Matter of A.O. and Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School

IN THE MATTER

of

THE COMPLAINT OF A.0., ON BEHALF OF HER GRANDDAUGHTER J.M., CONCERNING BROOKLYN EXCELSIOR CHARTER SCHOOL.

 

DECISION

 

A.0. ("complainant") brings this complaint pursuant to Education Law §2855(4) against Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School ("BECS" or "the school"), a charter school  authorized by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York ("SUNY") and chartered by the New York State Board of Regents. Complainant first presented  a complaint to the BECS Board of Trustees, then to SUNY, and now presents  this complaint  to the Board of Regents.  Section 3.16 of the Rule.s of the Board of Regents (8 NYCRR §3.16) delegates to the Commissioner of Education the authority to respond  to  complaints. brought  pursuant to Education Law §2855(4) and issue appropriate remedial orders to charter schools. In accordance with that authority, I have reviewed the complaint and find that it must be dismissed. 

BECS is a charter school that serves students  in grades K through eight. An application to attend BECS was submitted for J.M. by her mother for the 2006-2007 school year. In March of 2O O6  J.M. was accepted to kindergarten at BECS for the 2006-2007 school year. However,  prior  to the beginning of that school year, BECS  officials determined that J.M. was ineligible for admission to kindergarten because of her age. The complainant alleges that BECS staff admitted the error and provided assurances that J.M. would be admitted to kindergarten for the following 2007-2008 school year without  further  application. No application for J.M.'s admission to BECS  was filed for the 2007-2008 school year and, consequently, J.M. was not admitted. An application was submitted on behalf of J.M to attend first grade at BECS for the 2008- 2009 school year. A lottery was held but J.M. was not selected for admission. Instead, she was placed on the school's waiting list.

Complainant challenges BECS's refusal to admit J.M. and, apparently, seeks an order admitting J.M.  to BECS. BECS contends, among other things, that A.O. does not have standing to bring this complaint.

The complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing. Complainant purports to bring this complaint on behalf of J.M., but is not her parent, legal guardian or custodian. Indeed, it appears that J.M.'s mother submitted the initial application for J.M. to attend BECS for the  2006-2007 school year. There is no evidence of her involvement in subsequent applications or in this complaint. Moreover, Article 5, Title 15-A of the General Obligations Law provides a mechanism by which a parent may designate a person to act as a person in parental relation to a child with respect to the Education Law. No designation form consistent with the requirements contained within the General Obligations Law has been provided indicating that A.O. has the legal authority to make educational decisions on behalf of J.M. Because A.O. did not provide a designation form consistent with the requirements contained within the General Obligations Law, and has  otherwise failed to establish any legal standing to represent her granddaughter's interests, A.O.'s complaint must be dismissed.

In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties' other contentions.

THE COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

 

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I,  David M. Steiner, 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, City of Albany, this                  / April 2010.

 

Commissioner of Education