N.S., on behalf of minor child, S.B-S. V. Board of Education of the Kingsway Regional High School District, Gloucester County, 2/25/19, (#49-19)

49-19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
N.S., on behalf of minor child, S.B.-S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Kingsway Regional
High School District, Hudson County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the respondent Board’s decision to impose discipline upon her minor son for violating
the school district’s code of conduct after he was involved in an altercation with a classmate, specifically
challenging the severity of the punishment imposed. The Board filed a motion for summary decision,
contending that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal; in the alternative, the
Board argued that its decision must be upheld because it was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
The petitioner opposed the motion, arguing that the Student Code of Conduct Tier I penalty of four
“administrative lunch detentions” would have been a more appropriate punishment than the Tier II
penalty of four extended school days which S.B.-S. was assessed for his infraction.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case, and the matter is
ripe for summary decision; pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9, the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear all
controversies and disputes arising under the school laws; the regulations governing pupil discipline,
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1-9, specifically address the due process rights of students who are suspended or
expelled for code of conduct violations, including the right of appeal to the Commissioner; the regulations
do not, however, address this right of appeal for less serious forms of discipline that do not result in
removal of the student from the classroom; in the instant case, the Commissioner’s enormously broad
jurisdiction over school matters extends to disputes arising under the school laws and regulations
governing student conduct and discipline; the Board had a reasonable basis for concluding that S.B.-S.
committed a Tier II offense, namely violating the rule requiring students to “Respect the Rights of
Others”; the proper procedures were followed in reviewing the discipline imposed upon S.B.-S.; and the
petitioner failed to raise any genuine issues of fact to show that the Board’s disciplinary decision was
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Accordingly, the ALJ granted summary decision to the Board, and
dismissed the petition.
Upon comprehensive review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the Initial Decision, the
Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s determination that the Board did not act in an arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable manner when it imposed a penalty of four extended school days upon S.B.-S.
for violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The Commissioner is also in accord with the ALJ’s
determination that he has jurisdiction over this matter. Accordingly, the Initial Decision was adopted as
the final decision in this matter 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.
February 25, 2019

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 7378-18
Agency Dkt. No. 90-4/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
N.S., on behalf of minor child, S.B.-S.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Kingsway High School
District, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions to the Initial Decision.
Upon a comprehensive review of the record, and for the reasons stated in the Initial
Decision, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) determination that the
Board did not act in an arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner when it imposed a penalty of four
extended school days upon S.B.-S. as discipline for an incident that involved another student. The
Commissioner is also in accord with the ALJ’s determination that the Commissioner has jurisdiction over
this matter.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	February 25, 2019
Date of Mailing: 	February 27, 2019
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008,
c. 36 (N.J.S.A 18A:6-9.1).

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07378-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 90-4/18
N.S. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD S.B.-S.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
KINGSWAY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT, GLOUCESTER COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______
N.S., on behalf of minor child S.B.-S., petitioner, pro se
Allan P. Dzwilewski, Esq., for respondent (Weiner Law Group LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 18, 2018 	Decided: January 10, 2019
BEFORE ELIA A. PELIOS, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner N.S., on behalf of her minor son, S.B.-S., appeals respondent, Board of
Education of the Kingsway Regional High School District, Gloucester County’s (Board)
decision to punish him with four extended school days for violating its code of conduct as a
result of an altercation he had with a classmate.

2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 16, 2018, N.S. on behalf of minor child S.B.-S. filed a petition with the
Commissioner of Education challenging the Board’s decision. On May 16, 2018, the Board
filed an answer to the petition. The matter was transmitted to the OAL as a contested case
on May 18, 2018.2
The Board filed a motion for summary decision on September 27, 2018. 	The Board
argues that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. In the alternative,
the Board argues that even if this appeal were properly before the Commissioner, the Board’s
decision must be upheld because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Petitioner
opposed the Board’s motion on October 9, 2018.3 Petitioner contends S.B.-S. “could have and
should 	have 	received” 	the 	lesser 	Tier 	I 	(M) 	offense 	“General 	Misconduct” 	and 	four
“administrative lunch detentions” instead of four extended school days for the Tier II (P) offense.
Pet. Brief at p. 2. 	The Board filed its reply brief on October 22, 2018. 	Multiple subsequent
correspondence was received from both parties and was reviewed, but did not impact the
outcome of this decision.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
On January 29, 2018, near the end of drama class at Kingsway Regional High School
(Kingsway), the teacher asked S.B.-S., a male student, to collect the props that were used
during class. 	(Informational/Statement form completed by S.B.-S. on January 29, 2018.) 	A
female student was wearing one of those props, a bandana, on her head. 	S.B.-S. said that
when he attempted to remove the bandana, her hair got caught in it. Ibid. He claimed it was
accidental, and that he apologized. Ibid. The female student believed that S.B.-S. intentionally
pulled her hair. 	(Disciplinary Referral form). 	A few minutes later, the female student
approached S.B.-S. and slapped him in the face. 	Ibid. 	S.B.-S. told her “to get her boyfriend
because he wasn’t going to fight a girl.” Ibid.
2 The transmittal form describes the nature of the case as: 	“Petitioning parent challenges Board’s HIB
[Harassment Intimidation and Bullying] determination.” There is no indication in the record, however, that this
matter implicates the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 18A:37-13, et seq.
3 Petitioner did not include an affidavit in her opposition papers.

