STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
OAL DKT. NO. 06364-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 2025-38910
AGENCY REF NO. 2025-38910
C.A. AND K.W. ON BEHALF OF S.A., Petitioners, v.
SOUTH ORANGE-MAPLEWOOD
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
Laura A. Siclari, Esq., for petitioners (Siclari Law Group, attorneys)
Marc G. Mucciolo, Esq., for respondent (The Busch Law Group, attorneys)
Record Closed: August 20, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025
BEFORE KIMBERLY K. HOLMES, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
C.A. and K.W. (petitioners) filed a due process petition on behalf of S.A., seeking reimbursement for unilateral out-of-district placement, asserting that the proposed IEP offered by the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education (District) denied S.A. a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Did District’s IEP constitute an offer of FAPE in the least restrictive environment which was appropriate for S.A.’s needs? “Yes.” A district provides FAPE when it confers a significant learning and meaningful educational benefit considering a student’s individual needs and potential. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. 386 (2017).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 8, 2025, petitioners filed a petition for due process. On May 7, 2024, the case was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) under 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 a 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 -18.5. On April 30, 2025, a mediation conference was held and was unsuccessful. On May 16, 2025, a prehearing conference was held. On June 2, 2025, a settlement conference was held via Zoom. The issues were limited to the following:
1. Did the District’s proposed IEP for S.A. at the annual meeting held on July 19, 2024 deprive S.A. of a FAPE?
2. Did the District’s IEP offer to S.A. constitute FAPE in the least restrictive environment appropriate to S.A.’s needs?
3. Is placement at the Franklin School an appropriate, out-of-district school for S.A. for the 2024/2025 school year?
Hearings were conducted on June 30, 2025, and July 1, 2025. Post-hearing summation briefs were submitted by the parties, and the record was closed based on the last submission date of August 20, 2025.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony the parties provided and my assessment of its credibility, together with the documents the parties submitted and my assessment of their sufficiency, I FIND the following FACTS:
S.A. - School Years (2021–2024)
1. S.A., was born on August 24, 2009, resides within the South Orange- Maplewood School District (District), has a disability and is eligible for special education and related services under the classification category of “Other Health Impaired.”
2. S.A. attended the Winston School in Short Hills, New Jersey by way of a settlement agreement between the petitioners and the District. Based upon its terms, the petitioners waived all claims against the District through June 2024.
3. In May 2024, petitioners re-enrolled S.A. in the District where she was evaluated by the Child Study Team (“CST”).
4. When petitioners re-enrolled S.A., they had already applied to, interviewed with, and reserved a spot for S.A. for the 2024–2025 school year at the Franklin School located in Jersey City, New Jersey.
5. The Franklin School is an unapproved private high school.
6. On July 19, 2024, an eligibility and IEP meeting was held by the District after S.A. completed the educational and psychological assessments.
7. Based on the results of the assessments, S.A. was eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the category of other health impaired as she was diagnosed with ADHD.
8. All other test scores of S.A. put her in the average range.
9. The petitioners agreed with the classification of S.A. determined by the District.
10. During the IEP portion of the July 19, 2024 meeting, the District offered to place S.A. in its Columbia Academy Program (“CAP”) of Columbia High Schol for the 2024–2025 school year.
11. The CAP program offers a smaller group learning environment, and can be taught on the academic or honors level with no more than twelve students in the class.
12. In addition to the CAP program, the District offered study skills sessions and smaller sized counselling services for S.A., but the petitioners declined.
13. The petitioners based their objections on the size of Columba High School and expressed concern over it being too large.
14. On July 19, 2024, counsel for petitioners submitted a letter to the District requesting that it pay for S.A. to attend high school at the Franklin School. The District declined.
15. On April 8, 2025, the petitioners filed a due process petition.
District’s Expert Witness, Leigh Carter
1. Leigh Carter (“Carter”) is a social worker and case manager who has been employed by the District for two years.
2. Carter’s job duties are related to case management, drafting IEPs, supervising the IEP implementation, reevaluations and planning meetings.
3. Carter also checked on the progress of students under the cases he managed through classroom observations, and other related measures. (Id.)
