Appeal of JIANHUA LI, on behalf of his child, from action of the Board of Education of the Syosset Central School District regarding denial of admission.

Decision No. 18,496

(September 23, 2024)

Ingerman Smith, L.L.P., attorneys for respondent, Michael G. McAlvin, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the refusal of the Board of Education of the Syosset Central School District (“respondent”) to permit his son (the “student”) to enroll in respondent’s district without payment of tuition.  The appeal must be dismissed. 

In fall 2023, petitioner and the student began residing in respondent’s district.  On January 9, 2024, petitioner sought to enroll the student in respondent’s high school on a tuition-free basis.  Respondent reviewed the student’s academic records and concluded that he had already received a high school diploma in China.  Respondent denied the student’s request for admission, and this appeal ensued.

Petitioner disputes respondent’s conclusion that the student earned the equivalent of a New York diploma in China.  Petitioner contends that the student is entitled to attend respondent’s schools tuition-free and seeks an order to that effect.

Respondent argues that its determination was rational and based on the record before it.

First, I must address the scope of the record in this proceeding.  The purpose of a reply is to respond to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in an answer (8 NYCRR 275.3, 275.14).  A reply is not meant to buttress allegations in the petition or belatedly add assertions that should have been raised in the petition (Appeal of Nappi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,300; Appeal of Caswell, 48 id. 472, Decision No. 15,920; Appeal of Hinson, 48 id. 437, Decision No. 15,908).  Therefore, while I have reviewed the reply, I have not considered those portions containing new allegations or exhibits that are not responsive to new material or affirmative defenses set forth in the answer. 

Additionally, petitioner submitted numerous additional documents during the pendency of this appeal.  The Commissioner may accept additional evidence “upon good cause shown and such terms and conditions as the commissioner may specify” (8 NYCRR 276.5 [a]).  The party seeking the admission of such evidence must “submit an application to the Office of Counsel ... stat[ing] the reason(s) why such affidavits, exhibits or other supporting papers are necessary” together with proof of service “upon all parties” (id.).  Petitioner did not meet these requirements; as such, I have not considered his additional submissions.[1]

Turning to the merits, Education Law § 3202 (1) provides in pertinent part that “[a] person over five and under twenty-one years of age who has not received a high school diploma is entitled to attend the public schools maintained in the district in which such person resides without the payment of tuition.”  In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief (8 NYCRR 275.10; Appeal of P.C. and K.C., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,337; Appeal of Aversa, 48 id. 523, Decision No. 15,936; Appeal of Hansen, 48 id. 354, Decision No. 15,884). 

Petitioner has not met his burden of proof.  Respondent based its decision on two factors; first, it reviewed the student’s transcript and determined that it was comparable to the requirements needed to obtain a New York diploma.  The transcript submitted by petitioner indicates that the student passed all courses in both terms of his “Third Year of High School” at the Beijing Foreign Studies University Bilingual School (the “bilingual school”).  In evaluating this transcript, respondent utilized a manual developed by the New York City Department of Education entitled “Evaluating Foreign Transcripts.”  This manual indicates that Chinese schools have two terms, a fall and spring term.  The manual further indicates that high school/secondary school in China consists of three academic years.   Second, the student was accepted to a post-secondary school, the Toronto Film School, whose admission requirements include receipt of an Ontario Secondary School Diploma or its equivalent. 

Petitioner has not established that respondent’s reasons were arbitrary or capricious.  While he argues that the student only received private tutoring from the bilingual school and that the resultant transcript “is not recognized by the Chinese Ministry of Education,” he has produced no proof to support these assertions.  Similarly, while he argues that the Toronto Film School “conditional[ly]” admitted the student pending receipt of a score of six or better on the International English Language Testing System, this does not mean that the student did not earn a high school diploma.  Therefore, I cannot conclude that respondent acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner (Appeal of Visconti, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,366). 

I have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his allegations of unlawful discrimination, and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE