Board of Education of the Township of Sparta, Sussex County v. M.N., on behalf of minor child, A.D., 9/28/21, (#202-21)

202-21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of Sparta,
Sussex County,
Petitioner,
v.
M.N., on behalf of A.D.,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this matter, the petitioning Board contended that A.D., a special education student who previously attended
high school in Sparta, obtained a New Jersey-issued high school diploma in April 2019. Prior to that date, A.D.
obtained a GED. The Board argued that the high school diploma which A.D. received from the State of New
Jersey is “fully aligned with the State’s academic standards,” and therefore A.D. is no longer entitled to be
enrolled in the district’s schools . Respondent’s mother, M.N., contended that A.D. did not receive a “regular”
high school diploma and should therefore be allowed to continue enrollment in Sparta schools. The Board filed
a motion for summary decision.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is ripe for
summary decision; the issue to be determined in this case is whether obtaining a GED and a State-issued high
school diploma preclude A.D. from reenrollment in the school district; N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.1(a) states that prior to
receiving a high school diploma, a student with a disability age 16 through 21 who voluntarily leaves a public
school program may reenroll at any time up to and including the school year of his or her 21st birthday; the
Board contends that A.D. has in fact received a high school diploma that is “fully aligned with the State
academic standards; respondent’s argument that A.D. did not receive a “regular” high school diploma fails, as
A.D. did in fact receive a State issued high school diploma that is fully aligned to the State standards; A.D. did
not merely obtain a GED; respondent’s argument that A.D. was entitled to written notice regarding a change in
his placement is misguided, as A.D. voluntarily disenrolled from the school district prior to obtaining the State-
issued high school diploma; He was not enrolled in the District at this time. In fact, he voluntarily dis-enrolled
in the District. At that point the District had no obligation to provide an education, or notice, to A.D.. This
argument fails as what A.D. received is, in fact, a State issued high school diploma that is “fully aligned with
State standards.” A.D. did not merely obtain a GED.. Accordingly, summary decision was granted in favor of
the Board, and the petition was dismissed.
Upon review of the record, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion. The Initial
Decision was adopted as the final decision in this matter, for the reasons well expressed therein, and 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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05866-21
Agency Dkt. No. 87-6/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of
Sparta, Sussex County,
Petitioner,
v.
M.N., on behalf of A.D.,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), the exceptions filed by respondent pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Board’s reply
thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
The Respondent’s child, A.D., is a special education student who attended school
in Sparta. Respondent withdrew A.D. from the district in March 2019. In April 2019, A.D. was
issued a high school diploma by the State of New Jersey after he achieved the required Statewide
standard score on the General Education Development test (GED). A series of dis-enrollments
by the district and reenrollments by respondent followed, with the district ultimately informing
respondent in May 2021 that A.D. was no longer entitled to receive services from the district
because he had met New Jersey graduation requirements.
Following the filing of the Board’s motion for summary decision, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that A.D. received a State-issued high school
diploma that is fully aligned with State standards, not merely a (GED) diploma, and therefore he
202-21

2
is no longer entitled to be enrolled in the district’s schools. The ALJ further concluded that
respondent was not entitled to written notice of the change in A.D.’s placement because it came
about through his own actions.1
In her exceptions, respondent argues that the diploma A.D. received is not a regular
high school diploma. Respondent notes that A.D. did not attend high school for four years and that
the 120 course credits required for graduation from a district does not compare with studying at home
for a month and barely passing GED tests. Respondent also contends that she should have received
notice when the district decided to discontinue services and unenroll A.D.
In reply, the Board argues that respondent’s exceptions merely reiterate arguments
made below. The Board notes that students are permitted to obtain State-issued diplomas through
non-traditional pathways and contends that such a diploma is a not a lower credential and should not
be considered differently simply because a student who obtains it is classified. The Board argues that
the lack of a regulatory distinction between diplomas awarded by a district board of education and
diplomas awarded by the Commissioner demonstrates that the State Board of Education did not
intend to create different categories of credentials. Finally, the Board notes that it neither
discontinued services nor disenrolled A.D., who had in fact been withdrawn from the district by
respondent.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that A.D.’s diploma is a
“regular high school diploma” that is fully aligned with State standards and, therefore, A.D. is no
longer entitled to a free education in Sparta or any other New Jersey school district. The record
reflects that the diploma awarded to A.D. was issued by the State of New Jersey Board of
1 This matter was filed concurrently with a special education due process petition docketed as Agency Dkt. No.
2021-32852, OAL Dkt. No. EDS 05384-21. The ALJ determined not to consolidate the two matters and denied the
portion of the Board’s motion for summary decision pertaining to the due process petition. The Commissioner’s
jurisdiction does not extend to due process petitions, which fall exclusively within the purview of the Department’s
Office of Special Education Policy and Dispute Resolution. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7. Accordingly, any issues relating to
the due process petition will not be addressed herein.