4. In the spring of 2024, Carter was aware of S.A. and knew that she enrolled in the District in May 2024.
5. Pursuant to the prior settlement agreement, S.A. attended the Winston School before the petitioners re-enrolled her in the District. (Id.)
6. Carter requested to speak with a representative of the Winston School about S.A.’s progress via emails to the petitioners. (Id.)
7. On June 4, 2024, which was the last day of school, the petitioners gave their consent for Carter to speak with a representative of the Winston School. (J- 37.)
8. The Winston School did not respond to Carter’s request for S.A.’s grades and progress updates. (Id.)
9. Carter did not acknowledge that he received S.A.’s grades from the Winston School. (J-42.)
10. The petitioners signed the consent to complete the educational and psychological evaluations of S.A. which were identified by Carter at the evaluation planning meeting of the District. (J-12.)
11. The educational and psychological evaluations that were completed by the CST revealed that S.A.’s IQ was average and that there were no concerns regarding her processing ability or working memory. (J-16.)
12. In the BASC assessment, S.A. also reported to be in the average range. (Id.)
13. S.A., on at least two occasions, reported to the CST that she was scheduled to attend the Franklin School for high school in the fall. (Id., J- 23.)
14. The educational evaluation of the CST demonstrated that S.A. was functioning at her grade level with average scores across the board. (J-23.)
15. The July 19, 2024, proposed IEP for S.A. demonstrated that she was eligible for special education related services under the classification category of other health impaired based on the results of her test scores. (J-19.)
16. As the school psychologist of the CST found no discrepancies in their testing of S.A., she was ineligible under the category of specific learning disability. (Id.)
17. S.A. was only eligible for special education because of her ADHD diagnosis. (Id.)
18. S.A.’s test scores were all in the average range. (Id.)
19. Carter did not invite anyone from the Winston School to the IEP meeting as it was closed within a day of Carter receiving the consent from the petitioner to speak to representatives from the Winston School.
20. Carter never saw the letter from the Winston School that recommended S.A. be placed in the Franklin School. (J-10.)
21. There were no discrepancies in test scores to make S.A. eligible as a student with a specific learning disability.
22. The petitioners were required to register S.A. in the District by February 2024 but did not.
The District’s CAP Program at Columbia High School
1. For the 2024–2025 school year, the District offered the petitioners the CAP program for S.A. in the core subjects because of the smaller sized classroom.
2. Settings, the ability to teach honors classes and the twelve-student maximum size limit per class.
3. The teacher in the CAP program is a trained special education teacher who is certified in the content areas and in special education.
4. The core classes that S.A. would need have less than twelve students in each class in the CAP program. (J-41.)
5. The proposed IEP offered to the petitioners by the District included small counseling services, and study skills sessions for S.A. as a new student coming into the high school. (J-19.)
6. The petitioners primary and only concern raised at the IEP meeting was that Columbia High School was too large of a setting for S.A. despite the CAP program being able to meet her needs. (J-41.)
7. Based on S.A.’s test scores, and input from the CST, she was eligible for participation in Achieve Touring where a tutor would be assigned to her.
8. The District considered other programs for S.A. but determined that the in-district CAP program could be modified to meet all of S.A.’s needs.
9. Carter had no reservations about S.A.’s ability to do well in the CAP program as there was nothing in the profiles or achievement to indicate that the District would be unable to accommodate S.A. in her academic studies.
10. Based upon S.A.’s self-reported scores on the BASC, her expressed emotional and behavioral concerns, the District recommended the CAP program.
Petitioners’ Witness, Dr. Josephine M.I. Diemond, Head of The Winston School
1. Dr. Diemond (“Diemond”) testified about her familiarity with S.A. as a student at the Winston School and about Winston in general.
2. S.A. did well at Winston because of its smaller classroom settings.
3. Diemond was not familiar with any of the programs at Columba High School.
4. The high school preparation process at the Winston School occurs in late February of each student’s seventh grade year.
5. The Winston School advises the families of its students of potential high schools for them to attend, including private school placements, as early as the seventh grade.
6. Diemond teaches the high school preparation class. Students in her class who are planning on attending a private high school would fill out the application, complete the interview preparation, and review the application process on Fridays throughout the entire eight grade year.
7. In the Fall of 2023, Diemond recommended the Franklin School to the petitioners. S.A. also filled out the application for the Franklin School at that time. (Id.)
