Decision No. 18,453
Application to reopen the appeal of A.W., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Jericho Union Free School District regarding grading.
Decision No. 18,453
(July 29, 2024)
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner seeks to reopen Appeal of A.W. (63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,406), which denied her request to expunge her child’s June 2023 U.S. History and Government Regents examination (“Regents examination”) from his record based on claims of misadministration. The application must be denied.
Section 276.8 of the Commissioner’s regulations governs reopening a prior decision of the Commissioner and provides that applications to reopen are addressed solely to the discretion of the Commissioner. The Commissioner will not grant an application to reopen absent a showing that: (1) the original decision was rendered under a misapprehension as to the facts or (2) there is new and material evidence that was not available at the time the original decision was made (8 NYCRR 276.8 [a]). An application to reopen may not augment previously undeveloped factual assertions and arguments, advance new legal arguments, or merely reargue issues presented in the prior appeal (Application to reopen the Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,314; Application to reopen the Appeal of Lanzilotta, 48 id. 450, Decision No. 15,911).
Petitioner has not made this showing. The underlying appeal was dismissed as moot because petitioner received the relief she sought; namely, “invalidat[ion]” of the student’s “Regents score” and expungement of the score from his record. Petitioner’s complaint that respondent possesses the student’s Regents examination as well as “[d]ocuments for [a]ll 7 Regents exams” “in their vault” is outside the scope of this application. Since expungement was requested and received, the underlying appeal continues to be moot.
To the extent petitioner continues to allege that respondent violated the Individual with Disabilities Education Act in connection with administration of the June 2023 Regents examination, such claims are outside my jurisdiction for the reasons explained in Appeal of A.W. (63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,349). Additionally, respondent has not violated 8 NYCRR 276.2, as a confidential resolution conference was neither held nor requested. Finally, there is no evidence that respondent relied upon confidential documents regarding a State complaint in connection with the underlying appeal.[1] Therefore, petitioner has not established grounds to reopen the prior decision in accordance with the standard set forth in 8 NYCRR 276.8.
THE APPLICATION IS DENIED.
END OF FILE
[1] While petitioner asserts “that everyone is trying to do everything to avoid looking at the June ... 2023 ... Regents exam that [respondent] administered with no accommodations,” I previously informed petitioner that “claims to enforce rights in an [Individualized Education Services Plan] must be addressed through the due process provisions of Education Law § 4404 or the State complaint procedure outlined in section 200.5 of the Commissioner’s regulations” (Appeal of A.W., 63 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,349).