3
The 	teacher, 	Andrew 	Young, 	ordered 	both 	students 	to 	Kingsway’s 	Assistant
Principal’s office. 	(Email from Mr. Young to Ms. Stowman-Burke dated January 31, 2018.)
That same day, Assistant Principal Monique Stowman-Burke filled out a “Disciplinary
Referral Form” for S.B.-S., charging him with violating the student code of conduct.
Kingsway’s Code of Conduct, which is part of the Student Handbook, includes a tiered
system for imposing discipline (Tiers I, II, III, and IV). Board’s Brief, Ex. A. Each Tier lists a
number of different offenses (identified by letter) and a corresponding disciplinary action
that should be taken (depending on the number of offenses committed). Id. at pp. 41-44.
S.B.-S. was charged with a Tier II (P) offense: “Respect the rights of others [physically,
sexually, and verbally (spoken, written or electronic)] including but not limited to hazing,
harassment, 	ridicule, 	embarrassment, 	inflammatory 	statements, 	slur, 	and 	racial/religious
comments.” 	Id. at p. 42. 	For first-time offenders like S.B.-S., the Tier II (P) offense carries
discipline of four “extended school days.” 	Ibid. As the name suggests, an “extended school
day” means more time in school: 	instead of being dismissed at regular time, 2:18 p.m., the
student must report to a dedicated classroom from 2:30 to 5:30 p.m. Id. at p. 37. This form of
discipline is reserved “for students who commit serious infractions” and “for repeat offenders.”
Ibid.
Assistant 	Principal 	Stowman-Burke 	notified 	S.B.-S.’s 	mother 	(petitioner) 	of 	the
altercation. 	The two spoke again by phone the following day, January 30, 2018, and met in
person on January 31, 2018. (Letter from petitioner to Dr. Lavender dated February 14, 2018
at pp. 3-4.)
The code of conduct gives students “the right to appeal the discipline decision of a
school administrator.” 	Board’s Brief, Ex. A at p. 45. 	The appeal process begins with an
informal conference. 	Ibid. 	If the matter is not resolved at the conference, the disciplinary
decision can be appealed to the assistant principal. Ibid. If the matter remains unresolved,
the decision can be appealed to the principal, who must render a written decision. 	Ibid.
The principal’s decision can then be appealed to the superintendent, who must also render
a written decision. 	Ibid. 	Finally, the superintendent’s decision can be appealed to the
Board, and the Board must “hear the appeal at the next scheduled Board meeting.” Ibid.

4
Petitioner requested a disciplinary appeal hearing, which was held on February 13,
2018. (Letter from petitioner to Mr. Mueller and Ms. Boerlin dated March 11, 2018 at p. 7.)
By letter dated February 21, 2018, Kingsway’s Principal, Craig Stephenson, upheld the
disciplinary decision, finding that S.B.-S. “did commit the violation ‘Respecting the Rights of
Others’ physically when he did pull a hat off another student’s head and verbally when he
exchanged inappropriate and threatening language with the other student.” (Letter from Mr.
Stephenson to petitioner dated February 21, 2018.)
Petitioner then appealed that decision to the Superintendent, Dr. James Lavender,
who conducted his own investigation, in which he interviewed S.B.-S., the female student,
and three other witnesses. (Letter from Dr. Lavender to petitioner dated March 7, 2018.). He
found that both students gave “contradictory accounts” of the physical and verbal altercation.
Id. at p. 2. 	S.B.-S. testified that when he removed the bandana from the female student’s
head, he may have inadvertently pulled her hair. Id. at p. 1. The female student testified that
S.B.-S. pulled her hair “so hard that it pulled her over.” 	Ibid. 	When she confronted S.B.-S.
about why he pulled her hair, she said he laughed and she slapped him in the face. 	Ibid.
She also testified that when she turned to walk away, S.B.-S. slapped the back of her head.
Ibid.
The Superintendent also found that the witness testimony supported the conclusion
that “both students played equal roles in the incident.” Id. at p. 2. The first witness testified
that S.B.-S. pulled the female student’s hair when he grabbed the bandana from her head
and she responded by slapping him in the face. Id. at p. 1. That witness also testified that
S.B.-S. later pushed and/or grabbed the female student’s head. 	Ibid. 	The second witness
did not see the physical altercation but heard the students yelling at one another. Ibid. The
third witness testified that S.B.-S. pulled the female student’s hair and she slapped him in
response. 	Ibid. 	That witness also testified that “both students were loud, disrupted class,
and the teacher responded by calling for an administrator to assist.” Ibid.
The superintendent also spoke to the school nurse who examined both students. Id. at
p. 2. The nurse confirmed the S.B.-S.’s cheek was red from being slapped. Ibid. The nurse

