Appeal of M.M., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Pine Bush Central School District regarding a staff assignment.

Decision No. 18,498

(September 23, 2024)

Thomas, Drohan, Waxman, Petigrow & Mayle, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Allison E. Smith, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a determination of the Board of Education of the Pine Bush Central School District (“respondent”) denying her request to change her child’s (“the student”) school counselor assignment.  The appeal must be dismissed.

The student attends one of respondent’s middle schools and receives counseling services from one of the two school counselors assigned to serve the middle school.  In April 2024, petitioner requested that respondent assign a different school counselor to serve the student.  Respondent declined, and this appeal ensued.

Petitioner alleges that the student’s assigned counselor “neglected her duties” when she:  (1) “was unable to arrange for a[n] [English as a New Language] teacher to work with” her child; (2) did not inform teachers about the student’s Section 504 accommodations; (3) “ignored ... inquiries for help” regarding test-taking and grading; (4) “ignored inquiries” from a social worker regarding alleged “harassment” of the student; and (5) neglected to inform petitioner about the availability of a coding club.  She requests that respondent assign a different school counselor to the student for the rest of his time in middle school.

Respondent denies petitioner’s contentions and argues, among other things, that she has not demonstrated a clear legal right to her requested relief.

Boards of education enjoy broad discretion to assign duties to employees in the classroom teaching service or pupil personnel service (Appeal of Doe, 58 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,627; Appeal of Ginnane, 43 id. 239, Decision No. 14,983).  Such decisions will not be disturbed absent a showing that the board has acted arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to the best interests of the children involved (Appeal of McGrath, 34 Ed Dept Rep 462, Decision No. 13,383; Matter of Ruggiero, 20 Ed Dept Rep 347, Decision No. 10,435).  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 her burden of proof.  While petitioner submits several emails, none of them support her allegation that the school counselor failed to meet the student’s needs.  Additionally, several of her allegations, such as securing the assignment of an English as a New Language (ENL) teacher and answering questions regarding test-taking/grading, are outside the scope of school counselors’ job duties.  

By contrast, respondent has submitted evidence reflecting that it considered the student’s best interest in maintaining his counselor assignment.  The middle school principal indicates that she denied petitioner’s request as the student’s current counselor performs her job well and shares “a great rapport with the student ....”  Respondent’s assistant superintendent for instruction concurs, noting that, in February 2024, the student identified his counselor as a trusted adult in the school.  Therefore, there is no basis in the record to reassign the student to a different school counselor.

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE