Skip to main content

Search Google Appliance

Search Google Appliance

Decision No. 13,016

Appeal of CARLA M. GROVE, on behalf of her daughter Amanda, from action of the Board of Education of the Greece Central School District relating to transportation between school and a child care location.

Decision No. 13,016

(September 22, 1993)

Wayne A. Vander Byl, Esq., attorney for respondent

SOBOL, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from respondent's denial of her request for transportation between the public school her daughter attends and a child care location. Petitioner requests an order directing respondent to provide such transportation and to revise its transportation policy. The appeal must be dismissed.

Petitioner requested that her daughter be provided transportation between the school she attends and a child care location within the district but not within the attendance zone of the school the child attends. Based on its policy of providing transportation only to unlicensed child care locations within the attendance zone of the school the child attends and to child care locations licensed pursuant to Social Services Law '390 located anywhere in the district, respondent denied her request. Upon denying petitioner's request, respondent granted her additional time to find either a licensed care provider in the district or an unlicensed provider within the child's school attendance zone. Respondent also offered petitioner the option of enrolling her daughter in the school of the attendance zone of the current child care provider, rather than in the attendance zone of petitioner's residence. This appeal ensued.

Petitioner contends that respondent's refusal to provide transportation between school and an unlicensed child care location outside of the attendance zone of the school her daughter attends is illegal. However, pursuant to Education Law '3635(1)(e), a board of education is not required to provide transportation to a child care location, but may, " at its discretion", provide such transportation. Education Law '3635(1)(e) further provides that if a board elects to provide transportation to a child care location, such service is limited to child care locations within the child's attendance zone, with the exception of child care locations licensed pursuant to Social Services Law '390, where transportation must be provided district-wide.

It is undisputed that petitioner's child care provider is not licensed pursuant to Social Services Law '390 and is not located within the child's attendance zone. Therefore, respondent's decision to reject petitioner's request for transportation for her daughter between school and the child care location outside of the child's attendance zone complies with Education Law '3635(1)(e) and may not be annulled.

Petitioner offers new allegations in her reply. The purpose of a reply is to respond to procedural defenses or new material contained in an answer (8 NYCRR '2275.3). A reply is not meant to buttress allegations contained in the petition or add assertions or exhibits that should have been in the petition (Appeal of Taber, et al., 32 Ed Dept Rep 346; Appeal of Mermelstein, et al., 30 id. 119). Accordingly, I will not consider the new allegations included in petitioner's reply.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE