Decision No. 18,648
Appeal of J.W., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Hoosick Falls Central School District regarding transportation.
Decision No. 18,648
(November 3, 2025)
Tabner, Ryan & Keniry, LLP, attorneys for respondent, William F. Ryan, Jr., Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from action of the Board of Education of the Hoosick Falls Central School District (“respondent”) regarding transportation provided to her child (the “student”). The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The student currently attends a non-public school located over 30 miles from petitioner’s residence. Respondent provides transportation to and from this school pursuant to a settlement agreement. This agreement resolved a due process complaint filed pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).[1]
In this appeal, petitioner complains that other students who ride the student’s bus engage in behavior that is upsetting to the student and requests an alternative busing arrangement.
The appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent is only providing transportation to the student pursuant to the settlement agreement; it otherwise lacks authority to do so.[2] Such agreements, however, can only be enforced in state or federal court (8 NYCRR 200.5 [j] [2] [iv]). Therefore, I lack jurisdiction to interpret this agreement in an appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310.
Similarly, I lack jurisdiction over any independent violations of IDEA. Claims brought to enforce rights arising under IDEA must be addressed through the due process provisions of the IDEA and Education Law § 4404 or the State complaint procedure outlined in section 200.5 of the Commissioner's regulations; such claims may not be addressed in an appeal brought pursuant to Education Law § 310 (Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 52 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,375; Appeal of R.J.K. and L.K., 50 id., Decision No. 16,232; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 46 id. 258, Decision No. 15,500).
In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE
[1] The agreement also resolved a state complaint filed with the State Education Department (8 NYCRR 200.5).
[2] Respondent is the student’s school district of residence. It lacks authority to recommend placement at the nonpublic school, which is not approved by the Commissioner of Education (8 NYCRR 200.1 [d], 200.7), or provide transportation given the distance between petitioner’s residence and the school (Education Law § 3635 [1] [a]). While the district where the nonpublic school is located could provide such transportation, there is no evidence that petitioner has requested that it develop an Individualized Education Services Plan (Education Law 3602-c [2] [b] [1] or provide transportation pursuant to Education Law § 4402 (4) (d) (Appeal of T.V. and J.V., 62 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,265).