024 IEP meeting/ April 29, 2024 letter from Audrey Poggioli to M.W. inviting him to May 16, 2024 IEP meeting |
| Respondent | R-8 2024 IEP |
| Respondent | R-9 First page 2024 IEP with signatures of attendees |
| Respondent | R-10 Email of 2024 draft IEP from Audrey Poggioli to Petitioner dated May 31, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-11 Email from Petitioner to Audrey Poggioli dated May 29, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-12 Email from Peter Squire to Petitioner dated July 24, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-13 Email from Petitioner to Audrey Poggioli dated August 16, 2024 proposing changes to the IEP |
| Respondent | R-14 September 6, 2024 letter from Audrey Poggioli to Petitioner regarding Petitioner’s proposed changes |
| Respondent | R-15 Email from Audrey Poggioli to Petitioner dated September 12, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-16 10th Grade Transcript for M.W. |
| Respondent | R-17 11th Grade Transcript for M.W. |
| Respondent | R-18 9th, 10th and 11th Grade Transcript for M.W. |
| Respondent | R-19 Email from Petitioner to Audrey Poggioli dated September 13, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-20 Email from Petitioner to Audrey Poggioli dated September 10, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-21 Curriculum Guide Language for English Levels |
| Respondent | R-22 Email from Audrey Poggioli to Timothy Conway dated December 3, 2024 |
| Respondent | R-23 Letter from Peter Squire to Petitioner dated May 16, 2024 proposing dates for a reevaluation |
| Respondent | R-24a English Work Sample |
| Respondent | R-24b 2nd English Work Sample |
| Respondent | R-24c Algebra 2 Work Sample |
| Respondent | R-24d Environmental Science Work Sample |
| Respondent | R-25 District Policy re: Right of Privacy |
| Respondent | R-26 IEP Goals |
| Respondent | R-27 Modification Statement |