Matter of A.T. and Middle Village Preparatory Charter School

IN THE MATTER

OF

THE COMPLAINT OF A***** T***** CONCERNING MIDDLE VILLAGE PREPARATORY CHARTER SCHOOL

     DECISION AND ORDER

_______________________________

A***** T***** (“complainant”), the parent of a student who attended Middle Village Preparatory Charter School (“the school” or “MVP”), filed a complaint regarding the suspension of the student from the school.  The complaint must be dismissed.

Education Law §2855(4) provides that any individual or group may bring to a charter school’s board of trustees a complaint which alleges a violation of Education Law Article 56, the charter school’s charter, or any other provision of law relating to the charter school’s management or operation.  Thereafter, if the complainant subsequently determines that the charter school’s board did not adequately address the complaint, the complainant may present the complaint to the charter school’s charter entity, which must investigate and respond.  If the complainant subsequently determines that the charter entity has not adequately addressed the complaint, he or she may present that complaint to the Board of Regents (“Regents”), which shall investigate, respond, and issue appropriate remedial orders.  Section 3.16 of the Rules of the Regents delegates to the Commissioner of Education the authority to receive, investigate, and respond to complaints, and to issue appropriate remedial orders.

Complainant submitted an Education Law §2855(4) complaint to the school’s Board of Trustees (“board”), alleging that the student was improperly suspended by the school and that the school inadequately investigated complainant’s claims regarding bullying.  After reviewing the allegations, the board dismissed the complaint, determining that complainant’s allegations could not be substantiated and, further, that complainant did not allege any violations of the school’s charter or of the law.  Upon receiving the board’s response, complainant submitted the complaint to MVP’s charter entity, the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York (“SUNY”).  After reviewing the allegations, the board’s determination and the relevant school policies, SUNY determined that sufficient evidence did not exist to disturb the school’s actions.  Therefore, SUNY dismissed the complaint.  Subsequent to receiving SUNY’s determination, complainant submitted the instant complaint.

Complainant alleges that MVP improperly suspended the student for three days after the student threw a ball at another student (“Student 1”), striking Student 1 in the head.  Student 1 then hit the student in the face after being struck by the ball.  Complainant claims that her daughter was provoked by Student 1.  As a result of the incident, the student was suspended from school for three school days.  Subsequent to the incident and suspension, complainant withdrew the student from MVP.  Complainant believes that the school unfairly prejudged the student to be guilty based on the student’s prior disciplinary history.  As relief, complainant requests that the student’s suspension be annulled and expunged from the student’s record.  Complainant also requests that the dean be disciplined as a result of how the incident was handled.

     There is no basis in the record to disturb the board’s and SUNY’s determinations that the school properly investigated complainant’s allegations regarding bullying and that the student was appropriately disciplined.  According to the record, after speaking with other student witnesses, MVP’s dean of students (“dean”) informed the student that the witnesses claimed that the student had provoked the fight.  After the incident, student witnesses were asked to make statements regarding their observations, and the witnesses all indicated that the student provoked Student 1 and instigated the fight by throwing a ball at Student 1.  Although the student denied her role in provoking the incident, the school conducted an adequate investigation, credited the statements of multiple witnesses, and suspended the student in accordance with the MVP disciplinary policy.  MVP interviewed several student witnesses in order to determine what had occurred; complainant and the student attended informal conferences with school officials prior to the imposition of any discipline.  I decline to substitute my judgment for that of the MVP school officials with respect to the credibility of witnesses when there is no evidence that MVP’s determination of credibility was inconsistent with the facts, or that the decision made was arbitrary and capricious.

Additionally, there is no support in the record for complainant’s argument that MVP prejudged the student’s guilt prior to conducting this investigation.[1]  Complainant has also failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the student’s three-day suspension was excessive.  While complainant disagrees with the measures taken by the school, she has not proven that the school acted in violation of its charter, Education Law Article 56, or any other provision of the law relating to the school’s management or operation.

To the extent that complainant requests that the dean be disciplined as a result of this matter, complainant has not established that the dean took any action warranting discipline.  Moreover, even assuming that complainant had made this showing, matters relating to the discipline of school personnel are more appropriately within the school’s jurisdiction and may be subject to procedures established in collective bargaining agreements and/or employment contracts.

THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Betty A. Rosa, Interim Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, for and on behalf of the State Education Department, do hereunto set my hand and affix the seal of the State Education Department, at the City of Albany, this           day of           2021.

Interim Commissioner of Education

[1] Although complainant broadly alleges that the school discriminated against the student, complainant has not alleged, or provided evidence to demonstrate, that such discrimination was due to the student’s membership in a protected class.