3
Education, signed by the Commissioner of Education, and indicated that A.D. has satisfied in full
the statutory and regulatory requirements of the State for a high school diploma.
The Commissioner has previously noted that a diploma “signifying attainment of
the skills and knowledge deemed necessary by the State of New Jersey for its students to be
successful in their careers and daily lives” can be earned by completing the requirements of
N.J.A.C. 8A:5-1.(a) associated with traditional high school coursework, or, among other things,
by achieving the required scores on the GED. B.A. and J.H., on behalf of minor child, M.A.A. v.
Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Somerville, Somerset Cty., Commissioner Decision No. 201-09
(June 22, 2009). The Commissioner further indicated that “through its acceptance of alternative
measures” to obtain a diploma, “particularly the GED program,” “the State has implicitly
recognized that means other than course/credit/assessment completion as contemplated by
N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.1(a) can legitimately evidence acquisition of an education sufficient to satisfy
the statutory and constitutional mandate and warrant issuance of a State-endorsed diploma so as
to end a student’s entitlement to attend the public schools of a district.” Ibid.
Furthermore, there is no distinction in N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.2 between a district-issued
diploma and a State-issued diploma, such that both diplomas demonstrate that the student has
completed an education that is fully aligned with State standards. The State Board of Education,
in implementing alternate pathways for students to obtain diplomas, has recognized that students
may complete their education in non-traditional ways. A State-issued diploma simply reflects
such an alternate pathway and is in no way a lesser credential. Accordingly, having obtained a
State-issued diploma, A.D. is no longer entitled to a free education in the district’s schools.2
2 The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ’s conclusions regarding the Board’s obligation to provide notice
to respondent, for the reasons detailed in the Initial Decision.

4
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
3 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.
September 28, 2021
September 28, 2021

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO EDU 05866-21
AGY REF NO. 87-6/21
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF SPARTA, SUSSEX COUNTY,
Petitioner,
v.
M.N. ON BEHALF OF A.D.,
Respondent.
__________________________________
Katherine A. Gilfillan, Esq., for Petitioner (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP,
attorneys)
M.N., Respondent, pro se
Record Closed: August 13, 2021 	Decided: August 16, 2021
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the Office of Controversies
and Disputes in the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) on June 11, 2021.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 2 -
The Acting Commissioner declined the request pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-8 and
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-2.1(a)1, and directed that the matter proceed as a petition of appeal
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 et seq.
The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law on July 9, 2021.
A prehearing conference was held on this matter, and a companion case (EDS
05384-21), on July 13, 2021, with a prehearing order entered on the same date. 	The
matters were not consolidated.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Decision dated July 23, 2021. Respondent
submitted a reply brief on August 6, 2021. Petitioner filed a response thereto on August
13, 2021. The record closed on August 13, 2021.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following relevant, material facts are not in dispute:
1. 	A.D. initially enrolled in the District at the start of the 2018-2019 school
year. He was a transfer from the Ramapo Indian Hills School District.
2. 	A.D. was provided an IEP and attended school in District.
3. 	A.D. was provided home instruction commencing on March 11, 2019.
4. 	On March 25, 2019, A.D. was withdrawn from the District by his parent.
(Exhibit E, Lorentz Affidavit)
5. 	A.D. was issued a high school diploma by the State of New Jersey on
April 29, 2019. (Exhibit F, Lorentz Affidavit)
6. 	The parent requested that A.D. be reenrolled in the District sometime in
mid-April 2019, and A.D. was reenrolled.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 3 -
7. 	By letter dated May 22, 2019, the high school principal, Michael Lauricella,
advised respondents that A.D. was no longer entitled to receive services from the
District as he had met New Jersey graduation requirements. 	(Exhibit G, Lorentz
Affidavit)
8. 	Thereafter, A.D. was permitted to reenroll in the District for the 2019-2020
school year. (Exhibit H, Lorentz Affidavit)
9. 	A.D. attended school in District at the start of the 2019-2020 school year.
In 	March 	of 	2020 	in 	person 	instruction 	was 	halted 	due 	to 	the 	COVID-19
pandemic. A.D. was issued a Chrome book for remote learning.
10. 	On June 8, 2020, A.D. was again disenrollment from the District. 	(Exhibit
J, Lorentz Affidavit)
11. 	On September 9, 2020, the parent again sought to reenroll A.D. in the
District. 	The reenrollment did not occur as A.D. decided to join the Army.
(Exhibit K, Lorentz Affidavit)
12. 	A.D. obtained a medical discharge from the Army on December 16, 2020.
(see page 19 of brief in opposition)
ISSUE
Does obtaining a GED, and a State issued high school diploma, preclude A.D.
from reenrollment in the District.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Standard for Summary Decision
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). 	If the motion is sufficiently supported,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 4 -
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an application. Ibid. 	These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . , are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party. ” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” 	Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
In the instant matter there are no disputed relevant material facts, and the matter
is ripe for summary decision.
A.D. obtained a New Jersey issued high school diploma, dated April 29, 2019.
Prior to that, A.D. obtained a GED.
N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.1(a) states: Prior to receiving a high school diploma, a student
with disability age 16 through 21 who voluntarily leaves a public school program may
reenroll at any time up to and including the school year of his or her 21 st birthday.
34 C.F.R. §300,102(a)(3)(i) provides that the obligation to provide FAPE does not
apply to “children with disabilities who have graduated from high school with a regular
high school diploma.”
However, 34 C.F.R. §300,102(a)(3)(iv) states: “As used in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this section, the term regular high school diploma means the standard
high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully
aligned with State standards, or a higher diploma, except that a regular high school

