S.O., on behalf of minor child, L.O. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ORANGE, ESSEX COUNTY, 2/6/17, (45-17)

45-17
S.O., on behalf of minor child, L.O., 	:
PETITIONERS, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY 	:
OF ORANGE
:
RESPONDENT.
:
SYNOPSIS
The petitioning parent appealed the decision of the respondent Board to expel his daughter, L.O., after an
incident that began with L.O. wearing a hat in school in violation of the established dress code, and
escalated into angry words, threats and aggressive physical behavior towards the school vice principal.
The 	Board’s 	disciplinary 	committee 	charged 	L.O. 	with 	violation 	of 	several 	provisions 	of 	the
school district’s 	Code 	of 	Student 	Conduct, 	including 	“Insubordination/Open 	Defiant 	Behavior”,
“Profanity/Inappropriate Language”, “Threat to Staff”, and “Physical Assault on Staff”. Thereafter, the
disciplinary committee recommended that L.O. be expelled from school and placed in an out-of-district
alternative program; the recommendation was subsequently approved by the full Board. L.O. contended
that she should not have been subjected to expulsion, as she was not treated with dignity and respect, and
that the vice principal provoked and insulted her when she refused to return L.O.’s hat.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the Code of Student Conduct and the Student/Parent Handbook were
distributed and explained to students at an assembly at the beginning of the school year; L.O.’s assertion
that she had never seen these publications and was unaware of the prohibition against headwear was not
credible, given the fact that at the beginning of the incident at issue here, the vice principal verbally
warned L.O. that she could not wear her hat in school; L.O. continued to wear the hat in disregard of the
vice principal’s instruction to take it off inside the school building, and became increasingly belligerent
after the vice principal took the hat and told her that it would be returned at the end of the school day;
L.O. ultimately was restrained by a security officer, but continued to lob profanity and threats of physical
harm at the vice principal; L.O.’s behavior was openly defiant of the vice principal’s authority; and L.O.’s
behavior violated the above provisions of the Code of Student Conduct. The ALJ concluded that the facts
of the case fully support the findings and recommendations of the disciplinary committee, and the
resulting Board decision to expel L.O. for threatening and assaulting the vice principal. Accordingly, the
ALJ affirmed the Board’s imposition of the penalty of expulsion.
Upon review, the Commissioner clarified that the penalty had been improperly characterized as
“expulsion”, but otherwise concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ, and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter for the reasons expressed therein.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with prejudice.
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.
February 6, 2017

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
AGENCY DKT. NO. 12-1/16
S.O., on behalf of minor child, L.O., 	:
PETITIONERS, 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V. 	: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY 	:
OF ORANGE
:
RESPONDENT.
:
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed. Petitioner, S.O., filed exceptions.1
Upon such review, the Commissioner adopts the Administrative Law Judge’s
(ALJ) recommended decision for the reasons expressed therein.2 	Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 6, 2017
Date of Mailing: 	February 7, 2017
1 S.O.’s exceptions were not timely filed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4. Additionally, there is no indication
that S.O.’s exceptions were served upon the Board. Accordingly, the exceptions were not considered by the
Commissioner.
2 L.O.’s removal from Orange High School has been improperly characterized as an “expulsion.” Under
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-1.3, expulsion is defined as “discontinuance of educational services or the discontinuation of
payment of educational services for a student.” The record in this matter does not support a finding of expulsion, as
L.O.’s educational services were not discontinued and she was placed on Home Instruction – following which, the
Board proposed L.O.’s placement in an in-district alternative education program with the option of transferring back
to Orange High School.