8. Diemond could not remember the date in July 2024 that she wrote the reference letter for S.A. to attend the Franklin School.
9. Diemond did not remember how the reference letter was sent to the District. She did not recall whether the letter was sent by her or a staff member. (Id.)
10. Diemond’s opinion about a public school being inappropriate for S.A. was not based on any actual knowledge of the Columbia High School program.
Petitioners’ Witness, William Campbell, Head of The Franklin School
1. William Campbell (“Campbell”) testified as the Head of the Franklin School.
2. The Franklin School is an unapproved general education high school where students with learning and attentional needs are fully included in all cases and receive individualized executive-function support. (J-39.)
3. Campbell had personal knowledge of every student at the Franklin School given its small student size population. He developed learning profiles for every student.
4. Campbell and staff for the Franklin School visited the Winston School and interacted with staff regulatory during the admission process to ensure that the level of support could be provided for students like S.A. upon attending.
5. Campbell met S.A. prior to her attending the Franklin School but could not recall when he reviewed her application.
6. In the Fall of school year 2023–2024, the admission process took place for S.A. to attend the Franklin School. (Id.)
7. In September 2024, S.A. began attending the Franklin School as a freshman enrolled in the Endeavor program. (J-38, J-39, J-48.)
8. The Franklin School’s learning profile and accommodations that were created for S.A. documented that she needed scaffolded written support, time management.
9. Strategies and individualized coaching which was offered in the Endeavor Program at the school. (Id.)
10. The Franklin School, while accredited, is not approved by the State of New Jersey for the education of students with disabilities.
11. There are no teachers currently employed at the Franklin School who have been licensed and certified by the State of New Jersey for the education of students with disabilities.
12. The Franklin School was not the only program for S.A. to be appropriately educated.
13. Campbell was not familiar with the South Orange-Maplewood School District, never saw the proposed program for S.A., and did not ever observe any programs in the District.
14. Campbell could not offer any opinion about the appropriateness of the District programs for S.A. (Id.)
Petitioners’ Expert Witness, Dr. Cheryl Blankman, Ph.D., Psychologist
1. In June 2025, Dr. Blankman (“Blankman”), a school psychologist, was hired by petitioners to review the District’s July 19, 2024, IEP, evaluations and to review the proposed placement by the District and the Franklin School placement.
2. Blankman provided an independent expert evaluation of the District’s IEP process and placement for S.A. by reviewing her educational records, evaluations, the Winston School reports, the Frankin School data, and hearing transcripts. (J-46, J-47.)
3. It was critical for the District to have reviewed S.A.’s records from the Winston School to “have a complete picture of S.A. as a learner at this time in her educational career.” (J-46.)
4. The District should have conducted classroom observations of S.A., and it was a violation of the evaluations standards not to have done so. (J-46.)
5. The WISC-V and BASC self-report administered by the District were not sufficient to address S.A.’s executive functioning weaknesses, and to capture her organizational, initiation, and self-monitoring deficits given her ADHD diagnosis. (J-46.)
6. The present IEP of the District was not reliable in that it did not have input from the Winston School. (J-46.)
7. The July 2024 IEP did not address S.A.’s actual needs and was, therefore, deficient. (J-46.)
8. The educational profile of S.A. cannot be addressed if she were to be a student in the CAP program because it is populated by students with emotional and/or behavioral disabilities program. (J-46.)
9. Because CAP is a self-contained program segregating students by disability categories, the District did not meet the Least Restrictive Environment (“LRE”) requirement. (J-46.)
10. The Franklin School curriculum and its Endeavor program offer the explicit executive-function instruction and college-preparatory academics in small classes that is necessary for S.A. to achieve meaningful educational progress. (J-46.)
11. The Franklin School provided an individualized program to meet S.A.’s executive-functioning and academics needs in an environment where she is educated with her general education peers and was appropriate to meet S.A.’s needs. (J-46.)
12. The District denied FAPE as it was superficial and disconnected from S.A.’s learning profile. (Id.)
13. Blankman never met S.A., nor had she interacted with her directly.
14. Blankman did not observe S.A. receive instruction in a classroom setting.
15. Blankman was not aware of when the petitioners enrolled S.A. in the district despite her criticism of the enrollment and evaluation process of the District.
