Appeal of T.C., on behalf of her child, from action of the Board of Education of the Mohonasen Central School District regarding educational services.

Decision No. 18,663

(December 15, 2025)

Honeywell Law Firm PLLC, attorneys for respondent, Jeffrey D. Honeywell, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals from action of the Board of Education of the Mohonasen Central School District (“respondent” or “board”) regarding the quality of instruction provided to her child (the “student”).  The appeal must be dismissed.

During the 2023-2024 school year, the student attended ninth grade in respondent’s high school.  The record reflects that the student struggled to remain focused in one of his classes throughout the year.  The teacher of that class provided regular feedback to petitioner on the student’s performance, including quarterly progress reports, emails, and messages shared through a classroom management system.  The teacher also offered times and dates when she was available for extra help; there is no indication that the student availed himself of this assistance.

On June 12, 2024, the teacher emailed petitioner to inform her that the student was not “fully present” during class that day.  The teacher reported that the student had kept his head down, looked through a yearbook, and talked with friends.  Petitioner, who interpreted this to mean that the student had been “sleeping,” thereafter communicated with the principal, superintendent, and respondent’s president regarding these events and the student’s general experience in the class.  At the end of the year, the student received a failing grade.  This appeal ensued.

Petitioner asserts that the teacher “dropped the ball where [her] sons [sic] needs are concerned….”  She seeks a determination that the teacher, principal, superintendent and/or board “failed as … educator[s] or w[ere] otherwise professionally negligent by allowing [the student] …to sleep in class [] or otherwise engage in non-educational activities, which ultimately lead [sic] to a failing grade.”

Respondent argues that the appeal should be dismissed as untimely and for lack of standing.  On the merits, respondent argues that petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

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).  Petitioner complains of the teacher’s alleged negligence during the 2023-2024 school year, which ended on June 30, 2024.  This appeal was commenced approximately two and one-half months thereafter.  Petitioner did not offer, as required, good cause in the petition to excuse the delay (8 NYCRR 275.16).[1]  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.

Even if timely, the appeal would be dismissed on the merits.  Petitioner’s allegation that the teacher is responsible for the student’s failing grade is unsupported by the record, which reflects that the teacher attempted to assist the student over the course of the school year and keep petitioner apprised of the student’s performance.  In any event, boards of education have broad authority when it comes to setting grading policies and practices (Education Law §§ 1709 [3]; 1804 [1]; Appeal of A.O., 64 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 18,518).  Petitioner has not demonstrated that the grade received by the student was arbitrary or capricious.  Should the student encounter challenges in a future class, I encourage petitioner to promptly meet with the relevant staff member(s) to discuss how to best support the student.

To the extent they are not addressed herein, petitioner’s remaining arguments are without merit. 

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE