400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

DIRECTOR

October 20, 2023 

By Email 

Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Assistant Commissioner 

New Jersey Department of Education 

100 River View Plaza 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Email: kathleen.ehling@doe.nj.gov 

Dear Assistant Commissioner Ehling: 

This letter, and the accompanying chart, summarizes the current status of the findings in the U.S. Department of 

Education (Department), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) May 6, 2019, monitoring letter to the 

New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE). The monitoring letter required NJDOE to implement corrective 

actions to address noncompliance with requirements under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) as identified through OSEP’s differentiated monitoring and support (DMS) activities conducted onsite on September 20-21, 2018. The focus of the September 2018 monitoring visit was NJDOE’s dispute 

resolution system, specifically its due process complaint and hearing procedures. Today’s letter also notifies 

NJDOE of OSEP’s intention to initiate additional monitoring activities focused on both the new and continued 

areas of concern related to NJDOE’s dispute resolution system. 

A cornerstone of IDEA rests in the rights and protections afforded to eligible children with disabilities and their 

parents to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). OSEP has encouraged parents and local educational 

agencies (LEAs) to work collaboratively to support a positive educational experience that reinforces a shared 

goal of improving educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. To resolve 

disagreements that may occur, IDEA Part B provides parents and LEAs with dispute resolution options for 

resolving disagreements about a child’s educational program, including the topic of this monitoring report: due 

process complaints, as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 through 300.518, and specifically the areas of 

timely due process hearing decisions, resolution meetings, child’s status during proceedings, and expedited due 

process hearings. A State’s adherence to these IDEA requirements contributes to the implementation of a 

dispute resolution system that ensures IDEA compliance, thereby resolving disagreements in a timely manner, 

providing all involved parties with a common understanding of the process, and ultimately assuring that a child 

with a disability receives FAPE. It is therefore important for a State to use its general supervisory authority 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600, to ensure compliance and provide technical assistance to support the development, 

improvement, and implementation of its dispute resolution system. Dispute resolution systems that comply with 

IDEA’s requirements are crucial to ensuring that children with disabilities and their families are afforded their 

rights under IDEA and that FAPE is provided. 
Page 2 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Through OSEP’s on-site monitoring process, OSEP identified four areas of noncompliance with IDEA Part B 

requirements:

1. Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions: NJDOE failed to exercise its authority to conduct and 

conclude due process hearing decisions within the 45-day timeline under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) due 

to a misapplication of the term ‘day’, which IDEA defines as a calendar day unless otherwise 

indicated as a business day or school day, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a). Additionally, the NJDOE 

failed to demonstrate established procedures that ensure adjournments are only granted at the request 

of a party to the hearing and for a specific period of time, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c). 

2. Resolution Meetings: NJDOE failed to exercise its general supervisory and monitoring 

responsibility in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11) and 1416(a), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 

300.600(a), (d)(2) and (e), and 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E) to ensure that: (i) LEAs hold a 

resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, as 

required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a); (ii) the 45-day due process hearing commences at the 

conclusion of the 30-day resolution period or the adjusted resolution period; and (iii) if an LEA fails 

to comply with the requirement to convene a resolution meeting, the State makes a finding of 

noncompliance and ensures correction of the noncompliance as soon as possible and in no case later 

than one year from the State’s identification of the noncompliance, as required by 

34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e). 

3. Child’s Status During Proceedings: NJDOE failed to appropriately implement the requirement to 

maintain the child’s current educational placement during the pendency of proceedings, as required 

by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518. 

4. Expedited Due Process Hearings: NJDOE and the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) failed to 

appropriately implement requirements for expedited due process hearings in accordance with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) because (i) the State permits administrative law judges (ALJs) who serve 

as hearing officers to grant a request from a party to an expedited due process hearing to challenge 

the sufficiency of the due process complaint, a practice that is inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a); and (ii) the State permits ALJs who serve as hearing officers to grant an 

adjournment of the expedited due process hearing timelines in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2), even 

though there is no provision permitting a hearing officer to grant extensions of these timelines. 

In response to the required actions outlined in OSEP’s DMS letter, NJDOE submitted two written responses 

with supporting documentation. The first response from NJDOE was dated August 6, 2019, and included a 

description of the actions taken by NJDOE and supporting documents. In the August 6, 2019, correspondence, 

NJDOE stated it had taken the following actions: 

• Updated its policies and procedures concerning the conduct of due process hearings. 

• Issued broadcast memoranda to LEAs, Chief School Administrators, Administrative Law Judges, and 

relevant stakeholders of the revised policies and procedures. 

• Informed LEAs that they will be required to submit documentation concerning resolution meetings to 

the NJDOE beginning September 1, 2019. 

Additionally, NJDOE enclosed the following documents as attachments to its August 6, 2019 correspondence 

to OSEP: 

• Special Education Dispute Resolution Manual 

• Revised Procedures for Conducting Special Education Due Process Hearings 

• Parental Rights in Special Education
Page 3 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

• Revised Procedures for Conducting Special Education Resolution Meetings 

• Revised Procedures for Determining a Student’s Status During a Special Education Due Process 

Hearing

• Revised Procedures for Expedited Special Education Due Process Hearings 

The second response from NJDOE was dated January 14, 2020, and included additional corrective actions taken 

by NJDOE and the OAL. This correspondence outlined the collaboration between the two agencies – NJDOE 

and OAL – to ensure that special education due process hearings comply with the timelines set forth in IDEA. 

This collaboration was described as leading to the creation of the, NJDOE Broadcast Memorandum, informing 

stakeholders of Proposed Special Education Due Process Prehearing Guidelines, a description of a process used 

for OAL to collect and report due process hearing data to NJDOE, and a reference to a revised interagency 

Memorandum of Agreement that was executed by NJDOE and OAL. This letter was signed by Peggy 

McDonald, Ed.D., Assistant Commissioner, Department of Education, and Ellen Bass, Acting Director/Chief 

Administrative Law Judge, OAL. 

A third response from NJDOE was sent via email on February 11, 2022, in response to an inquiry from OSEP 

requesting a copy of the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between NJDOE and OAL. NJDOE’s January 14, 

2020 letter to OSEP stated, “...the NJDOE and the OAL have executed a revised interagency MOA....” 

However, it has come to OSEP’s attention that a revised MOA was signed by Ellen Bass, Acting Director and 

Chief Administrative Law Judge on September 1, 2021 and by Angelica Allen-McMillan, Ed.D., Acting 

Commissioner, NJDOE on October 8, 2021. 