16. Blankman was not aware that the petitioners did not give consent for the District to speak with the Winston School until the last day of the school year.
17. Blankman did not know that the District requested records from the Winston School but never received a response.
18. Blankman acknowledged that the school’s psychologist’s report did recognize a discrepancy in S.A.’s testing scores.
19. Blankman’s conclusions regarding S.A.’s needs in an authentic classroom setting were not based on firsthand personal observations of S.A. receiving instruction in an educational setting.
20. Blankman was not at the July 19, 2024 IEP meeting.
21. The IEP offered modifications and supplementary supports to address S.A.’s executive functioning issues. (J-19.)
22. Blankman did not know whether Carter reached out to the Winston School.
23. Because S.A. was no longer at the Winston School, there would have been no benefit in the District observing S.A. at the Winston School. (Id.)
Petitioner C.A.
1. C.A. is the father of S.A. who testified that she made progress during her three years at the Winston School.
2. Petitioners were looking for a high school that could continue the program S.A. had while attending the Winston School.
3. The Winston School provided resources for parents to become more familiar with high schools, including private ones, for their children to attend while they were still at the Winston School. (Id.)
4. The petitioner C.A. did not think the public high school in the district was best for S.A. and began interviewing other schools and toured the Frankin School while S.A. was still at the Winston School.
5. The petitioners re-enrolled S.A. in the District and proceeded with the evaluation and IEP meeting.
6. In July 2024, the petitioner testified that he had concerns about the class size and overall size of Columbia High School.
7. C.A. believed S.A. would be stigmatized for being in a small classroom setting offered by the CAP program.
8. On July 19, 2024, the same day as the IEP meeting, attorney for petitioners sent a letter to the Discitis stating that S.A. would be attending the Franklin School.
9. In March 2024, prior to enrolling S.A. in the Distrct, petitioners began the high school exploration process through the Winston School.
10. Petitioner could not remember when the Winston School recommended the Franklin School to him. The petitioner could not recall when he contacted the Franklin School.
11. In April 2024, petitioner toured the Frankin School.
12. Petitioners started the process of placement for S.A. in the Franklin School prior to registering her back in the District.
13. Petitioner never observed the CAP program offered by the District.
14. Petitioner never asked if they could attend the IEP meeting in July 2024.
15. A spot was reserved at the Franklin School by the petitioners before the July 19, 2024 IEP meeting.
16. S.A. was already attending the Franklin School when petitioners requested a meeting with the District. (Id.)
Unilateral Placement at the Franklin School, September 2024
1. The petitioners and S.A. applied to, interviewed for and met with staff of the Franklin School when she was in her seventh grade at the Winston School which was in the fall of the 2023–2024 school year.
2. A 9th grade spot was reserved for S.A. at the Franklin School by the petitioners prior to re-enrolling her in the District and before a meeting to assess S.A.’s particularized educational needs.
3. The petitioners want the best possible education for S.A. It is their belief that the District cannot provide the best education for S.A., and it will never be able to provide the best education for her. The petitioners ardently believe that the only school that can provide the best education for S.A. is the Franklin School.
Based on the discussion above, I FIND as fact that the educational evaluation of the CST demonstrated that S.A. was functioning at her grade level with average scores across the board.
1. The July 19, 2024, proposed IEP for S.A. demonstrated that she was eligible for special education related services under the classification category of other health impaired based on the results of her test scores.
2. S.A. was only eligible for special education because of her ADHD diagnosis. Even with this diagnosis, S.A. was not a student with a specific learning disability.
3. The District did not invite anyone from the Winston School to the IEP meeting as it was closed within a day of the District receiving the consent from the petitioners to speak to representatives from the Winston School.
4. As the school psychologist of the CST found no discrepancies in their testing of S.A., she was ineligible under the category of specific learning disability.
5. The CST proposed an appropriate program and placement that was reasonable calculated to meet S.A.’s individualized educational needs although not consistent with the petitioners’ preference.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., requires New Jersey to effectuate procedures that ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the State have available to them a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) consisting of special education and related services. The IDEA “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).