5
also said that although the female student claimed her head hurt and was noticeably upset, she
did not sustain any injuries. Ibid. Based on these findings, the superintendent concluded that
“the assistant principal, and principal, has administered the code of conduct correctly.” Id. at p.
2.
Next, petitioner appealed that decision to the Board. 	(Letter from the Board to
petitioner dated March 26, 2018.) 	The Board held an executive meeting on March 15,
2018, 	during 	which 	petitioner, 	S.B.-S.’s 	grandfather, 	and 	the 	superintendent 	offered
testimony and answered questions. 	(Transcript of executive meeting transcribed by
petitioner). By letter dated March 26, 2018, the Board notified petitioner that it had voted on
March 22, 2018 to uphold the superintendent’s decision.4 Ibid.
On April 13, 2018, petitioner filed a juvenile delinquency complaint against the
female student for simple assault in Superior Court, Chancery Division, Family Part,
County of Gloucester.
On April 16, 2018, N.S. filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education
challenging the Board’s decision. 	On May 16, 2018, the Board filed an answer to the
petition. The matter was transmitted to the OAL as a contested case on May 18, 2018.
The Board filed a motion for summary decision on September 27, 2018. The Board
argues that the Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 	In the
alternative, 	the 	Board 	argues 	that 	even 	if 	this 	appeal 	were 	properly 	before 	the
Commissioner, the Board’s decision must be upheld because it was not arbitrary, capricious
or unreasonable. 	Petitioner opposed the Board’s motion on October 9, 2018. 	Petitioner
contends S.B.-S. “could have and should have received” the lesser Tier I (M) offense
“General Misconduct” and four “administrative lunch detentions” instead of four extended
school days for the Tier II (P) offense. 	Pet. Brief at p. 2. The Board filed its reply brief on
October 22, 2018.
4 S.B.-S. has served one of the four extended school days.

6
The factual history for purposes of this motion reflects the procedural history of this
matter as described above. To the extent it does not appear to be in dispute, the preceding
statements are hereby FOUND as FACT.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), summary decision “may be rendered if the papers
and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law.” This rule is substantially similar to the summary judgment rule
embodied in the New Jersey Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. See, Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust
Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). In connection therewith, all inferences of doubt are
drawn against the movant and in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. Id.
at 75. 	In Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J. 520 (1995), the New Jersey
Supreme Court addressed the appropriate test to be employed in determining the motion:
[A] determination whether there exists a ‘genuine issue’ of material
fact that precludes summary judgment requires the motion judge to
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. The ‘judge’s function is not . . .
to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.’
[Brill, 142 N.J. at 540 (citations omitted).]
The mere existence of disputed facts is not conclusive. 	An agency must grant a
plenary hearing only if material disputed adjudicative facts exist. Bally Mfg. Corp. v. Casino
Control Com'n, 85 N.J. 325, 334, 426 A.2d 1000 (1981), App. Div. 454 U.S. 804, 102 S.Ct.
77, 70 L.Ed.2d 74 (1981); Cunningham v. Dept. of Civil Service, 69 N.J. at 24-25, 350 A.2d
58. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-9. 	Here, the parties do not dispute any material facts. Accordingly, I
CONCLUDE, that summary decision as a matter of law is appropriate.