3 This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
AGENCY REF. NO. 12-1/16
S.O. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD
L.O.,
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF ORANGE BOARD OF EDUCATION,
ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
S.O. on behalf of L.O., petitioner, pro se
Ronald C. Hunt, Esq., for respondent
Record Closed: August 9, 2016 	Decided: December 22, 2016
BEFORE JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of an incident at Orange High School on October 8, 2015,
wherein L.O., an eleventh-grade student, and the school’s vice principal engaged in a
series of discussions about the student’s wearing of a hat in the school building, which
was 	prohibited 	by 	the 	school’s 	Code 	of 	Student 	Conduct 	and 	the 	school’s
Student/Parent Handbook. 	The discussions allegedly escalated into angry words,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
2
threats, and aggressive physical behavior. 	L.O. was charged with threatening of,
disrespectful behavior towards, and attempted assault of the vice principal. On October
22, 2015, a disciplinary/expulsion hearing was held by the Orange Board of Education
(BOE) disciplinary committee. 	Testimony was taken, and thereafter the disciplinary
committee recommended that L.O. be expelled from the school and that she be placed
in an out-of-district alternative program. On November 10, 2015, the BOE approved the
recommendation. 	By letter dated November 18, 2015, the BOE notified L.O.’s parents
of the decision and advised them of L.O.’s right to appeal to the Commissioner of
Education. 	An appeal was timely filed. 	The Department of Education, Bureau of
Controversies and Disputes, transmitted this matter on February 22, 2016, to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on February 24, 2016, as a contested
case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
The parties engaged in formal discovery. 	Significant efforts were made to settle
the matter over the course of several telephone conferences and face-to-face meetings
at the OAL, but were unsuccessful. 	The hearing was held on August 9, 2016, and the
record closed. The undersigned requested and was granted additional time to issue the
Initial Decision.
THE ISSUES
(1) 	Did L.O. commit any acts that were violative of the Code of Student
Conduct?
(2) 	Does the preponderance of the credible evidence support the disciplinary
committee’s findings and recommendations?
(3) 	Was the penalty of expulsion supported by the evidence or was it imposed
in an arbitrary and capricious manner?

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The Orange Board of Education’s disciplinary committee charged L.O. with
disrespectful behavior towards Orange High School vice principal Stefanie Matthews in
violation 	of 	the 	following 	provisions 	of 	the 	Code 	of 	Student 	Conduct:
“Insubordination/Open Defiant Behavior”; “Profanity/Inappropriate Language”; “Threat to
Staff”; and “Physical Assault on Staff.” 	(R-5 at 25–26.) 	(Any of the above-mentioned
charges would also come under the aegis of Code of Student Conduct at 24 “Disorderly
Conduct”.)
Vice Principal Stefanie Matthews
Vice principal Stefanie Matthews testified that Orange High School holds an
annual assembly at which it distributes and explains the Code of Student Conduct
(“Code”) (R-5) and the Student/Parent Handbook (R-6) to all students of Orange High
School, and that this assembly was held at the beginning of the school year in question.
The Code includes a dress code. 	Matthews testified that on the morning of October 8,
2015, she saw L.O. inside, on the school’s second-floor hallway, wearing a hat. 	She
told L.O. to take off the hat, and L.O. removed her hat. 	A few minutes later she saw
L.O. in the hallway wearing the hat, and she removed it from L.O.’s head. 	L.O.
explained that she wanted to wear the hat because it was her birthday. 	Matthews said
she wished L.O. a happy birthday, but reminded L.O. about the school’s prohibition
against the wearing of any headgear inside the school building. 	She also told L.O. that
she would get the hat back at the end of the school day at 2:40 p.m. 	Matthews walked
away towards a staircase, and L.O. followed her, asking for the hat because her hair
was messed up. 	Matthews said that she helped fix L.O.’s hair twist, told her that it
looked fine, and reiterated that the hat would not be given back until 2:40 p.m.
Matthews then walked down to the first floor.
A 	few 	minutes 	later 	Matthews 	heard 	security 	officer 	William 	Starks 	telling
someone to go to class. 	She rounded a corner and saw that Starks was speaking to
L.O. Matthews testified that L.O. said in an angry tone, “I want my f-ing hat!” L.O. then
saw her and approached her, demanding her hat. 	L.O. said that she had paid for the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
4
hat, and said, “You’re going to give me my hat!” as she ran towards Matthews.
Matthews testified that because L.O. was running towards her she put her hands up,
and L.O. ran into her hands. 	L.O. tried to snatch her hat away from Matthews.
Matthews stated that Starks stepped between Matthews and L.O. while L.O. continued
to scream that she wanted her hat. 	Matthews informed L.O. that she would be
suspended for her conduct. 	Starks then led L.O. down the hall to turn her over to
security guard Lisa King, while L.O. continued to scream at Matthews and threatened
that she would “beat her ass” and that she was going to “f” her up.
Matthews stated that at no time did L.O. ever say that she was unaware that the
school’s rules prohibited the wearing of headgear.