Congress has not provided a statutory definition for what is an “appropriate public education” when it enacted IDEA. However, the United States Supreme Court, through interpretation, has held that it is “reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit to the individual child.” Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192 (1982). Thus, IDEA does not obligate a district to provide educational programs or services designed to maximize the potential for students with disabilities but does require a “basic floor” of an opportunity which consist of “access to specialized instruction and related services” particularized for each child. Id. at 197-201. To put another way, an appropriate education will necessarily differ from student to student, depending upon factors affecting the student’s abilities. Id. at 198.
The basic floor requirement has been interpreted by the Third Circuit to be an education provided and/or funded by the district which offers the student an opportunity for meaningful learning, considering the child’s potential. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex. Rel. ME., 172 F.3d 238, 247 (3d Cir. 1999). Pursuant to the precedent of the Third Circuit, an IEP “must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive meaningful educational benefits inn light of the student’s intellectual potential and individual needs.” K.D. by & through Dunn v. Downtown Area Sch. Dist., 904 F.3d 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2018). Therefore, if an IEP is reasonably calculated based upon the information available to the District at the time it was drafted, to provide a significant educational benefit to the student, then the district has satisfied its obligations under the IDEA.
The IDEA also includes a “mainstreaming” component which is commonly referred to as “inclusion” in the overall description of FAPE. This provision requires that students with disabilities must be educated in the least restrictive environment that is appropriate for the induvial special needs. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 265 (3d Cir. 2003; N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2 (a). Succinctly stated by the Third Circuit, “[t]he 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 attends if the child were not disabled.” Carlisle Area Sch. Dist. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 535 (3d Cir. 1995).
There is a two-part test utilized by standard used by courts in the Third Circuit in assessing compliance with the least restrictive environment requirement of the IDEA. The two-part test requires the determination of 10 whether education in the regular classroom, with use of supplementary services, can be achieved satisfactorily; and 20 if placement outside of a regular classroom is necessary, whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate, i.e., whether the school has made efforts to include the child I school programs with non -disabled children whenever possible. Oberti v. Clementon Bd of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204, 1215-17 (3d Cir. 1993).
States are obligated to identify, classify, and provide a FAPE to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one. 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a); N.J.S.A. 18A:46-8; N.J.A.C. 6A:14-1.1. This responsibility rests with the local public school district. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-1.1(d). School districts have an affirmative and continuing obligation to identify and evaluate students reasonably suspected of having a disability under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This responsibility is known as a district’s “child find” obligation. See D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d. 233, 249 (3d. Cir. 2012); 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3). Each district must develop written procedures to identify students within the location of the district who may have a disability due to “physical, sensory, emotional, communication, cognitive, or social difficulties.” N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.3(a). These procedures must include evaluation measures to determine a student’s eligibility for special education and related services. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.3(a)(3)(iii).
Unilateral Placement
Case law recognizes that the IDEA does not require the District to provide S.A. with the best possible education. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir. 2003). It also does not require the District to ensure that the student receives what his parents believe is the optimal (or adequate) educational benefit, nor must it create a “little Eden” within the district to meet the parents’ demands and preferences. M.A. ex rel. G.A. v. Vorhees Twp. Bd. of Educ., 202 F.Supp. 2d 345, 364 (D.N.J. 2002). Rather, when a court must determine whether a district has provided FAPE, the pertinent inquiry is whether the IEP proposed by the district offered FAPE with the opportunity for significant learning and meaningful education benefits within the LRE. G.B. & D.B. ex rel. J.B. v. Bridgewater-Raritan Reg’l Bd. of Educ., EDS 4075-06, Final Decision (June 13, 2007). If it is found that the district provided FAPE, the appropriateness of another program is irrelevant. See H.W. & J.W. ex rel. A.W. v. Highland Park Bd. of Educ., 108 Fed. Appx. 731, 734 (3d Cir. 2004). Simply put, even if the Franklin School provides S.A. with an appropriate or even superior program, the issue to be decided is whether the District offered S.A. a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. I believe that it did.