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents and information submitted by NJDOE, and discussions with 

NJDOE, OSEP is issuing this letter to provide the current status of each of the findings that were issued, 

including findings that are closed and require no additional action, findings that remain open due to continued 

concerns around the documentation provided to date and related information, and new or continued areas of 

concerns with the State’s implementation of general supervision and dispute resolution requirements of Part B 

of IDEA. For this reason, as is discussed below, this letter also serves to notify NJDOE of OSEP’s intention to 

initiate additional monitoring activities focused on both the new and continued areas of concern related to 

NJDOE’s dispute resolution system. 

Below, please find a summary of each required action and corresponding status. For a full explanation, 

including an OSEP analysis of each required action, please see the enclosed chart.
Page 4 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Due Process Hearing Decisions Required Actions Summary

Required Action Status

Required Action 1.1 

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that 

the State has established procedures 

to ensure that ALJs who serve as 

hearing officers calculate the 45-day 

timeline for issuing final decisions in 

due process hearings based on 

calendar days rather than ‘Federal 

days.’

Required Action 1.1: Further Action Required

The original finding remains open. Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by the NJDOE, OSEP has determined that the 

documentation provided is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance 

with the related IDEA requirements for Required Action 1.1. 

Therefore, OSEP has provided the State with additional actions that 

must be taken to address Required Action 1.1, including related, 

supplemental information necessary for OSEP’s analysis of this issue. 

To complete Required Action 1.1, within 60 days of the date of this 

monitoring report the State must:

1.1.1. Revise its policies and procedures to reference the IDEA’s 

due process hearing timeline as 45 ‘calendar days,’ as 

described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and § 300.11(a), in each 

of the documents referenced above and any other relevant 

documents the State identifies.

1.1.2. Remove all references to ‘Federal days’ from existing 

publicly available documents, including from the Special 

Education Dispute Resolution Manual. 

1.1.3. Provide to OSEP the final issuance of the Special Education 

Due Process Prehearing Guidelines.

Additional Concern

OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding evidence of 

implementation of the NJDOE/OAL MOA.

Required Action 1.2 

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that 

the State has established procedures 

to ensure that ALJs who serve as 

hearing officers grant adjournments 

as set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:6A-9.2 

(extensions as set forth in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c)) only at the 

request of a party to the hearing and 

for a specific period of time.

Required Action 1.2: Original Finding is Closed

The original finding is closed based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by NJDOE. OSEP has determined that the 

documentation provided is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with 

the related IDEA requirements for Required Action 1.2. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the 

implementation of its procedures which include the monthly 

publishing of extensions to the 45-day timeline, on its website as 

described in the document, Revised Procedures for Conducting 

Special Education Hearings. Additionally, OSEP intends to follow up 

regarding the State’s oversight in addressing extensions to the 45-day 

timeline with the OAL.
Page 5 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Required Action Status

Required Action 1.3

The State must provide a copy of the 

notification to be issued to all ALJs 

who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, 

parent advocacy groups and other 

interested parties advising them that 

the State has revised its due process 

hearing timeline procedures to be 

consistent with Part B regulations 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c), as 

described above.

Required Action 1.3: Further Action Required

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is not 

sufficient to meet the IDEA requirements addressed in Required 

Action 1.3. 

To complete Required Action 1.3, within 60 days of the date of this 

monitoring report the State must provide a copy of the notification to 

all ALJs who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, parent advocacy 

groups and other interested parties advising them that the State has 

revised its due process hearing timeline procedures to be consistent 

with Part B regulations 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c) regarding the 

meaning of "days" in the 45-day timeline.

Required Action 1.4

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that 

the State has reviewed its due 

process hearing data collection 

process and revised it, as necessary, 

to ensure that, consistent with the 

information set forth above, it will be 

able to provide accurate data on fully 

adjudicated hearings and hearing 

decisions with allowable extensions 

for the IDEA section 618 dispute 

resolution data submission for the 

School Year 2019-2020 data 

collection (reporting year is defined 

as July 1, 2019 through June 30, 

2020).

Required Action 1.4: Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is consistent 

with the required action. 

Additional Concerns 

OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the State’s data 

collection process to ensure that it provides accurate data on all IDEA 

Part B Section 618 data collection requirements related to dispute 

resolution, as outlined in OSEP’s data documentation requirements.1

Resolution Meetings Required Actions Summary

Required Action Status

Required Action 2.1 

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that it 

has revised its dispute resolution 

Required Action 2.1.1: Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet the IDEA requirements addressed in Required Action 2.1.1. 

1

 OSEP’s data documentation requirements are available by visiting: IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450e-bbcbefaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/idea-partb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx
Page 6 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Required Action Status

procedures and practices to ensure 

that: 

• 2.1.1 the State has a mechanism 

for tracking whether an LEA 

convenes a resolution meeting 

within 15 days of receiving 

notice of the parent’s due process 

complaint; unless the parties 

agree in writing to waive the 

meeting or use mediation.

• 2.1.2 if an LEA fails to convene a 

resolution meeting as required, 

the State makes a finding of 

noncompliance and ensures that 

the LEA’s noncompliance is 

corrected as soon as possible, and 

in no case later than one year of 

the State’s identification of 

noncompliance.

Required Action 2.1.2: Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet the IDEA requirements addressed in Required Action 2.1.2. 

Child’s Status During Proceedings Required Actions Summary

Required Action Status

Required Action 3.1

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that 

the State has revised the procedures 

in New Jersey’s Special Education 

Dispute Resolution Procedures 

Manual and the explanation on pages 

20 and 21 of its Parental Rights in 

Special Education Handbook by 

removing the language limiting the 

application of the pendency (also 

known as “stay-put") provision to 

due process complaints filed within 

15 calendar days of the proposed 

change in the child’s program or 

placement and including the 

explanation of the stay-put provision 

described above. 

Required Action 3.1: Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet required action 3.1. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the 

implementation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.518. 

Required Action 3.2 Required Action 3.2: Original Finding is Closed
Page 7 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Required Action Status

The State must provide a copy of the 

notification to be issued to all ALJs 

who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, 

parent advocacy groups, and other 

interested parties advising them that 

the State has revised its stay-put or 

pendency provisions to be consistent 

with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.508, as described 

above.

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet required action 3.2. 

