Matter of M.R. and Community Roots Charter School

________________________________

M.R. (“complainant”), the parent of a student who attended Community Roots Charter School (“Community Roots” or “the school”), filed a complaint alleging that a folder and photograph belonging to the student were withheld from complainant; that the school nearly lost track of the student while on a field trip; that the final course grade the student received in his sixth-grade Spanish class was improper; that the student did not receive integrated co-teaching (“ICT”) services as specified on his individualized education program (“IEP”); that the school twice refused to retain the student in his then-current grade; and that the student was subjected to bullying and cyberbullying.  The complaint must be sustained to the extent indicated.

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 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.

The record indicates that the student attended Community Roots from sixth through eighth grade.  During his time at the school, complainant alleges that the student experienced bullying and cyberbullying that the school failed to properly address.  For example, complainant alleges that a classmate (the “classmate”) hacked the student’s JumpRope (an online grading application) account and posted pornography on the student’s profile.  Complainant contends that the classmate received an insufficient degree of discipline for his actions.  Complainant additionally alleges that the school improperly promoted the student following sixth and seventh grade.  Complainant also asserts that the student’s final grade in his sixth-grade Spanish class was incorrect.  Complainant further alleges that the student’s sixth-grade Spanish teacher—and the school, generally—failed to return a folder to her that included a photograph of the student.  Finally, complainant alleges that the school failed to adequately supervise the student while on a field trip.[1]

For relief, complainant seeks tutoring and therapy for the student, with complainant having final approval over the identity of the provider(s); that the school improve its policies regarding bullying and cyberbullying; assistance in “placing and financing” the student in a private school; a written apology from the classmate; imposition of an additional period of suspension for the classmate; a written apology from the school; a revision of the student’s sixth-grade Spanish final grade; and a return of the student’s folder and photograph.

Pursuant to Education Law § 2855 (4), complainant submitted a complaint, dated October 6, 2016, to the school’s board of trustees (“Board”), outlining her allegations.  By letter dated November 21, 2016, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the school acted within its authority and in accordance with internal policies as it related to complainant’s allegations, and that the school was fulfilling its obligations to provide academic and psychological support as determined by the student’s IEP.[2]  Complainant then submitted her complaint to the school’s authorizer, the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”).  DOE also dismissed the complaint, determining that there was no evidence that the school had violated its policies, its charter, or New York or federal law.  DOE found that the school investigated and addressed all instances of reported bullying and harassment in compliance with the school’s policies; took appropriate action concerning the unauthorized use of the student’s JumpRope account in accordance with its policies; reasonably determined the student’s final grade in Spanish; and acted reasonably in connection with the field trip incident, as the student was not following directions and, ultimately, exited the subway with the rest of his class at the appropriate stop.  DOE also determined that the school implemented the student’s IEP by providing ICT services for the student in his English Language Arts (“ELA”), math, science, and social studies classes; additional support services in ELA and math; and speech language therapy.  DOE asserted that the folder and photograph described by complainant had been “returned” to the student, but apparently not “received” by complainant.  DOE acknowledged that the current location of the folder and photograph was unknown.  Subsequent to DOE’s determination, complainant filed the instant complaint with the Regents. 

There is no basis in the record to disturb DOE’s determination that the school acted within its authority and in accordance with internal policies as it related to complainant’s allegations.  There is no evidence, for example, that the school deliberately withheld the folder containing the photograph of the student.  Similarly, there is no evidence that the school failed to implement the programs and services prescribed by the student’s IEP.

With respect to the student’s grade in Spanish class, decisions regarding student grading rest initially with the classroom teacher and, ultimately, with the Board.  Barring a showing that such a grade was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, I will not substitute my judgment for that of the school.  In this case, there is no evidence that the student’s final grade in his Spanish class was improper.  

Regarding complainant’s requests that the student be retained in his then-current grade, a charter school’s board, pursuant to its charter agreement with its authorizer, has discretion to assign students to particular classes or grades.  This discretion is analogous to that afforded to public school districts, which may do so unless such placement is illegal, arbitrary, or capricious (Appeal of M.F. and T.L., 44 Ed Dept Rep 467, Decision No. 15,234; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 41 id. 259, Decision No. 14,680).  Although complainant disagrees with the school’s decisions, there is no evidence that they were illegal, arbitrary, or capricious.

Additionally, the record reflects that the school investigated petitioner’s allegations of bullying and cyberbullying.  To the extent complainant seeks apologies from the classmate and from the school, the Commissioner lacks the authority to order the issuance of an apology (Appeal of Lloyd, 39 Ed Dept Rep 537, Decision No. 14,303).  Likewise, there is no statute that authorizes the Regents to award monetary damages or costs or reimbursements in a charter school complaint (compare Appeal of D.B., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,244 [so holding under appeal pursuant to Education Law § 310]; Application of Kolbmann, 48 id. 370, Decision No. 15,888 [same]).[3]  Finally, to the extent that complainant requests that I order the school to suspend the classmate, complainant lacks standing to compel the school to impose discipline on other students (see Appeal of N.L., 44 Ed Dept Rep 216, Decision No. 15,153).

Although the school addressed complainant’s allegations of bullying and harassment, there is no indication that the school had policies, procedures, and guidelines to prevent bullying or harassment, as required by the Dignity for All Students Act (“DASA”), at the time of the complaint.  Community Roots could not produce a DASA policy upon request and did not provide the State Education Department with a consistent explanation as to how it addresses such allegations.  By failing to develop any such policies and procedures, the school violated DASA (see especially Education Law § 13) and its charter.  To ensure that the school has a legally-complaint DASA policy in place, I will order that it immediately take actions to satisfy this obligation.  

To the extent they are not specifically addressed herein, I find complainant’s remaining contentions to be without merit.

THE COMPLAINT IS SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED.

IT IS ORDERED that Community Roots Charter School immediately develop policies, procedures, and guidelines as required by the Dignity for All Students Act, if it has not already done so; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Community Roots Charter School shall, no later than December 31, 2021, submit the policies, procedures, and guidelines required by the Dignity for All Students Act to its authorizer for review and approval, together with a copy of this decision.  The authorizer shall promptly notify the New York State Education Department’s Charter School Office upon approval of such policies, procedures, and guidelines by the authorizer.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I, Betty A. Rosa, 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.

Commissioner of Education