7
As part of this matter, the Board has filed a motion for summary decision, arguing
that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision, and in the
alternative, that the Board’s decision must be upheld because it was not arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable. 	In opposition, petitioner does not dispute that S.B.-S. should
have been disciplined but argues that he should have received a lesser punishment for his
role in the altercation.
Generally, the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction to hear “all controversies
and disputes arising under the school laws . . . or under the rules of the State board or of the
commissioner.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. 	Under the school laws, a board of education shall
“[p]erform all acts and do all things, consistent with law and the rules of the state board,
necessary for the lawful and proper conduct, equipment and maintenance of the public
schools of the district.” N.J.S.A. 18A:11-1(d). The school laws further provide that “[p]upils in
the public schools shall comply with the rules established in pursuance of law for the
government of such schools, pursue the prescribed course of study and submit to the
authority of the teachers and others in authority over them.” N.J.S.A. 18A:37-1.
The regulations governing pupil discipline, N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1 to -7.9, require boards of
education to adopt a code of conduct “that establishes standards, policies, and procedures for
positive student development and student behavioral expectations on school grounds” and that
includes 	“[a] 	description 	of 	school 	responses 	to 	violations 	of 	behavioral 	expectations
established by the district board of education that, at a minimum, are graded according to the
severity of the offenses, and consider the developmental ages of the student offenders and
their histories of 	inappropriate behaviors[.]” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.1(a) and (c)(5). 	Those
regulations specifically address the due process rights of students who are suspended or
expelled for code of conduct violations, including the right of appeal to the Commissioner. See,
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.2(c), Short-term suspensions; N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.3(b), Long-term suspensions;
N.J.A.C. 6A:16-7.4(b), Expulsions. However, those provisions do not address a right of appeal
to the Commissioner for less serious forms of discipline that do not result in removing a student
from the classroom.

8
The absence of an explicit right of appeal of minor discipline does not necessarily
mean that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction over a petition alleging that a board of
education inappropriately punished a student for violating its code of conduct. 	Instead, the
Commissioner has enormously broad jurisdiction over school matters. 	To the extent the
dispute in this matter arises under the school laws and regulations governing student conduct
and discipline, I CONCLUDE that the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
The question then becomes whether the Board improperly imposed four extended
school days on S.B.-S. as punishment for violating the code of student conduct. J.D. and E.D.
ex rel. B.D. v. Bd. of Educ. Toms River Reg’l Sch. Dist., EDU 6009-97, Initial Decision
(December 	29, 	1997) 	adopted, 	Comm’r 	(July 	8, 	1998)
<https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. 	Indeed, an action by a board of education “is
entitled to a presumption of correctness and will not be upset unless there is an affirmative
showing that such decision was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.” Thomas v. Morris Twp.
Bd. of Educ., 89 N.J. Super. 327, 332 (App. Div. 1965).
Turning to the substance of this matter, petitioner does not dispute that S.B.-S.
should have been disciplined for his role in the drama class altercation. 	Rather, petitioner
contends that S.B.-S. “could have and should have received” the lesser Tier I (M) offense
“General Misconduct” and four “administrative lunch detentions” instead of four extended
school days for the Tier II (P) offense “Respect the Rights of Others.”5 Pet. Brief at p. 2.
Despite this contention, the Board had a reasonable basis for concluding that S.B.-
S. violated the Tier II (P) offense “Respect the Rights of Others” and therefore, that
disciplinary decision should not be disturbed.
5 The Tier I (M) offense is “General misconduct [Including, but no limited to: profanity, loitering,
inappropriate physical contact (P.D.A.), disruption to the academic environment and improper use
of a hall pass].” 	Ex. A at p. 41. 	An “administrative lunch detention” is “typically the primary
behavioral intervention used to address most Tier I and Tier II discipline code violations.” Id. at p.
36.
Petitioner does not offer much explanation or factual support for her contention. Instead, she
primarily argues that the other student in the incident should have been more severely punished.
However, parents generally do not have the right to appeal discipline imposed on a student who is
not their child. U.K. & G.K. ex rel. D.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Clifton, 93 N.J.A.R.2d (EDU)
71.