Expedited Due Process Hearings Required Actions Summary

Required Action Status

Required Action 4.1

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that 

the State has revised its procedures 

for expedited due process hearings to 

ensure that:

• 4.1.1 ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers do not permit parties to 

challenge the sufficiency of an 

expedited due process complaint; 

and 

• 4.1.2 ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers will no longer grant 

‘adjournments’ (extensions) 

which are inconsistent with the 

shortened timelines governing 

expedited due process 

complaints.

Required Action 4.1.1: Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet required action 4.1.1. However, OSEP recommends that the 

State include information related to required action 4.1.1 in the 

State’s Proposed Special Education Due Process Prehearing 

Guidelines, within the section, ‘Expedited Hearings.’ 

Required Action 4.1.2: Original Finding is Closed

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet required action 4.1.2. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the 

implementation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.532. 

Required Action 4.2

The State must provide a copy of the 

notification to be issued to all ALJs 

who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, 

parent advocacy groups, and other 

interested parties advising them that 

the State has revised the expedited 

due process hearing procedures 

found in NJDOE’s Special Education 

Dispute Resolution Manual to be 

Required Action 4.2: Original Finding is Closed

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet required action 4.2. 
Page 8 – Honorable Kathleen Ehling 

Required Action Status

consistent with the Part B regulations 

at 34 C.F.R. § 300.532, as described 

above.

Required Action 4.3

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating that 

the State has reviewed its expedited 

due process hearing data collection 

process and has revised it, as 

necessary, to ensure that it will be 

able to provide accurate data for its 

IDEA section 618 dispute resolution 

data submission for the School Year 

2019-2020 data collection (reporting 

year is defined as July 1, 2019 

through June 30, 2020).

Required Action 4.3: Original Finding is Closed

Based on OSEP’s review of the documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the documentation provided is sufficient to 

meet Required Action 4.3. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with the State regarding the 

implementation of the State’s expedited due process hearing data 

collection process.

OSEP notes that selected documents provided by NJDOE for purposes of addressing the required actions were 

submitted in ‘draft’ status. OSEP’s review of these documents and how they address the Required Actions will 

be dependent on OSEP’s review of final versions of such documents. 

OSEP appreciates NJDOE’s efforts to complete the required actions and looks forward to receiving the 

additional documentation as described in the enclosed chart to complete the remaining required actions and 

close out the findings. OSEP will provide additional information about additional monitoring activities in the 

near future. 

Please contact Kim Hymes, at 202-245-6538 or kimberly.hymes@ed.gov, if you have any questions or 

concerns. 

Sincerely,

Valerie C. Williams

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosure 

cc: Kimberly Murray, Director

Office of Special Education

New Jersey Department of Education 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 1 

1. Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions

FINDING: Based on the review of documents and interviews with State personnel, OSEP determined that the State does not have procedures for 

ensuring that decisions in due process hearings are issued within a 45-day timeline or within allowable extensions, because: (i) the State does not 

have procedures for ensuring that administrative law judges (ALJs) who serve as hearing officers use calendar days consistent with the definition of 

‘day’ in 34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a), in calculating the 45-day timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) for reaching a final decision in a due process hearing and 

mailing the decision to each of the parties; and (ii) the State does not have procedures for ensuring that ALJs who serve as hearing officers grant 

adjournments, as set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:6A-9.2, consistent with the provision for granting extensions of the 45-day timeline in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c) for a specific time and at the request of a party. 

Consequently, NJDOE has failed to exercise its general supervisory and monitoring responsibility in 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11) and 1416(a) and 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 and 20 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3)(A) to ensure that due process hearing decisions are issued within the 45-day timeline 

or an allowable extension, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c). Because the State does not have procedures for ensuring that hearing 

decisions are reached within the 45-day timeline or an allowable extension is properly calculated, the State cannot ensure that its IDEA section 618 

Dispute Resolution Data submission on fully adjudicated hearings is completed within the timeline and within extended timelines is accurate.

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

Required Action 1.1 

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that the State has established 

procedures to ensure that 

administrative law judges 

(ALJs) who serve as hearing 

officers calculate the 45-day 

timeline for issuing final 

decisions in due process 

hearings based on calendar 

days rather than ‘Federal 

days.’ 

Proposed Special 

Education Due 

Process Prehearing 

Guidelines 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Due Process Hearings

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Manual 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

As indicated in OSEP’s May 6, 2019, letter to 

NJDOE, and further indicated below, OSEP has 

received multiple complaints related to the State’s 

adherence to the 45-day timeline with respect to 

issuing a final hearing decision in due process 

hearings, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), or the 

adjusted time periods described in § 300.510(c). 

Specifically, prior to OSEP’s on-site visit, OSEP 

received two complaints related to the way the State 

calculates the 45-day timeline with respect to issuing 

a final hearing decision. One complaint alleged that 

the state counts ‘Federal days’ instead of calendar 

days in calculating the 45-day timeline. According to 

the complaint, ALJs only count days as ‘Federal 

Required Action 1.1: Further 

Action Required

The original finding remains 

open. Based on OSEP’s review 

of the documents submitted by 

the NJDOE, OSEP has 

determined that the 

documentation provided is not 

sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with the related 

IDEA requirements for Required 

Action 1.1. 

Therefore, OSEP has provided 

the State with additional actions 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 2 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

Special Education 

Due Process Hearings

Parental Rights in 

Special Education

days’ against the 45-day timeline when an action took 

place with regards to the hearing, though days or 

weeks could elapse between such actions. For 

example, a settlement conference, prehearing 

conference, and hearing were counted as three (3) 

‘Federal days,’ but the days and/or weeks between 

such actions were not counted against the 45-day 

timeline. 

OSEP continues to receive information from 

attorneys representing parents of children with 

disabilities in New Jersey in due process hearings 

which reference the continued use of ‘Federal days’ 

and issuance of final hearing decisions that extend 

beyond the 45-day timeline. 

Example 1: Two parents (unidentified) submitted a 

due process complaint on June 15, 2022, which was 

transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law

(OAL) by the NJDOE Office of Special Education on 

July 18, 2022. A final order was issued by the ALJ on 

December 7, 2022.2

 

Example 2: On June 15, 2022, OSEP received 

correspondence from an attorney representing parents 

in New Jersey in due process complaints that allege 

that must be taken to address 

Required Action 1.1, including 

related, supplemental 

information necessary to OSEP’s 

analysis of this issue. 

To complete Required Action 

1.1, within 60 days of the date of 

this monitoring report the State 

must:

1.1.1 Revise its policies and 

procedures to reference 

the IDEA’s due process 

hearing timeline as 45 

‘calendar days,’ as 

described in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) 

and § 300.11(a), in each 

of the documents 

referenced above and any 

other relevant documents 

the State identifies.

1.1.2. Remove all references to 

‘Federal days’ from 

existing publicly 

available documents, 

including from the 

2 The specific information can be provided to the State upon request.
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 3 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

the continued use of ‘Federal days’ by the OAL and 

NJDOE.3

Further, OSEP is aware of, and will continue to 

monitor pending Civil Action No. 19-12807 in the 

United States District Court, District of New Jersey, 

which addresses among other issues, timely due 

process hearing decisions. 

The State-provided documents fail to clearly and 

consistently communicate that the 45-day timeline 

refers to ‘calendar days.’ This explicit reference is 

necessary due to the State’s prior misinterpretation of 

the term ‘45-days’ which has resulted in a 

miscalculation of the 45-day timeline set forth in 34 

C.F.R. §300.515(a).4

 Further, it has been reported to 

OSEP that ALJs may be continuing to calculate the 

45-day timeline using ‘Federal days.’ 

Additionally, in OSEP’s review of the documents 

submitted by the State, OSEP noted only one instance 

where the State referred to the 45-day timeline as 

‘calendar days,’ (Proposed Special Education Due 

Process Prehearing Guidelines, page 1). OSEP notes 

that this specific reference to 45 ‘calendar days’ was 

not consistently referenced throughout the document, 

such as in the section, Hearing Dates and Decision 

Due Dates, or in other relevant sections. Similarly, 

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Manual.

1.1.3. Provide to OSEP the 

final issuance of the 

Special Education Due 

Process Prehearing 

Guidelines. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with 

the State regarding evidence of 

implementation of the MOA, as 

well as continued misapplication 

of the 45-day timeline under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a). 

3 The specific information can be provided to the State upon request.

4

 Under 34 C.F.R. §300.515(c), a hearing officer may grant specific extensions of time beyond the period set out in §300.515(a) at the request of either party. 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 4 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

the State refers to the 45-day timeline in the 

document, Revised Procedures for Conducting 

Special Education Due Process Hearings, but fails to 

explain this as 45 ‘calendar days.’ This specificity is 

needed to ensure that the previous misinterpretation 

of the 45 ‘calendar day’ timeline is corrected and that 

the proper timelines are explicit.

Additionally, OSEP notes that the State has not 

included any explicit reference to ‘45 calendar days’ 

in the following documents: Special Education 

Dispute Resolution Manual; Revised Procedures for 

Conducting Special Education Due Process Hearings; 

and, Parental Rights in Special Education. Moreover, 

OSEP notes that the State does not appear to have 

removed one reference to ‘Federal days’ in the State’s 

Special Education Dispute Resolution Manual. 

Further, the State has not provided sufficient 

documentation demonstrating that it has established 

procedures to ensure that ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers calculate the 45-day timeline using ‘calendar 

days.’ OSEP notes that the Memorandum of 

Agreement for Professional Services (MOA) between 

the NJDOE and OAL, submitted to OSEP in February 

2022, describes the State’s intent to “purchase 

software to centralize the scheduling of cases in order 

to track the progress of special education due process 

hearings and to ensure compliance with the timelines 

set forth in the IDEA, federal, and state regulations.” 

While OSEP appreciates the State’s recognition that 

the existence of a case management system, data 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 5 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

system software solution and/or another mechanism is 

a strategy that may assist with the administration of 

due process complaints, hearings and adherence to the 

45-day timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) or the 

adjusted time periods described in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c), it remains unclear whether 

the State currently is implementing that system. 

Additionally, OSEP notes that the MOA states:

“NJDOE shall provide the OAL with an 

annual payment of $125,000 to identify, 

obtain, coordinate and deliver training and 

professional development to ALJs, the OAL 

special education mediators, and other OAL 

staff working on matters related to special 

education due process hearings. The training 

topics, to be jointly identified by the NJDOE 

and the OAL, must include but are not limited 

to, annual updates to special education law 

and procedures; legal writing; conducting 

negotiations; and presiding over settlement 

conferences.”

However, it remains unclear to OSEP whether this 

training and professional development has been 

implemented, and whether such professional 

development explicitly clarified IDEA’s 45 ‘calendar 

day’ timeline requirement under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) or the adjusted time periods 

described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c) and the 

prohibition on continued use of ’Federal days.’ 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 6 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

Additional Concerns

As noted above, OSEP is aware of examples from 

stakeholders in New Jersey concerning the continued 

misapplication of the 45-day timeline under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a). OSEP intends to review these 

matters further with the State. 

Required Action 1.2 

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that the State has established 

procedures to ensure that 

ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers grant adjournments as 

set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:6A-9.2 

(extensions as set forth in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c)) only 

at the request of a party to the 

hearing and for a specific 

period of time. 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Hearings.

OSEP notes that in the Revised Procedures for 

Conducting Special Education Hearings, the State 

informed the ALJs who serve as hearing officers that 

the granting of adjournments, as set forth in N.J.A.C. 

1:6A-9.2, occurs only at the request of a party to the 

hearing and for a specific period of time. 

Additionally, in this document, the State described a 

requirement for OALs to submit to the State on a 

monthly basis: 

• Number of extensions of the 45-day timeline 

requested, including the party seeking the 

extension of time and the reason for the 

request;

• Number of extensions of the 45-day timeline 

granted by each ALJ; and 

• For each extension of the 45-day timeline 

granted, the OAL must include the revised due 

date of the final decision.

Required Action 1.2: Original 

Finding is Closed

The original finding is closed 

based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 

NJDOE. OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with the related 

IDEA requirements for Required 

Action 1.2. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with 

the State regarding the 

implementation of its procedures 

which include the monthly 

publishing of extensions to the 

45-day timeline, on its website as 

described in the document, 

Revised Procedures for 

Conducting Special Education 

Hearings. Additionally, OSEP 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 7 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

Therefore, the documentation provided by the State, 

as noted above, demonstrates that the State has met 

the required action. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP notes that in the Revised Procedures for 

Conducting Special Education Hearings document, 

NJDOE states, “Beginning October 1, 2019, and 

occurring on a monthly basis thereafter, the 

Department will publish, on its website, all of the 

above information” in reference to the bulleted list 

above regarding extensions. As of June 15, 2023, 

OSEP has been unable to locate this information on 

NJDOE’s website. 

