Parents press board over pending due‑process case and special‑education placements

Parents delivering public comment pressed the Cinnaminson Township School District board on Aug. 26 over a pending due‑process petition and the district’s special‑education placements.

Scott Nowicki, who identified himself during public comment as filing a due‑process petition on April 17, told the board the family participated in two days of hearings in July and submitted closing briefs on Aug. 21. He said an administrative law judge’s ruling is “imminent” but likely will not arrive before the first day of school. “We believe the district failed to provide him with a free, appropriate public education as required under federal and state law,” Nowicki said, and asked the board three yes‑or‑no questions about whether members had been informed of the filing and subsequent proceedings and whether they understood potential financial liability, including compensatory education sought for 2024‑25 and for each day of 2025‑26 without appropriate placement.

Board leadership declined to discuss the specifics of pending legal matters in public. Chair (speaker 1) said the board does not typically comment on pending legal matters and offered to meet with the commenter after the meeting.

Another speaker, Ashley Neals, described a continuing practice she called discriminatory: placing some fourth‑ and fifth‑grade students with IEPs in “non‑switching” classrooms that do not rotate with peers. Neals, who said she has worked as a therapist for children for more than 16 years, argued that the practice “denies students the opportunity to develop life and executive‑functioning skills” and urged the board to ensure students with IEPs are provided supports to participate alongside general‑education peers.

Neither speaker described a board vote or new administrative action; the board’s public response was limited to procedural comments and an offer to follow up outside the meeting. The speakers framed their remarks as requests for transparency, oversight and corrective steps should the administrative ruling find in favor of the family; board members repeatedly cited attorney‑client privilege and the district’s practice of not discussing pending legal matters in public.

Next steps: commenters asked the board to provide timely updates and oversight; the board said it would follow up behind the scenes and offered private meetings rather than a public discussion about the pending legal matter.