9
In reviewing the discipline imposed by the Assistant Principal, Kingsway followed the
proper procedure outlined in the code of conduct. As mentioned previously, students have
“the right to appeal the discipline decision of a school administrator.” Board’s Brief, Ex. A at p.
45. 	The appeal process begins with an Informal Conference. 	Ibid. 	If the matter is not
resolved at the conference, the disciplinary decision can be appealed to the assistant
principal. 	Ibid. 	If the matter remains unresolved, the decision can be appealed to the
principal, who must render a written decision. 	Ibid. 	The principal’s decision can then be
appealed to the superintendent, who must also render a written decision. 	Ibid. 	Finally, the
superintendent’s decision can be appealed to the board of education, and the Board must
“hear the appeal at the next scheduled Board meeting.” Ibid.
At petitioner’s request, a disciplinary appeal hearing was held on February 13, 2018.
(Letter from petitioner to Mr. Mueller and Ms. Boerlin dated March 11, 2018 at p. 7.)
Following that hearing, the principal upheld the disciplinary decision, finding that S.B.-S.
“did commit the violation ‘Respecting the Rights of Others’ physically when he did pull a hat
off another student’s head and verbally when he exchanged inappropriate and threatening
language with the other student.” (Letter from Mr. Stephenson to petitioner dated February
21, 2018.)
Petitioner then requested that the superintendent review the decision. (Letter from Dr.
Lavender to petitioner dated March 7, 2018.) The superintendent conducted an independent
investigation in which he interviewed S.B.-S., the female student, and three other witnesses.
Id. at p. 1. 	He found that both students gave “contradictory accounts” of the physical and
verbal altercation. 	Id. at p. 2. 	S.B.-S. testified that when he removed the bandana from the
female student’s head, he may have inadvertently pulled her hair. 	Id. at p. 1. 	The female
student testified that S.B.-S. pulled her hair “so hard that it pulled her over.” 	Ibid. When she
confronted S.B.-S. about why he pulled her hair, she said he laughed and she slapped him in
the face. Ibid. She also testified that when she turned to walk away, S.B.-S. slapped the back
of her head. Ibid.
The superintendent also found that the witness testimony supported the conclusion
that “both students played equal roles in the incident.” Id. at p. 2. The first witness testified

10
that S.B.-S. pulled the female student’s hair when he grabbed the bandana from her head
and she responded by slapping him in the face. Id. at p. 1. That witness also testified that
S.B.-S. later pushed and/or grabbed the female student’s head. Ibid. The second witness
did not see the physical altercation but heard the students yelling at one another. Ibid. The
third witness testified that S.B.-S. pulled the female student’s hair and she slapped him in
response. 	Ibid. 	That witness also testified that “both students were loud, disrupted class,
and the teacher responded by calling for an administrator to assist. Ibid.
The superintendent also spoke to the school nurse who examined both students. Id. at
p. 2. The nurse confirmed the S.B.-S.’s cheek was red from being slapped. Ibid. The nurse
also said that although the female student claimed her head hurt and was noticeably upset, she
did not sustain any injuries. Ibid.
Based on these findings, the superintendent concluded that “the assistant principal, and
principal, has administered the code of conduct correctly.” 	Id. at p. 2. 	The Board voted to
uphold the superintendent’s decision on March 22, 2018 after holding an executive meeting on
March 15, 2018, during which petitioner, S.B.-S.’s grandfather, and the superintendent offered
testimony and answered questions. (Transcript of executive meeting transcribed by petitioner).
Again, petitioner concedes that S.B.-S. should have been disciplined for his role in the
incident but disagrees with the type of discipline imposed. 	But, as has been held before,
“disagreement with the punishment given is not enough to overcome the discretion afforded to
the Board, even if the punishment was not the most appropriate or effective means of
discipline.” 	T.B.M. ex rel. M.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision
(February 6, 2008) adopted, Comm’r (April 7, 2008) <https://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>.
Here, petitioner has failed to raise any genuine issues of material fact showing that the Board’s
decision to impose four extended school days on S.B.-S. for violating the code of conduct was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.6
6 While neither party specifically mentioned the fact that S.B.-S. is a special education student, petitioner
included in her papers S.B.-S.’ Individualized Education Program (IEP), which indicates that he has been
diagnosed with “Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety.” Under the State regulations implementing the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1400 to -1482, a school district may, for disciplinary reasons, remove
a special education student from the classroom for up to ten days without first determining whether the
misconduct was a manifestation of the student’s disability. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.8. The State regulations further

11
For this reason, I CONCLUDE that the Board’s motion for summary decision should be
GRANTED.
ORDER
The Board’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED. 	Petitioner’s claim is
hereby DISMISSED. 	Hearings in this matter, scheduled for January 14 and 15, 2019,
are hereby ADJOURNED.
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.
provide that “[s]chool district personnel may, on a case-by-case basis, consider any unique circumstances
when determining whether or not to impose a disciplinary sanction . . . for a student with a disability who
violates a school code of conduct.” Ibid. Thus, it does not appear that this matter, which does not involve a
removal from the classroom for ten days or more, involves special education issues that are outside of the
Commissioner’s jurisdiction. Also, while it does not appear that the Board considered S.B.-S.’ disability in
determining the appropriate punishment, State law provides a school district with discretion to consider a
disability in punishing a special education student, and petitioner did not argue here that the Board should have
considered S.B.-S’ disability.

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.
January 10, 2019
DATE 	ELIA A. PELIOS, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
nd