School proposed that Student repeat kindergarten. Then denied special education.School proposed that Student repeat kindergarten. Then denied special education.
Harrison Township School District’s own records document proposed retention, twice-daily reading intervention, and speech concerns. After the parents sought special-education help, the District denied eligibility.
The parents of a rising first grader say the District first documented a child struggling enough to face repeating kindergarten. The District then concluded that the same difficulties caused no adverse educational impact requiring special education.
The District put the contradiction in writing
Harrison Township, New Jersey. September 3, 2026. A special-education due process case asks whether Harrison Township School District adequately evaluated and identified M.M., a rising first grader whose kindergarten records documented persistent early-reading difficulties, speech concerns, intervention, and proposed retention.
According to the parents’ petition, M.M.’s teacher reported academic struggles in November and December 2025. On January 16, 2026, the parents allege, the teacher told them that their daughter needed to repeat kindergarten because of very low scores and difficulty keeping up.
Four days later, Harrison Elementary Principal AnnaLisa Rodano authored multiple replies in the email thread labeled “Kindergarten Retention Recommendation.” Rodano confirmed that retention was being considered, called it a significant decision, and wrote that the school’s I&RS meeting was part of its standard protocol because the teacher had raised the possibility of retention. Her January 20 response also detailed twice-daily reading intervention and speech concerns while stating that a Child Study Team referral was not recommended at that time.
The parents asked for answers before accepting retention
The parents refused to accept retention as the answer before the District explored whether a learning disability, speech-language need, or other condition explained their daughter’s delays. They requested a written intervention plan and evaluations through the child study team and speech-language staff.
The tutoring recommendation came from the school
District discovery includes a text message in which the kindergarten teacher told the parent that a particular tutor was “a great fit” and directed her to “reach out to her when you’re ready to schedule tutoring sessions.” In another message, the teacher wrote that it would be best for the student to “have a tutor that is not her teacher” and offered to send a tutor list and names. A January 20 email then supplied the availability and contact information of a first-grade teacher offering private tutoring.
The parents say they followed that recommendation and paid out of pocket for tutoring and private evaluations. Their file includes a Huntington tutoring invoice and summary. Their filing alleges that M.M. made progress with private intervention, yet the District later discounted evidence produced by professionals the family paid to obtain.
A May 2026 District evaluation summary recorded the parents’ referral concerns and stated that the classroom teacher reported M.M. “was going to be recommended as a retention candidate.”
The District acknowledged Child Find. Then it said it did not suspect a disability.
On February 5, 2026, Dr. Lori A. Hynes, Harrison Township School District’s Director of Student Services, responded to the parents’ questions about a Child Study Team evaluation. Hynes acknowledged that the District had a Child Find obligation to identify, locate, and evaluate students with suspected disabilities. She then told the parents that the District did not suspect M.M. had a disability requiring a Child Study Team evaluation and had not initiated a referral.
By that point, the parents allege, the District’s own records documented persistent academic struggles, very low scores, twice-daily reading intervention, speech concerns, and possible kindergarten retention. Hynes directed the parents to submit their own signed referral and said the District’s general-education intervention process was the appropriate course of action.
The District later retained an outside evaluator whom it described as specializing in dyslexia. The parents’ petition alleges that the evaluator did not attend the May 18 eligibility meeting and was unavailable to answer their questions. Instead, Hynes presented the evaluator’s findings. The District then concluded that M.M. did not have an educational disability and experienced no adverse educational impact requiring special education.
Then came the eligibility denial
On May 18, 2026, the District found M.M. ineligible for special education. Its written notice states that she did not have an educational disability and that her educational performance was not adversely affected to the point that she required specially designed instruction or related services.
The District’s notice also acknowledges that it received a private neuropsychological evaluation and a private speech-language evaluation on May 7. It states that the team reviewed both, but “can not fully adopt or rely upon either evaluation” for its decision-making.
“How do we go from the school proposing that our daughter repeat kindergarten to the District telling us everything is fine? Make that make sense. We just want what is right for our child. The experts who evaluated her seem to agree that she needs specialized instruction delivered through an IEP. What I struggle with most is that I have to trust Harrison’s educators to help my daughters grow and learn, and that trust has been broken. Sending my children into a system that does not appear to put their best interests first scares me. The cherry on top is that it feels like the District is telling us, ‘We cannot properly teach your child, but you should spend thousands of dollars on private tutoring yourself.’ We do not understand why the District is fighting so hard to deny our daughter the services she needs.”
Statement from M.M.’s parents
The District cannot have it both ways. Its own records say this child faced repeating kindergarten and needed twice-daily reading intervention. After her parents sought special-education help, the District said there was no adverse educational impact. That reversal is now at the center of this case.
Joseph W. Montgomery, Esq.The family’s lawyer
The parents turned to due process
The parents filed their due process petition on June 5, 2026. Their claims include alleged violations of Child Find, an allegedly inappropriate evaluation, and an allegedly incorrect eligibility determination resulting in a denial of a free appropriate public education. They seek relief that includes independent evaluations, services, compensatory education, and reimbursement.
The case is currently scheduled for hearing on September 29 and October 19–20, 2026.
The District disputes the family’s claims
Harrison Township Board of Education denies the material allegations. It maintains that it conducted a comprehensive evaluation, considered the available information, and correctly found M.M. ineligible.
The District has also filed a 91-page motion in limine asking the administrative law judge to exclude or limit certain witnesses, evaluations, and opinions. The District characterizes its requests as reasonable evidentiary boundaries and asks for permission to seek summary decision if the requested limitations are granted. The parents oppose efforts they say would prevent the hearing from considering the professionals who evaluated, taught, or observed the child.
The parents have also asked the court to allow certain witnesses to appear by Zoom. The court has not yet ruled on that request. Updates will be provided when a ruling is entered.
Review Harrison Township Elementary School
Parents, educators, and community members can add their firsthand experience to the school’s public profile. Share what happened and help other families understand the school. Please protect student privacy. Do not include a child’s name, confidential records, or information that could identify a minor.
About this report
This report presents the parents’ allegations and supporting advocacy through selected filings and redacted record excerpts. The District disputes the parents’ allegations. All claims will be addressed through the legal process. No final merits decision has been entered.
The comment section is open
Start a real dialogue. Be respectful. Be candid. All perspectives and positions are welcome.
Please protect the student. Do not include a child’s name, confidential records, or information that could identify a minor. Your email address will not be published.