Petitioners want the best possible education for S.A. and genuinely believe that she can only obtain this education from the Franklin School. I disagree. The District is capable and has offered S.A. with an opportunity for significant learning and meaningful education by participating in the CAP program at Columbia Hugh School as was discussed at the IEP meeting on July 19, 2024. (J-37.) The petitioners rejected the proposed IEP and sent a letter to the District on the same day indicating that S.A. would be attending the Franklin School. Prior to re-enrolling in the district, the petitioners had already determined that S.A. would attend the Franklin School. The educational evaluation of the CST demonstrated that S.A. was functioning at her grade level with average scores across the board. Moreover, the CST found no discrepancies in their testing of S.A., and she was ineligible under the category of specific learning disability. She was eligible for special education because of her ADHD diagnosis.
The relevant facts are the test scores, teacher input, parent input, and grades. All things considered, the District can provide S.A. with a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
Petitioners can place S.A. in the school of their choosing, but the District does not have to reimburse them.
I CONCLUDE that the District’s IEP proposed for S.A. on July 19, 2024 offered FAPE, and was reasonably designed to confer a meaningful benefit to S.A. and was appropriate considering her circumstances. I CONCLUDE that the IEP constituted an offer of FAPE in the least restrictive environment appropriate for S.A.’s needs. I CONCLUDE that the due process request filed by petitioners is DENIED and dismissed with prejudice. I also CONCLUDE that the unilateral placement by petitioners at the Franklin School was unwarranted, and petitioners’ demand for reimbursement for the Franklin School is DENIED.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED that petitioners’ due process petition 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.
September 22, 2025
DATE KIMBERLY K. HOLMES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties: jb
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioner: C.A. Josephine Maria Iacuzzo Diamond, Head of the Winston School William Campbell, Head of the Franklin School Dr. Cheryl Blankman, Ph.D., Psychologist
For Respondent: Leigh Carter, School Social Worker, Columbia High School
EXHIBITS
Joint:
J-1 Educational and Neuropsychological Eval Report February 2020
J-2 Winston SLP and OT Reports January 2022
J-3 Essex Regional Educ. Evaluation December 2022
J-4 Essex Regional Psych Evaluation December 2022
J-5 Essex Regional Intelligence Scale Report December 2022
J-6 Essex Regional ISP Reevaluation January 2023
J-7 Essex Regional ISP January 19, 2023
J-8 Winston IVY Global Test Results May 2023
J-9 Essex Regional Annual Review January 11, 2024
J-10 Winston Placement Recommendation Letter 2024
J-11 Signed Additional Assessment Notice May 2024
J-12 Unsigned Additional Assessment Notice May 2024
J-13 Testing emails May 2024
J-14 Reevaluation Meeting Emails May 2024
J-15 South Orange Psych Eval June 2024
J-16 Psych Eval June 2024
J-17 Woodcock-Johnson Score Report June 2024
J-18 Summer Evaluation Emails 6/2024
J-19 Draft IEP Proposing CAP 7/2024
J-20 IEP Re eval Invitation Letter 7/2024
J-21 Unilateral Placement Notice Letter 7/2024
J-22 IEP Reevaluation 7/2024
J-23 Educational Assessment 7/2024
J-24 Unilateral Placement Emails 10/2024
J-25 Winston Report Cards 2021-2024
J-26 Winston MAP Scores Spring 2023-2024
J-27 Franklin School Progress Report 1/17/2024
J-28 Email Shayna Anrig Placement Meeting 1/30/2025
J-29 Franklin School Progress Report 1/317/2025
J-30 Franklin School Progress Report 2/14/2025
J-31 Franklin School Progress Report 2/24/2025
J-32 Franklin School Progress Report 2/28/2025
J-33 Franklin School Progress Report 4/11/2025
J-34 Franklin School Progress Report 4/2025
J-35 Franklin School Progress Report 5/9/2025
J-36 Franklin School Progress Report 5/23/2025
J-37 Release of Info Emails 6/2025
J-38 Franklin Learning Profile and Accommodations 2024-2025
J-39 Franklin Endeavor Program Progress Report 2024-2025
J-40 Class Schedule Trimester 2 - 2024-2025
J-41 2024-2025 CAP Program Class Sizes 2025-2025
J-42 Shayna Anrig Emails Between Winston and Leigh Carter
J-43 Columbia Academy Program
J-44 William Campbell Resume
J-45 Leigh Carter Resume
J-46 MAJ. S.S. Cheryl Blankman Expert Report 6/16/2025
J-47 C. Blankman Resume 6/2025
J-48 Franklin Endeavor Brochure