Parents press board on special‑education placements as district approves three special‑education contracts

At the Aug. 28 meeting of the Cinnaminson Township School District Board of Education, several members of the public urged the board to change classroom practices for students with disabilities and raised a pending due‑process matter while the board approved three special‑education contracts and independent evaluation criteria.

Scott Nowicki (public commenter) told the board he and his wife filed a due‑process petition on April 17 alleging the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education for their son. He said mediation failed and that a two‑day hearing occurred in July; closing briefs were submitted August 21. He asked whether board members had been informed about the petition, had received updates, and were aware of potential financial liability if the administrative law judge ruled against the district.

“Over the past several weeks, we have attempted to work with the administration to develop a compromise placement for the start of the school year,” Nowicki said. He asked the board three yes/no questions about being informed and about awareness of possible financial exposure; board members declined to answer in public because it is a pending legal matter.

Ashley Neild (public commenter, therapist) and other parents described concerns about classroom organization for fourth and fifth graders with IEPs. Neild said some students are assigned to “non switching” classrooms rather than switching classes like their general‑education peers, and she argued that the practice limits development of executive functioning, self‑advocacy and independence.

“This practice denies students the opportunity to develop the life and executive functioning skills that come with switching classes,” Neild said, and described the continued use of those placements despite prior complaints.

Another parent addressed the board more emotionally, saying she had previously contested the district’s placement decisions for her daughter and that teachers, in her view, were willing to support inclusion but administrators resisted.

On the board’s agenda the same night, the special‑education section listed three contracts for approval: an agreement with Prime Healthcare Services/St. Clair’s LLC, an agreement with Beata Home Healthcare Inc., and an agreement with the New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired. The board approved the three contracts, the consultant agreement with Interactive Kids to provide social skills programming, and criteria for independent evaluations for the 2025–26 school year. The rates for the contracts were listed in the agenda.

Nut graf: Public commenters pressed the board about inclusion policies and a pending due‑process case that the commenters said could carry financial consequences. The board approved external provider contracts and criteria for independent evaluations in the special‑education program.

Board members stated they would not comment on pending litigation in public session but said matters requiring follow‑up would be referred to the superintendent. The board approved the listed special‑education contracts by roll call vote.

Ending: Parents and district leaders said they would continue discussions outside public session; the public record shows the board accepted the listed contracts and the independent‑evaluation criteria for 2025–26.