1 2 3 4

IMAGE imgs/SRP200001.gif
SRP 2000 HIGHLIGHTS - Page 2
Highlights of the most significant work undertaken by the SRP in 2000 include:
  • Negotiated a comprehensive settlement agreement at the Office of Administrative Law on behalf of the parent of a student with autism, whom ELC represented in challenging the District'sfailure to offer specialized programming for students with autism. The terms of this settlement include the District'sagreement to provide extensive training and supervision by a knowledgeable and experienced consultant trained in applied behavior analysis to all staff in its autism program (one week intensive training and one day per week ongoing supervision and training for one calendar year), and to use the consultant to establish a parent training program for ELC'sclient and parents of all similarly situated students, to revise IEP goals and objectives for these students, and to establish progress reports for these students that are directly related to IEP goals and objectives and that provide measurable indicators of student progress towards those goals and objectives. This case is expected to impact other students with autism educated within the East Orange school district as the settlement should result in extensive improvements to the in-district autism program.

  • Successfully challenged the summary dismissal of a student with a disability from a private school accepting students placed by their public school districts. In a case filed against the public school district and the receiving private school, ELC obtained an administrative law judge decision that the private school was subject to the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Law and was required to provide the same rights and protections to a student placed there by his public school district, as he would receive if educated in the public school district. Case established important precedent on the procedural rights of students placed in private schools.

  • Obtained favorable decision from the Commissioner of Education applying liberal interpretation to school residency statute, N.J.S.A.18A:38-1, to grant domicile status to a student who resided with his great aunt, even during period before great aunt obtained legal custody. Generally, domicile status, and entitlement to attend school within a district, is granted only to a student who resides with either a parent or a district resident having legal control of the student, i.e., custody or guardianship. Commissioner found that under the facts of the case, in which there was no evidence of fraud or wrong-doing, it would be inequitable to deny domicile status to the student for entire period he resided with great aunt, even though aunt did not obtain custody until after the school began efforts to disenroll the student. Case established important precedent on the necessity of liberal interpretation of the school residency statute for students residing in non-traditional families.