Security Officer William Starks
Security officer William Starks was in his second year of employment at Orange
High School when the subject incident occurred. 	His job is to promote safety at the
school. 	He wrote a report regarding the incident that occurred on the morning of
October 8, 2015. 	The report was dated “9/8/15,” but Starks corrected the date at the
hearing. He testified that on the morning of October 8, 2015, he noticed L.O. walking in
the hallway and told her to go to class. 	L.O. responded by saying that she wanted her
“f-ing” hat, in an angry, raised voice. 	L.O. ran towards Vice Principal Matthews in a
manner that Starks characterized as “aggressive.” Starks made ready to intervene. He
testified that he saw Matthews put up her hands to keep L.O. out of her personal space,
and saw L.O. make contact with Matthews’s hands. L.O. continued to yell at Matthews.
By this time Starks had positioned himself between L.O. and Matthews. He turned L.O.
over to security officer Lisa King, who escorted L.O. away from Matthews.
On cross-examination, Starks answered questions about the date of his report
and the time of the incident. He also was cross-examined about both actors’ demeanor.
He testified that Matthews was calm throughout the incident, and that L.O. became
irate. Starks testified that at no time did Matthews engage in verbal abuse of L.O.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
5
Director of Special Services Shelly Harper
Shelly Harper testified that as the director of Special Services she provides
students with guidance and provides services to special education students. Regarding
L.O., Harper testified that it was her duty to write to L.O.’s parents. 	She sent a letter
dated October 16, 2015, (R-3) advising them of the disciplinary charges brought against
L.O. arising out of the October 8, 2015, incident and informing them about their rights at
the October 22, 2015, Board of Education expulsion hearing. 	Harper also wrote a
November 18, 2015, letter to L.O.’s parents (R-4) informing them that on November 10,
2015, the Board of Education approved the disciplinary committee’s October 22, 2015,
recommendation that L.O. be expelled for her conduct. In that letter Harper also stated
that L.O. would be on home instruction until placement in another school could be
confirmed. 	She informed L.O.’s parents of their right to appeal to the Commissioner of
Education within ninety days. 	Harper testified that she made several attempts to
contact L.O.’s parents. 	Eventually she spoke with S.O. and explained that it was the
school’s duty to set up an alternative education program for L.O.
L.O.
L.O. testified that she went to school on October 8, 2015, her birthday, wearing
clothes that were compliant with the school’s dress code. 	She stated that she did not
know that wearing a hat inside the school building was prohibited. 	She added that she
had 	never 	seen 	copies 	of 	the 	Code 	of 	Student 	Conduct 	or 	the 	Student/Parent
Handbook. 	L.O. stated that when she walked into the school building she was wearing
her hat, and neither Assistant Principal Belton nor the security guard, both of whom
were present at the school entrance, asked her to remove her hat. 	When she went to
her first class the teacher did not ask her to remove her hat.
L.O. stated that after class she felt ill and was walking to the nurse’s office when
she encountered Vice Principal Matthews. 	Matthews told her to remove her hat and
L.O. complied. L.O. stated that the nurse was not in her office, so she decided to go to
class. 	L.O. put her hat back on. 	She encountered Matthews a second time about five
to ten minutes later, and on this occasion Matthews took the hat off her head, telling her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
6
she would get it back at 2:40 p.m. 	Matthews also fixed her hair. 	L.O. stated that she
pleaded for her hat, explaining that it was her birthday, but Matthews refused and
walked away. 	L.O. followed Matthews downstairs and said something that she could
not recall. 	The security guard asked L.O. whom she was talking to “like that.” 	L.O.
admitted that she used profanity, but said it was not directed towards Matthews. When
speaking with the guard, who was sitting five to ten feet away, L.O. complained, raising
her voice, that Matthews wouldn’t give her back her “f-ing” hat. 	Matthews overheard
this remark and told L.O. that she was suspended for three days and would not get her
hat back at all. 	L.O. stated that she walked towards Matthews and told her that she
paid for the hat, and was going to get her hat back. 	She then tried to grab the hat,
which Matthews was holding in her hand. 	Starks placed himself between L.O. and
Matthews. 	L.O. admitted that she came into contact with Matthews. 	King then came
over to her.
L.O. claims that she was not treated with dignity and respect, and that when
Matthews told her that she would never be able to have her hat back, it was intended to
provoke and insult her. 	She claims that this provocation caused the situation to
escalate. 	L.O. stated that students at the school wore hats inside the building all the
time, and that she felt that she was being singled out on October 8, 2015.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as on the opportunity to
observe the witnesses and assess their credibility, I FIND as FACT the following:
1. 	The 	distribution 	of 	the 	Code 	of 	Student 	Conduct 	(R-5) 	and 	the
Student/Parent Handbook (R-6) took place at the beginning of the school year in
2015, as it annually takes place (see N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a)(3)) at Orange High
School, where the contents of each are explained by school officials. This finding
of fact is based on the regularity of the distribution of these publications and Vice
Principal Matthews’s testimony that the assembly took place at the beginning of
the school year. 	These factors outweigh L.O.’s assertion that she never saw
these publications and was unaware of the headwear prohibition. 	Also, L.O.’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
7
failure to ask Matthews why she would not be allowed to wear her hat in school
at their first meeting on October 8, 2015, indicates that L.O. was, in fact, aware of
the prohibition.
