Skip to main content

Decision No. 18,560

Appeal of JAMILA ESPINAL, et al., from action of the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District regarding school reorganization.

Decision No. 18,560

(May 5, 2025)

Sussman & Goldman, attorneys for petitioners, Michael H. Sussman, Esq., of counsel

Keane & Beane P.C., attorneys for respondent, Stephanie M. Roebuck, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioners[1] challenge the determination of the Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District (“respondent” or “board”) to reorganize the grades within its elementary schools.  The appeal must be dismissed.

In 2017, former Governor Andrew Cuomo closed Indian Point Energy Center.  Its decommissioning resulted in a substantial loss of revenue for respondent.  For example, prior to the decommissioning, respondent expected to receive about $26 million per year from Indian Point.  However, it received only $6 million in the 2023-24 school year and $1 million in the 2024-25 school year.[2]

Respondent considered various ways to mitigate the impact of this loss of revenue.  It engaged an educational consulting firm, which issued a report in June 2019 recommending that the district “investigate moving the district toward grade center elementary schools during the 2019-20 school year.”  Following community input and discussion, respondent adopted a plan in April 2021, the “Princeton plan,”[3] to adopt three “grade-banded elementary schools.”  One school would serve grades K-1, the second 2-3, and the third 4-5.

This plan did not generate the anticipated cost savings.  Many parents also complained that it led to lengthier bus rides.  As a result, respondent announced in April 2023 that it would again reconsider the configuration of its elementary schools.  Respondent held a public hearing in June 2023, engaged consultants, considered the results of community/faculty surveys, and discussed the issue during multiple board meetings.

On December 6, 2023, respondent adopted a hybrid elementary school configuration whereby it maintained the grade-band structure for grades 3-5 and assigned students to one of two K-2 schools based on their residence.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioners argue that the board’s hybrid plan will increase racial segregation within the district.  Petitioners further contend that respondent abandoned the Princeton plan “to appease a select group of wealthier parents” who objected to lengthier bus rides.  Petitioners seek orders precluding respondent from adopting the hybrid plan and reinstating the Princeton plan “pending further equitable review ….”

Respondent maintains that its decision, based primarily on financial and transportation considerations, was rational.  Respondent denies that it acted in a discriminatory manner or that any board member harbored such intentions.

The appeal must be dismissed for lack of verification.  Section 275.5 of the Commissioner’s regulations requires that all pleadings in an appeal to the Commissioner be verified.  A petition “shall be verified by the oath of at least one of the petitioners” (8 NYCRR 275.5; Appeal of Booker, 40 Ed Dep Rep 447, Decision No. 14,523).  When a petition is not properly verified, the appeal must be dismissed (Appeal of Nappi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,300; Appeal of D.P., 46 id. 516, Decision No. 15,580).  Here, counsel for petitioners verified the petition, indicating that “all petitioners reside outside the county in which” their attorney’s offices are located.  Petitioner’s counsel, however, is not a petitioner in this appeal.  Accordingly, the affidavit of verification does not satisfy the requirements of 8 NYCRR 275.5 and the appeal must be dismissed (see e.g. Appeal of Poe, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,227; Appeal of L.S. and M.R., 61 id., Decision No. 18,077; Appeal of T.B., 60 id., Decision No. 17,969).[4]

Even if not dismissed on this procedural ground, the appeal would be dismissed on the merits.  A board of education has the authority and responsibility to manage and administer the affairs of the school district, including the assignment of pupils to schools therein (Education Law §§ 1709 [33] and 1804 [1]; Matter of Older, et al. v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of Mamaroneck, 27 NY2d 333 [1971]).  In such cases, a board’s discretion is broad (Matter of Older, et al. v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1, Town of Mamroneck, 27 NY2d 333; Appeal of Wong, et al., 42 Ed Dept Rep 269, Decision No. 14,850; Appeal of Malone, et al., 39 id. 135, Decision No. 14,194).  Decisions regarding school district reorganization will only be set aside if they are arbitrary or capricious (Appeal of Ad Hoc Committee to Save Kings Elementary School et al., 53 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,530; Appeal of Wong, et al., 42 id. 269, Decision No. 14,850; Appeal of Malone, et al., 39 id. 135, Decision No. 14,194).

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).

The record indicates that respondent held numerous meetings and events to explore its elementary grade reconfiguration issue with the school community over approximately eight months in 2023.  Having done so, respondent selected a plan reasonably calculated to save money and minimize the length of bus rides while preserving some of the benefits of the Princeton plan.[5]  I acknowledge petitioners’ concerns regarding the effect of two major reorganizational changes on students and staff as well as the potential decrease in opportunities for K-2 children across the district to learn together.  However, given respondent’s “broad discretion” to assign students to its schools, it was not irrational for it to modify the Princeton plan as described herein (Appeal of Parrish, et al., 32 Ed Dept Dep 261, Decision No. 12,825; see also Appeal of Brenner and Buckley, 64 id., Decision No. 18,501; Appeal of Buzzard, 56 id., Decision No. 16,653).

I have considered petitioners’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE

 

[1] The remaining petitioners are Christine Teahan, Czarina Thelen, Kristi Gauthier-Howard, Rebecca Skyhart, Julianna Hutson, Susana La Rosa, Gabriela Mendez, and Jacqueline Acevedo Pasquale.

 

[2] The plant had “provided substantial tax revenue [to respondent] through direct payments or payments in lieu of taxes (‘PILOTs’)” (Appeal of Puskuldjian, 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,261). 

 

[3] This is referred to in the record as the Princeton Plan.  It was based upon a model originally developed by the town of Princeton, New Jersey in the 1940s as a desegregation measure.  Allison Roda, et al., Note, Making School Integration Work in New York City Schools: A Long-Term Solution to the Enduring Problem of Segregation and Inequality, 48 Fordham Urb LJ 449, 463 (2021). 

 

[4] To the extent this practice is authorized by the Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR), “parties may not use provisions of the CPLR in lieu of applicable provisions of the Commissioner's regulations” (Appeal of J.B., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,245).

 

[5] I agree with respondent that its actions are distinguishable from those of the board in Appeal of Kaufmann et al. (57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,250).  In that appeal, the board hastily reversed a grade reorganization decision without “expl[aining] ... why [it] ... abandoned all of the benefits it previously asserted would be realized” over the past 17 months of planning.