Further, OSEP is concerned that the NJDOE has not 

described its oversight role in ensuring that ALJs who 

serve as hearing officers grant adjournments and 

extensions as set forth in N.J.A.C. 1:6A-9.2 and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c), respectively, only at the 

request of a party to the hearing and for a specific 

period of time. An example of OSEP’s concern is the 

lack of public access to information regarding 

extensions to the 45-day timeline, as described above. 

OSEP intends to review these matters further with the 

State. 

intends to follow up regarding 

the State’s oversight in 

addressing extensions to the 45-

day timeline with the OAL. 

Required Action 1.3

The State must provide a copy 

of the notification to be issued 

to all ALJs who serve as 

Proposed Special 

Education Due 

Process Prehearing 

Guidelines 

OSEP notes that the notification the State submitted 

to OSEP addressed to all ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers, LEAs, parent advocacy groups and other 

interested parties did not specifically or by referenced 

Required Action 1.3: Further 

Action Required

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 8 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

hearing officers, LEAs, parent 

advocacy groups and other 

interested parties advising 

them that the State has revised 

its due process hearing 

timeline procedures to be 

consistent with Part B 

regulations 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and 

(c), as described above.

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Due Process Hearings 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Resolution Meetings 

Parental Rights in 

Special Education

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Manual

documents, sufficiently address the findings related to

the 45-day timeline referring to ‘calendar days’ as 

described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.11(a), and the adjusted time periods 

(e.g., extensions or ‘adjournments’) described in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c). 

As stated in Required Action 1.1, OSEP notes that the 

State did not include an explicit reference to the 45-

day timeline as meaning 45-calendar days in the 

following documents: Proposed Special Education 

Due Process Prehearing Guidelines, Revised 

Procedures for Conducting Special Education Due 

Process Hearings, Revised Procedures for Conducting 

Special Education Resolution Meetings, Parental 

Rights in Special Education. Additionally, OSEP 

notes that the State must remove the reference to 

’Federal days’ in the State’s Special Education 

Dispute Resolution Manual. 

Based on the information presented above, OSEP 

concludes that the information provided to all ALJs 

who serve as hearing officers, LEAs, parent advocacy 

groups and other interested parties is insufficient to 

advise them that the State has revised its due process 

hearing timeline procedures to be consistent with Part 

B regulations 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c), as noted 

in Required Action 1.1. 

NJDOE, OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is not sufficient to meet the 

IDEA requirements addressed in 

Required Action 1.3. 

To complete Required Action 

1.3, within 60 days of the date of 

this monitoring report the State 

must provide a copy of the 

notification to all ALJs who 

serve as hearing officers, LEAs, 

parent advocacy groups and 

other interested parties advising 

them that the State has revised its 

due process hearing timeline 

procedures to be consistent with 

Part B regulations 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and (c) 

regarding the meaning of "days" 

in the 45-day timeline.
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 9 

Required Action 1.4

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that the State has reviewed its 

due process hearing data 

collection process and revised 

it, as necessary, to ensure that, 

consistent with the 

information set forth above, it 

will be able to provide 

accurate data on fully 

adjudicated hearings and 

hearing decisions with 

allowable extensions for the 

IDEA section 618 dispute 

resolution data submission for 

the School Year 2019-2020 

data collection (reporting year 

is defined as July 1, 2019 

through June 30, 2020). 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Due Process Hearings

The documentation provided by the State, which 

includes the document, Revised Procedures for 

Conducting Special Education Due Process Hearings, 

demonstrates that the State has reviewed its due 

process data collection process and revised it to 

address: 

• Fully adjudicated hearings, which the State 

refers to as ‘resolved’ hearings; 

• Hearing decisions with allowable extensions. 

Therefore, the State has met the required action. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP appreciates that the State has described the 

process by which the OAL will provide NJDOE with 

monthly reports which include the following data: 

• Number of due process hearings conducted; 

• Number of due process hearings resolved; 

• Number of due process hearings pending 

before all ALJs;

• Number of extensions of the 45-day timeline 

requested, including the party seeking the 

extension of time and the reason for the 

request;

• Number of extensions of the 45-day timeline 

granted by each ALJ; and 

• For each extension of the 45-day timeline 

granted, the OAL must include the revised due 

date of the final decision.

Required Action 1.4: Original 

Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 

NJDOE, OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is consistent with the required 

action.

Additional Concerns 

OSEP intends to follow up with 

the State regarding the State’s 

data collection process to ensure 

that it provides accurate data on 

all IDEA Part B Section 618 data 

collection requirements related to 

dispute resolution, as outlined in 

OSEP’s data documentation 

requirements.11
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 10 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

However, OSEP notes not all IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution 618 data reporting requirements are 

included in the State’s description of the data OAL 

will report to NJDOE. Therefore, it is unclear to 

OSEP how NJDOE will receive other IDEA Part B 

Dispute Resolution 618 data reporting requirements5

, 

which include: 

• Decision within timeline;

6

• Decision within extended timeline;

7

 

• Expedited due process complaint;8

11 OSEP’s data documentation requirements are available by visiting: IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450e-bbcb-efaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-

007dfa517a57/download/idea-partb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx

5

 IDEA 618 dispute resolution data submission requirements are described in the document, OSEP Data Documentation: IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450e-bbcbefaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/idea-partb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx

6

 IDEA 618 dispute resolution data submission requirements define, ‘decision within timeline’ as, “The written decision from a hearing fully adjudicated was provided to the parties in the due process hearing not later than 

45 days after the expiration of the resolution period or in the case of an expedited due process complaint, provided no later than 10 school days after the due process hearing, which must occur within 20 school days of the 

date the expedited due process complaint is filed.” IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450e-bbcb-efaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/ideapartb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx

7

 IDEA 618 dispute resolution data submission requirements define ‘decision within extended timeline’ as, “The written decision from a hearing fully adjudicated was provided to the parties in the due process hearing more 

than 45 days after the expiration of the resolution period, but within a specific time extension granted by the hearing or reviewing officer at the request of either party.” IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: 

https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450e-bbcb-efaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/idea-partb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx

8

 IDEA 618 dispute resolution data submission requirements define, ‘expedited due process complaint’ as, “A due process complaint filed by: (1) the parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision 

regarding the manifestation determination and/or disciplinary removal of a student from an educational placement and the placement of that student in an interim alternative educational setting; or (2) a local educational 

agency that believes that maintaining the current placement of the child is substantially likely to result in injury to the child or to others.” IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450ebbcb-efaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/idea-partb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 11 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

• Expedited due process complaint pending;

9

and 

• Expedited due process hearing fully 

adjudicated.

10 

OSEP intends to review these matters further with the 

State.

2. Resolution Meetings

FINDING: Based on the review of documents and interviews with State personnel, OSEP determined that the State does not have procedures to 

ensure that the LEA convenes a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree 

in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a) and (b). 

The State does not have a tracking mechanism for determining when the resolution period has concluded and the 45-day hearing timeline in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) commences if the resolution process is unsuccessful in resolving the parent’s due process complaint. Consequently, the State 

is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibility in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11) and 1416(a) and 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600(a), (d)(2), and (e) and 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E) to ensure that: (i) LEAs hold a resolution meeting 

within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a); (ii) the 45-day due process hearing 

commences at the conclusion of the 30-day resolution period or the adjusted resolution period; and (iii) if an LEA fails to comply with the 

requirement to convene a resolution meeting, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures correction of the noncompliance as soon as 

possible and in no case later than one year from the State’s identification of the noncompliance, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e). 

9

 IDEA 618 dispute resolution data submission requirements define, ‘expedited due process complaint pending’ as, “An expedited due process complaint wherein an expedited due process hearing has not yet been scheduled

or is scheduled but has not yet been held.” IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95e-f6f5-450e-bbcb-efaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/idea-partbdispute-resolution-2019-20.docx

10 IDEA 618 dispute resolution data submission requirements define ‘expedited due process hearing fully adjudicated’ as, “A hearing officer conducted a due process hearing concerning an expedited due process complaint, 

reached a final decision regarding matters of law and fact and issued a written decision to the parties about whether a change of placement is ordered.” IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution: https://data.ed.gov/dataset/43ffa95ef6f5-450e-bbcb-efaeba56843e/resource/913dfb34-4e11-48c9-8617-007dfa517a57/download/idea-partb-dispute-resolution-2019-20.docx
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 12 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/ Next Steps

Required Action 2.1 

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that it has revised its dispute 

resolution procedures and 

practices to ensure that: 

• 2.1.1 the State has a 

mechanism for tracking 

whether an LEA convenes a 

resolution meeting within 15 

days of receiving notice of 

the parent’s due process 

complaint, unless the parties 

agree in writing to waive the 

meeting or use mediation. 

• 2.1.2 if an LEA fails to 

convene a resolution meeting 

as required, the State makes a 

finding of noncompliance 

and ensures that the LEA’s 

noncompliance is corrected 

as soon as possible, and in no 

case later than one year of the 

State’s identification of 

noncompliance. 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Resolution Meetings 

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Procedures Manual 

Required Action 2.1.1: The State provided 

documents, Revised Procedures for Conducting 

Special Education Resolution Meetings and Office 

of Special Education Policy and Dispute Resolution: 

Special Education Dispute Resolution Procedures 

Manual, outlined a process for tracking the 

scheduling and outcome of the resolution sessions in 

a database operated by dispute resolution unit staff 

from the NJDOE. Therefore, the documentation 

provided by the State, as noted above, demonstrates 

that the State has met the required action. 

Required Action 2.1.2: The State provided 

documents, Revised Procedures for Conducting 

Special Education Resolution Meetings and Office 

of Special Education Policy and Dispute Resolution: 

Special Education Dispute Resolution Procedures 

Manual, described the procedures the State will use 

to issue a finding of noncompliance if an LEA fails 

to convene a resolution meeting as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510. Therefore, the documentation 

provided by the State, as noted above, demonstrates 

that the State has met the required action. 

Required Action 2.1.1: 

Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 

NJDOE, OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is sufficient to meet the IDEA 

requirements addressed in 

Required Action 2.1.1. 

Required Action 2.1.2: 

Original Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 

NJDOE, OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is sufficient to meet the IDEA 

requirements addressed in 

Required Action 2.1.2. 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 13 

3. Child’s Status During Proceedings

FINDING: Based on the review of documents and interviews with State personnel, OSEP determined that the State procedures for implementing the 

requirement to maintain the child’s current educational placement during the pendency of proceedings, set forth in New Jersey’s Special Education 

Dispute Resolution Procedures Manual and the explanation on pages 20 and 21 of its Parental Rights in Special Education Handbook, are 

inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 filed within 15 calendar days of the proposed change in the child’s program or 

placement. 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

Required Action 3.1

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that the State has revised the 

procedures in New Jersey’s 

Special Education Dispute 

Resolution Procedures Manual 

and the explanation on pages 20 

and 21 of its Parental Rights in 

Special Education Handbook by 

removing the language limiting 

the application of the pendency 

(also known as “stay-put")

provision to due process 

complaints filed within 15 

calendar days of the proposed 

change in the child’s program or 

placement and including the 

explanation of the stay-put 

provision described above. 

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Procedures Manual 

Parental Rights in 

Special Education 

Handbook 

Revised Procedures 

for Determining a 

Student’s Status 

During a Special 

Education Due 

Process Hearing

In its May 6, 2019 monitoring letter, OSEP found 

that the State’s procedures for implementing the 

requirement to maintain the child’s current 

educational placement during the pendency of 

proceedings were inconsistent with 20 U.S.C § 

1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518 because those 

procedures limit the application of the pendency or 

stay-put provision to due process complaints under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.507 filed within 15 calendar days of 

the proposed change in the child’s program or 

placement. OSEP noted that IDEA does not limit the 

application of the stay-put provision to a due process 

complaint requesting a due process hearing that is 

filed within 15 calendar days of a proposed change 

in a child’s program or placement. Moreover, not 

only is the 15 days an arbitrary amount of time, but it 

is not based on parental agreement and is 

inconsistent with OSEP’s previous interpretation of 

34 C.F.R. § 300.518, which states, in general, the 

IDEA presumes that the child’s current educational 

placement is the last agreed-upon placement where 

the child must remain until the completion of 

administrative and judicial proceedings, unless the 

Required Action 3.1: Original 

Finding is Closed. 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 

NJDOE, OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is sufficient to meet required 

action 3.1. 

Additional Concerns: 

OSEP intends to follow up with 

the State regarding the 

implementation of 

34 C.F.R. § 300.518. 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 14 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

public agency and the parents agree to some other 

placement.12

To address this issue, OSEP’s finding focused on 

two documents the State used to convey and 

implement policies, practices and procedures related 

to the application of the pendency provision under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.518: New Jersey’s Special 

Education Dispute Resolution Procedures Manual 

and Parental Rights in Special Education Handbook. 