2. 	Approximately five to ten minutes after their first meeting on October 8,
2015, a second meeting between L.O. and Matthews occurred. 	At their second
meeting 	Matthews 	found 	L.O. 	wearing 	the 	hat 	in 	disregard 	of 	Matthews’s
instruction not to wear the hat inside the school building. 	Matthews took the hat
off L.O.’s head and informed L.O. that the hat would be returned to her at 2:40
p.m., the end of the school day.
3. 	After the second meeting, L.O. followed Matthews; when Security Officer
Starks instructed L.O. to go to class, L.O. used an angry and loud voice,
demanding the return of her hat, and L.O. used profanity; and when Matthews
heard these words and saw who the speaker was (the third meeting of L.O. and
Matthews), she immediately, in the presence of Starks, informed L.O. that she
was suspended from school and that the hat would not be returned to her.
4. 	L.O. approached Matthews demanding her hat and used profanity against
her; Matthews put up her hands to preserve her personal space from intrusion by
L.O.; and Starks intervened, placing himself between L.O. and Matthews, but not
before L.O. made contact with Matthews as L.O. reached out and tried to snatch
the hat, which Matthews was holding in her hand. As L.O. was escorted away by
Security Officer King, L.O. continued to use profanity and uttered threats of doing
physical harm to Matthews.
5. 	It was L.O., not Matthews, who lost her composure and temper, resulting
in 	L.O.’s 	disrespectful 	behavior, 	her 	uttering 	of 	threats, 	and 	her 	rude,
unprivileged, and hostile touching of Matthews. 	L.O. willfully disregarded the
school’s 	rule 	against 	wearing 	headgear 	inside 	the 	school 	building; 	willfully
disobeyed the direct order of Matthews by putting the hat back on her head
within the minutes between their first meeting and their second meeting; and
failed to acknowledge the vice principal’s authority over her.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
8
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The laws governing the discipline of public-school students are found in N.J.S.A.
18A:37-1 through -37. N.J.S.A. 18A:37-1 obligates students to comply with the school’s
rules, to pursue the prescribed course of study, and to submit to the authority of the
teachers and others in authority over them.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2 sets forth the causes for suspension or expulsion of students.
This section states that conduct that shall constitute good cause for suspension or
expulsion includes, but is not limited to:
b. 	Open defiance of the authority of any teacher or
person, having authority over him.
N.J.S.A. 18A:37-2.1 states:
a. 	Any 	pupil 	who 	commits 	an 	assault, 	as 	defined
pursuant to N.J.S. 2C:12-1, upon a teacher, administrator,
board member or other employee of a board of education,
acting 	in 	the 	performance 	of 	his 	duties 	. 	. 	. 	shall 	be
immediately 	suspended 	from 	school 	consistent 	with
procedural due process pending suspension or expulsion
proceedings before the local board of education.
The New Jersey Administrative Code defines terms relevant to this matter in
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-1.3:
“Alternative Education Program” means a comprehensive
educational 	program 	designed 	to 	address 	the 	individual
learning, behavior, and health needs of students who are not
succeeding in the general education program or who have
been 	mandated 	for 	removal 	from 	general 	education,
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:16-5.5, 5.6 and, as appropriate, 5.7.
The alternative education program shall provide a variety of
approaches to meet the state-adopted standards, such as,
through 	non-traditional 	programs, 	services 	and
methodologies 	to 	ensure 	curriculum 	and 	instruction 	are
delivered in a way that enables students to demonstrate the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
9
knowledge and skills specified for all students in N.J.A.C.
6A:8.
“Code of Student Conduct” means standards, policies, and
procedures established by district boards of education for
positive 	student 	development 	and 	student 	behavioral
expectations on school grounds, including on school buses
or 	at 	school-sponsored 	functions, 	and, 	as 	appropriate,
conduct 	away 	from 	school 	grounds, 	in 	accordance 	with
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1.
“Expulsion” 	means 	the 	discontinuance 	of 	educational
services or the discontinuance of payment of educational
services for a student.
