Appeal of S.L. and S.L., on behalf of their child, from action of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District regarding denial of admission.

Decision No. 18,670

(January 8, 2026)

Barger & Gaines, attorneys for petitioner, Jennifer M. Swift, Esq., of counsel

Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, attorneys for respondent, Michael K. Lambert, Esq., of counsel

ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals a determination of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District (“respondent”) denying their child (the “student”) permission to enroll in kindergarten for the 2025-2026 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

Respondent’s policy 7120 provides, in conformity with Education Law § 3202, that a child whose birthday falls on or before December 1 of a given year may enroll in kindergarten in September of that year, while a student whose birthday is December 2 or later must enroll the following year (see Education Law § 3202 [a]).  The student was born on December 8.  Respondent indicates that it has historically entertained early admission requests for children whose birthdays are close to December 1.

In January 2025, petitioners and another family requested early admission of their children to kindergarten for the 2025-2026 school year.  Respondent indicated that it would allow the students to demonstrate their “readiness through the administration of a standardized, norm-reference assessment” and a classroom observation.  The student and another child participated in this process on June 11, 2025.

On June 27, 2025, the principal of one of respondent’s elementary schools informed petitioners by telephone that the student would not be permitted to enroll in kindergarten in fall 2025.  The principal memorialized this determination in a letter dated that same day.  Over the next few weeks, petitioners discussed the results of the assessment with the superintendent, respondent’s director of elementary operations, and the principal.

By letter dated July 30, 2025, counsel for petitioners requested “reconsideration” of respondent’s decision.  Respondent, through counsel, declined this request.  This appeal ensued.  Petitioners’ request for interim relief was denied on August 28, 2025.

Petitioners object to the “ad hoc” nature of respondent’s assessment process.  They argue that the student’s preschool experience has adequately prepared him for kindergarten, submitting letters from teachers and coaches attesting to the student’s intelligence and social skills.  Petitioners seek a determination that the student is entitled to attend kindergarten in respondent’s district for the 2025-2026 school year.

Respondent argues that the appeal must be dismissed, among other reasons, as untimely.  On the merits, respondents argue that it rationally determined that the student’s performance did not warrant early admission to kindergarten.

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).  It is actual knowledge of the facts underlying a claim that begins the 30-day period in which to bring a proceeding (see Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 60 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,988; Appeal of N.M., 59 id., Decision No. 17,688; Appeal of Cea, 58 id., Decision No. 17,483).

Petitioners received actual notice of respondent’s decision on June 27, 2025 but did not commence this appeal until August 25, 2025, more than 30 days thereafter.  While petitioners requested reconsideration of respondent’s decision, such a request 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).  Petitioners offer no explanation for the delay in the petition (see 8 NYCRR 275.16) and did not submit a reply.  Therefore, the appeal must be dismissed as untimely.

In light of this determination, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.  However, if respondent desires to entertain exceptions to its admissions policy, it should amend policy 7120 to identify the process by which it does so (Appeal of N.C.S., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,783; Appeal of Handsman, 58 id., Decision. No. 17,596).

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

END OF FILE