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 5 -
diploma 	shall 	not 	be 	aligned 	to 	the 	alternate 	academic 	achievement 	standards
described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA. A regular high school diploma does not
include a recognized equivalent of a diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma,
certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential.”
The District argues that what A.D. received from the State of New Jersey is “fully
aligned with the State’s academic standards.” 	Citing B.A. and J.J. o/b/o Minor Child
M.A.A. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Somerville, Somerset County, 2009 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 24, Commissioner of Education, #201-09, June 22, 2009.
In B.A. and J.J. o/b/o Minor Child M.A.A. v. Board of Education of the Borough of
Somerville, Somerset County, the Commissioner succinctly set forth an analysis that is,
in my mind, dispositive of the matter herein, as follows:
“To properly establish the context of petitioners' claim, it is
also necessary to consider that: 1) the Legislature and State
Board of Education have provided for implementation of the
constitutional mandate through a K-12 delivery system, a
student's successful progression through which culminates
in receipt of a State-endorsed high school diploma, NJ.S.A.
18A:7C-1 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 6A:8-1.1 et seq.\ 2) a general
education 	student's 	entitlement 	to 	access 	this 	system
terminates either upon graduation through receipt of a State-
endorsed diploma - which in the normal course of events
occurs at the end of 12th grade, but may occur sooner or
later under certain circumstances - or upon reaching the age
of 	20 	without 	having 	so 	graduated, 	NJ.A.C 	6A:8-5.2(a),
NJA.C. 6A:8-5.2(b) and N.J.A.C 6A:8-5.2(d); 3) a State-
endorsed high diploma - the credential signifying attainment
of the skills and knowledge deemed necessary by the State
of New Jersey for its students to be successful in their
careers 	and 	daily 	lives 	- 	can 	be 	earned 	not 	only 	by
completing 	the 	specific 	course, 	credit 	and 	assessment
requirements 	of 	N.J.A.C. 	6A:8-5.1(a), 	but 	also 	by
demonstrating academic skills and knowledge equivalent to
such requirements through alternative means, specifically,
by performing at proficient levels in all areas of the High
School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) and completing 30
general education college credits, NJ.A.C. 6A:8-5.2(d), or by

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 6 -
achieving the required scores on the General Educational
Development 	(GED) 	test 	of 	the 	American 	Council 	on
Education, N.J.A.C. 6A:8-5.2(c); 6:30-1.3.”
What A.D. obtained is a State endorsed diploma. This comports with the requirement of
34 C.F.R. §300,102(a)(3)(iv) which requires the diploma to be “fully aligned with State
standards”.
Respondent argues that A.D. did not receive a “regular” high school diploma.
This argument fails as what A.D. received is, in fact, a State issued high school diploma
that is “fully aligned with State standards.” A.D. did not merely obtain a GED.
Respondent further argues that A.D. was entitled to written notice regarding a
change in his placement. 	This argument is misguided. 	The change in placement was
at A.D.’s own doing: the receipt of the State issued high school diploma. 	He was not
enrolled in the District at this time. 	In fact, he voluntarily dis-enrolled in the District. 	At
that point the District had no obligation to provide an education, or notice, to A.D.
Respondent cites Letter to Cort, United States Department of Education, May 14,
2010, as support for the claim that A.D. has a right to FAPE and a right to re-enroll and
obtain 	a 	regular 	high 	school 	diploma. 	While 	guidance 	from 	the 	United 	States
Department of Education is helpful, it does not carry the weight of law. 	Further,
Respondent fails to note that A.D. voluntarily disenrolled from the District and obtained
a State issued high school diploma that is “fully aligned with State standards.”
Based upon the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary
Decision regarding the within matter (EDU 05866-21) be GRANTED.
ORDER
It 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED 	that 	Petitioner’s 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Decision 	is
GRANTED as follows:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 7 -
1. 	The diploma issued to A.D. by the State of New Jersey is a “regular” high
school diploma terminating his entitlement to enroll in a public school in the
State; and
2. 	The diploma issued to A.D. by the State of New Jersey is a “regular” high
school diploma terminating his prospective entitlement to receive a free and
appropriate public education.
That portion of Petitioner’s motion requesting that Respondent’s due process
petitioner (filed as the petitioner in the companion case, EDS 05384-21) is DENIED.
The undersigned determined not to consolidate that matter with the instant matter.
Accordingly, EDS 05384-21 shall proceed to hearing on August 24, 2021.
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 05866-21
- 8 -
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.
August 16, 2021
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05866-21
- 9 -
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
Motion for Summary Decision
Brief in support of motion
Affidavit of Ronnie Spring
Affidavit of Susan Lorentz with Exhibits A through J
Certification of Katherine A. Gilfillan, Esq. with Exhibit A
Brief in response to Respondent’s brief in opposition
For Respondent:
Brief in opposition to motion for summary decision
Affidavit of M.N. (included in brief)