“Long-term suspension” means removal of a student for
more than 10 consecutive school days from the general
education program, or the special education program when
the appropriate procedures set forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.8
have been followed, but not the cessation of the student’s
educational services.
“Short-term suspension” means removal of a student for one
but not more than 10 consecutive school days from the
general 	education 	program 	or 	the 	special 	education
program, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.8, but not the
cessation of the student’s educational services.
Regulations concerning the “Code of Student Conduct” are set forth at N.J.A.C.
6A:16-7.1 in pertinent part as follows:
(a) 	Each district board of education shall develop, adopt,
disseminate, and implement a code of student conduct that
establishes standards, policies, and procedures for positive
student development and student behavioral expectations on
school grounds and, as appropriate, for conduct away from
school grounds.
. . . .
(3) 	The 	code 	of 	student 	conduct 	shall 	be
disseminated annually to all school staff, students and
parents.
. . . .

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
10
(c) 	The 	code 	of 	student 	conduct 	shall 	include, 	at 	a
minimum:
(1) 	A description of the students’ responsibilities
that includes expectations for academic achievement,
behavior and attendance, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:32-
8 and 12.1; and
(2) 	A 	description 	of 	behaviors 	that 	result 	in
suspension 	or 	expulsion, 	pursuant 	to 	N.J.S.A.
18A:37-2.
In the instant case, the Code of Student Conduct (R-5), which as found above
was compiled and distributed by Orange High School in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations, contained a student dress code that prohibited the wearing of
headgear, including hats, inside the school building. 	I CONCLUDE that Vice Principal
Matthews properly interpreted and enforced the dress code when she stopped L.O. at
their first meeting on October 8, 2015, and asked her to remove her hat. 	L.O., minutes
later, placed the hat on her head again. 	I CONCLUDE that by doing so, she violated
the vice principal’s direct order not to wear the hat inside the school building, and,
therefore, I CONCLUDE that she thereby violated the Code’s “Insubordination/Open
Defiant Behavior” provision.
Vice Principal Matthews confiscated L.O.’s hat during their second meeting,
having found that L.O. was wearing the hat in contradiction of her order not to wear the
hat inside the school building. During their third meeting, L.O. used profanity and loudly
and angrily demanded that Matthews return her hat. 	I CONCLUDE that L.O.’s use of
profanity and her loud, angry tone violated the Code’s “Insubordination/Open Defiant
Behavior” provision.
I CONCLUDE that L.O.’s approach towards Vice Principal Matthews, her attempt
to snatch the hat from the vice principal’s hand, and her touching of the vice principal
during this episode violated the Code’s “Threat to Staff” and “Physical Assault on Staff”
provisions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
11
I CONCLUDE that L.O.’s repeated verbal threats of physical harm against the
vice principal, as she was being escorted away by security officer Lisa King, violated the
Code’s “Threat to Staff” provision.
I CONCLUDE that the facts fully support the findings and recommendations of
the disciplinary committee, and, in turn, the decision of the BOE to expel L.O. for
threatening a member of the school’s staff (Matthews) so as to reasonably raise a
concern for 	the 	staff 	member’s 	safety, 	and 	(2) 	actually 	assaulting 	Vice 	Principal
Matthews.
I CONCLUDE that the BOE did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner
when it imposed the penalty of expulsion against L.O. 	Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that
the findings of the BOE and the penalty imposed should be affirmed.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, I ORDER that the findings of the respondent BOE
should be and hereby are AFFIRMED, and I ORDER that the BOE’s imposition of the
penalty of expulsion against L.O. should be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
ORDER
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 02763-16
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.
December 22, 2016
DATE 	JOHN P. SCOLLO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
Db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02763-16
13
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
L.O., petitioner
For Respondent:
Vice Principal Stefanie Matthews
Security Officer William Starks
Director of Special Services Shelly Harper
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-1 	Not in evidence
P-2 	Not in evidence
P-3 	L.O.’s January 11, 2016, letter of apology
P-4 	Not in evidence
P-5 	Code of Student Conduct (partial, 14 pages)
For Respondent:
R-1 	Not in evidence
R-2 	Not in evidence
R-3 	BOE’s October 16, 2015, letter to L.O.’s parents providing notice of
hearing
R-4 	BOE’s November 18, 2015, expulsion letter
R-5 	Code of Student Conduct (complete, 55 pages)
R-6 	Student/Parent Handbook (complete, 49 pages)