The documentation provided by the State removed 

references linking the application of the pendency 

(also known as “stay put”) provision to due process 

complaints filed within 15 calendar days of the 

proposed change in the child’s program or 

placement. However, OSEP also notes that the 

Special Education Dispute Resolution Manual only 

addresses the issue of the pendency or stay-put 

provision within the context of “Converting 

‘mediation only’ to a due process hearing request” 

(page 14). The State does not include an explanation 

of the pendency or stay-put provision as set out in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.518, as was previously required, but 

rather refers to the term broadly and in a limited 

context. 

Additionally, the State included an explanation of 

the pendency provision in the document, Revised 

12 See OSEP letter to Goldstein (2012): 12-002172r-ny-goldstein-pendency-10-18-12.pdf (ed.gov)
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 15 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

Procedures for Determining a Student’s Status 

During a Special Education Due Process Hearing, a 

memo to Chief School Administrators, Charter 

School and Renaissance School Project Leads, 

Administrators of Approved Private Schools for 

Students with Disabilities, Nonpublic School 

Administrators, Administrative Law Judges on 

August 6, 2019. Specifically, this memo stated: 

“While neither IDEA nor its implementing 

regulations define “current educational placement,” 

IDEA presumes that the student’s current 

educational placement is the last agreed upon 

placement where the student must remain until the 

resolution of the dispute, unless the LEA and the 

parent/guardian files a request for a due process 

hearing. A student’s right to “stay put” applies even 

if the filing occurs more than 15 calendar days after 

the proposed change in the student’s program or 

placement.” 

Therefore, the State has met the required action 3.1. 

Additional Concerns

Despite the revisions noted above, OSEP continues 

to receive information from attorneys representing 

parents of children with disabilities in New Jersey 

regarding the implementation of 20 U.S.C § 1415(j) 

and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518, which specifically 

reference requiring a parent to file a due process 

complaint within 15 calendar days of the proposed 

change in the child’s program or placement, to 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 16 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

invoke IDEA’s pendency provisions as being 

interpreted to mean the last agreed upon 

placement.13

Through follow up discussions with NJDOE 

personnel,14 OSEP continues to have questions 

regarding the State’s implementation of 20 U.S.C § 

1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518. OSEP intends to 

review these matters further with the State.

Required Action 3.2

The State must provide a copy of 

the notification to be issued to all 

ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers, LEAs, parent advocacy 

groups and other interested 

parties advising them that the 

State has revised its stay-put or 

pendency provisions to be 

consistent with 

20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and 34 

C.F.R.§ 300.508, as described 

above. 

Parental Rights in 

Special Education 

Revised Procedures 

for Determining a 

Student’s Status 

During a Special 

Education Due 

Process Hearing

OSEP has determined that the State has provided 

notification to ALJs who serve as hearing officers, 

LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested 

parties advising them that the State has revised its 

stay-put or pendency procedures to be consistent 

with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.518. 

Required Action 3.2: Original 

Finding is Closed. 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by 

NJDOE, OSEP has determined 

that the documentation provided 

is sufficient to meet required 

action 3.2. 

13 The specific information can be provided to the State upon request.

14 A teleconference was held on May 19, 2022 with officials from OSEP and the NJDOE to discuss questions related to required action 3.1.
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 17 

4. Expedited Due Process Hearings

FINDING: Based on the review of documents and interviews with State personnel, OSEP determined that the State does not have procedures for 

ensuring that ALJs who serve as hearing officers issue decisions in expedited due process hearings in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) 

because: (1) the State permits ALJs who serve as hearing officers to grant a request from a party to an expedited due process hearing to challenge the 

sufficiency of the due process complaint, a practice that is inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a); and (ii) the State permits ALJs who serve as 

hearing officers to grant an adjournment of the expedited due process hearing timeline in 34 C.F.R. §300.532(c)(2), even though there is no provision 

permitting a hearing officer to grant extensions of these timelines. Because of the absence of procedures described above, the State cannot ensure that 

its section 618 dispute resolution data submission on the number of expedited due process hearing decisions decided within the timeline is accurate. 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

Required Action 4.1

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that the State has revised its 

procedures for expedited due 

process hearings to ensure that: 

• 4.1.1 ALJs who serve as 

hearing officers do not 

permit parties to challenge 

the sufficiency of an 

expedited due process 

complaint; and 

• 4.1.2 ALJs who serve as 

hearing officers will no 

longer grant ‘adjournments’ 

(extensions) which are 

inconsistent with the 

shortened timelines 

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Procedures Manual

Revised Procedures 

for Expedited 

Special Education 

Due Process 

Hearings to ALJs

Parental Rights in 

Special Education 

Handbook 

Proposed Special 

Education Due 

Process Prehearing 

Guidelines 

Required Action 4.1.1: OSEP notes that the State 

has issued a memorandum entitled, Revised 

Procedures for Expedited Special Education Due 

Process Hearings to ALJs, which specifically 

referenced that ALJs who serve as hearing officers 

cannot permit parties to challenge the sufficiency of 

an expedited due process complaint. Additionally, 

OSEP notes the State revised the Special Education 

Dispute Resolution Procedures Manual and 

Parental Rights in Special Education handbook to 

prohibit sufficiency challenges of an expedited due 

process complaint. Therefore, the State has met 

required action 4.1. 

Additionally, OSEP recommends that the State 

include information related to required action 4.1.1 

in the State’s Proposed Special Education Due 

Process Prehearing Guidelines, within the section, 

‘Expedited Hearings,’ as information related to 

sufficiency challenges is not currently included. 

Required Action 4.1.1: Original 

Finding is Closed

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the 

documentation provided is 

sufficient to meet required action 

4.1.1. However, OSEP 

recommends that the State include 

information related to required 

action 4.1.1 in the State’s 

Proposed Special Education Due 

Process Prehearing Guidelines, 

within the section, ‘Expedited 

Hearings.’ 

Required Action 4.1.2: Original 

Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by NJDOE, 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 18 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

governing expedited due 

process complaints. 

