Appeal of G.W., on behalf of his child, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding administration of an examination.

Decision No. 18,636

(September 11, 2025)

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, attorneys for respondent, Madison M. Moore, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the refusal of the New York City Department of Education (“respondent”) to allow his child (the “student”) to retake an examination.  The appeal must be dismissed as untimely.

An appeal to the Commissioner must be commenced within 30 days from the decision or act complained of, unless any delay is excused by the Commissioner for good cause shown (8 NYCRR 275.16; Appeal of Saxena, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,239; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).

Even assuming the accrual date most favorable to petitioner—February 26, 2025, when he was informed that he could file an appeal to the Commissioner—petitioner commenced the instant appeal 48 days thereafter.  Petitioner explains that he “continued to seek internal redress until March 26, 2025.”  A request for reconsideration, however, does not extend the time within which a petitioner may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal of Cole, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,180; Appeal of Lippolt, 48 id. 457, Decision No. 15,914).  Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.

Even if timely, the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits.  Petitioner complains that the student became distracted during an administration of the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test[1] when a classmate cried during the testing period.  As part of an investigation, respondent’s Offices of Assessment (OA) and Student Enrollment (OSE) spoke with the exam proctor.  The proctor reported that the classmate began crying at 11:37 a.m.  The proctor calmed and refocused the classmate, who stopped crying a few minutes later and completed the examination.  The proctor reported that the entire incident lasted less than five minutes.  OA and OSE concluded that the incident did not compromise the administration of the examination or that a retest was otherwise warranted.

While petitioner asserts that this incident “completely shatter[ed] [the student’s] concentration and caus[ed] psychological distress during one of the exam’s most pivotal sections,” he has not proven that respondent acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.  Therefore, the appeal would be dismissed on the merits (Appeal of Goodman, 35 Ed Dept Rep 93, Decision No. 13,477).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE