Decision No. 18,638
Appeal of J.S., on behalf of his child, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding educational placement.
Decision No. 18,638
(September 29, 2025)
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, attorneys for respondent, Jason Imbiano, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a determination of the New York City Department of Education (“respondent”) regarding the admission of his child (the “student”) to a gifted and talented program. The appeal must be dismissed.
Respondent offers gifted and talented programs of instruction at several of its schools beginning in kindergarten. Families with pre-kindergarten students may apply for admission by ranking their desired programs in order of preference.[1] Petitioner applied to a single kindergarten program, the Brooklyn School of Inquiry (BSI), on behalf of his child. BSI reserves 20 percent of its seats for students who reside within community school districts 18 and 19 and an additional 20 percent for applicants who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (collectively, the “priority categories”).
Due to an abundance of applications, however, the student was not selected for admission to BSI and placed on a waiting list. This appeal ensued.
Petitioner contends that the student should have been admitted to BSI as he satisfies “both of the … priority categories” for admission established by respondent. Petitioner further expresses his intention to enroll the student in a nonpublic school and seek tuition reimbursement.
Respondent raises several procedural defenses and argues that it reasonably followed its admission process.
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. Petitioner’s child was one of many who satisfied the priority categories for admission.[2] As such, admission to BSI was “determined by reference to … random numbers” assigned to each applicant. Thus, the record supports a finding that respondent reasonably relied upon its process for determining admission to BSI.[3] Consequently, petitioner has not proven a clear legal right to his requested relief.[4]
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] All gifted and talented programs afford “admissions priority to siblings of current students.” Petitioner’s child does not have a sibling enrolled in the program to which he seeks admission.
[2] Respondent indicates that 688 students applied for 50 seats this year.
[3] Respondent notes that petitioner has the ability “to add [the student] to … waitlists for schools to which he did not initially apply.” Petitioner has, in fact, added the student to “many waitlists” and was extended an offer for placement in the Beacon School of Excellence program.
[4] Even if respondent had erred, petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. A claim for tuition reimbursement under the Individuals with Disabilities Act may not be adjudicated in an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeal of M.F., 65 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,601). Additionally, a payment based on educational preference alone would “constitute an improper gift of public funds prohibited by … the State Constitution (Appeal of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, 32 Ed Dept Rep 405, Decision No. 12,868; Appeal of Storman, 26 id. 454, Decision No. 11,818).