Required Action 4.1.2: OSEP notes that the State 

has issued a memorandum entitled, Revised 

Procedures for Expedited Special Education Due 

Process Hearings to ALJs, which specifically 

referenced that ALJs who serve as hearing officers 

cannot grant ‘adjournments’ (extensions) which are 

inconsistent with the shortened timelines governing 

expedited due process complaints. Additionally, 

OSEP notes the State issued Proposed Special 

Education Due Process Prehearing Guidelines, 

revised the Office of Special Education Policy and 

Dispute Resolution: Special Education Dispute 

Resolution Procedures Manual, and the NJDOE 

Parental Rights in Special Education handbook, to 

prohibit ALJs from granting ‘adjournments’ 

(extensions) which are inconsistent with the shorted 

timelines governing expedited due process 

complaints. Therefore, the State has met required 

action 4.1.2. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP notes that the State issued, Revised 

Procedures for Expedited Special Education Due 

Process Hearings, but this document remains in 

draft form. 

Additionally, OSEP is concerned that the State has 

not described how it will perform its oversight and 

monitoring responsibilities to ensure such timelines 

required for expedited due process complaints 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.532 are met. Specifically, 

OSEP has determined that the 

documentation provided is 

sufficient to meet required action 

4.1.2. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with 

the State regarding the 

implementation of 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532. 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 19 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

the State has not provided information regarding 

how it will ensure that adjournments (extensions) 

are not granted, such as through a mechanism to 

receive data and relevant information from OAL 

and how the State will perform appropriate 

oversight duties and responsibilities, including 

monitoring, to ensure its implementation. Further, 

as mentioned in Required Action 1.4, OSEP notes 

that the State did not include the following 

information and data to be transmitted from OAL to 

NJDOE: ‘expedited due process complaint 

pending’, ‘expedited due process complaint 

withdrawn or dismissed’, and ‘expedited due 

process complaint fully adjudicated’, all of which 

are required by IDEA section 618 data collection as 

described in the document, OSEP Data 

Documentation: IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution. 

OSEP intends to review these matters further with 

the State. 

Required Action 4.2

The State must provide a copy 

of the notification to be issued to 

all ALJs who serve as hearing 

officers, LEAs, parent advocacy 

groups and other interested 

parties advising them that the 

State has revised the expedited 

due process hearing procedures 

found in NJDOE’s Special 

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Procedures Manual

Revised Procedures 

for Expedited 

Special Education 

Due Process 

Hearings to ALJs

OSEP has determined that the State has provided 

notification to ALJs who serve as hearing officers, 

LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested 

parties advising them that the State has revised the 

expedited due process hearing procedures found in 

NJDOE’s Special Education Dispute Resolution 

Manual to be consistent with the Part B regulations 

at 34 C.F.R. § 300.532. 

Required Action 4.2: Original 

Finding is Closed

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the 

documentation provided is 

sufficient to meet required action 

4.2. 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 20 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

Education Dispute Resolution 

Manual to be consistent with the 

Part B regulations at 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532, as 

described above.

Required Action 4.3

The State must provide 

documentation demonstrating 

that the State has reviewed its 

expedited due process hearing 

data collection process and has 

revised it, as necessary, to 

ensure that it will be able to 

provide accurate data for its 

IDEA section 618 dispute 

resolution data submission for 

the School Year 2019-2020 data 

collection (reporting year is 

defined as July 1, 2019 through 

June 30, 2020). 

Revised Procedures 

for Conducting 

Special Education 

Due Process 

Hearings

Special Education 

Dispute Resolution 

Manual

Memorandum of 

Agreement for 

Professional 

Services between 

The New Jersey 

Department of 

Education and The 

New Jersey Office 

of Administrative 

Law (MOA)

OSEP notes that the State described a data 

collection process for adhering to requirements for 

an expedited due process complaint in the 

document entitled, Special Education Dispute 

Resolution Procedures Manual. Additionally, OSEP 

notes the MOA, included the “purchase of software 

to centralize the scheduling of cases in order to 

track the progress of special education due process 

hearings and to ensure compliance with timelines 

set forth in the IDEA, federal, and state 

regulations.” Additionally, OSEP notes the State 

document entitled, Revised Procedures for 

Expedited Special Education Due Process 

Hearings, provided information regarding required 

timelines for expedited due process hearings, and 

clarification regarding sufficiency challenges and 

adjournments, as noted under Required Action 4.1. 

Therefore, the State has met Required Action 4.3.

Additional Concerns

As stated in OSEP’s response to Required Action 

1.4, OSEP is concerned that information related to 

expedited due process hearings, including timelines 

and adjournments (extensions), was not included in 

the document, Revised Procedures for Conducting 

Required Action 4.3: Original 

Finding is Closed 

Based on OSEP’s review of the 

documents submitted by NJDOE, 

OSEP has determined that the 

documentation provided is 

sufficient to meet Required Action 

4.3. 

Additional Concerns

OSEP intends to follow up with 

the State regarding the 

implementation of the State’s 

expedited due process hearing 

data collection process.
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 21 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

Special Education Due Process Hearings, which 

outlines the exchange of information and data 

between NJDOE and OAL. In Required Action 1.4, 

OSEP noted that the State did not include the 

following information and data to be transmitted 

from OAL to NJDOE: ‘expedited due process 

complaint pending’, ‘expedited due process 

complaint withdrawn or dismissed,’ and ‘expedited 

due process complaint fully adjudicated,’ all of 

which are required by IDEA section 618 data 

collection as described in the document, OSEP 

Data Documentation: IDEA Part B Dispute 

Resolution. 

OSEP notes that the MOA between the NJDOE and 

OAL, executed in October 2021 and provided to 

OSEP in February 2022, describes the State’s intent 

to “purchase software to centralize the scheduling 

of cases in order to track the progress of special 

education due process hearings and to ensure 

compliance with the timelines set forth in the 

IDEA, federal, and state regulations.” While OSEP 

appreciates the State’s recognition that the 

existence of a case management system, data 

system software solution and/or another mechanism 

is a strategy that may assist with the administration 

of due process complaints and hearings and 

adherence to the 45-day timeline in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) or the adjusted time periods 

described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c), it remains unclear to OSEP 
ENCLOSURE OSEP’S RESPONSE TO THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING SYSTEM DOCUMENT 

SUBMISSION | OCTOBER 20, 2023

OSEP RESPONSE TO NJDOE | 22 

OSEP Required Corrective 

Action

State Submitted 

Documents OSEP Analysis Required Actions/Next Steps

whether the State has implemented procedures to 

adhere to IDEA’s due process hearing timelines as 

set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) and 

34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c) in the interim period prior 

to the State’s purchase of the software noted in the 

MOA. OSEP intends to review these matters 

further with the State.