Petitioner in this appeal to New York States' Commissioner of Education challenged the New York City Department of Education's refusal to permit Petitioner's child to retake the examination for admission to a Specialized High School due to an alleged distracting incident that had taken place in the course of the administration of the examination caused by another student taking the examination.
Although the Commissioner dismissed Petitioner's appeal as untimely, Commissioner Rosa addressed two other significant matters:
1. Petitioner's allegation that an incident caused by another participant [classmate] in the examination “completely shatter[ed] [Petitioner's student’s] concentration and caus[ed] psychological distress during one of the exam’s most pivotal sections,”
2. The Department of Education's acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner when it refused to permit Petitioner's child to retake the examination.
As to impact on the incident on Petitioners' child, the Commissioner said that the examination proctor reported that the classmate became distressed but the "The proctor calmed and refocused the classmate, who stopped crying a few minutes later and completed the examination"
With respect to Petitioner's assertion that the incident “completely shatter[ed] [the student’s] concentration and caus[ed] psychological distress during one of the exam’s most pivotal sections,” Petitioner did not prove that the New York City Department of Education acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in denying Petitioner's request that that Petitioner's child be permitted to retake the examination.
The complete text of the Commissioner's decision is set out below:
Decision No. 18,636
Appeal of G.W., on behalf of his child, from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding administration of an examination.
(September 11, 2025)
Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, attorneys for respondent, Madison M. Moore, Esq., of counsel
ROSA., Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the refusal of the New York City Department of Education (“respondent”) to allow his child (the “student”) to retake an examination. 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).
Even assuming the accrual date most favorable to petitioner—February 26, 2025, when he was informed that he could file an appeal to the Commissioner—petitioner commenced the instant appeal 48 days thereafter. Petitioner explains that he “continued to seek internal redress until March 26, 2025.” A request for reconsideration, however, 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). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed.
Even if timely, the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits. Petitioner complains that the student became distracted during an administration of the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test[1] when a classmate cried during the testing period. As part of an investigation, respondent’s Offices of Assessment (OA) and Student Enrollment (OSE) spoke with the exam proctor. The proctor reported that the classmate began crying at 11:37 a.m. The proctor calmed and refocused the classmate, who stopped crying a few minutes later and completed the examination. The proctor reported that the entire incident lasted less than five minutes. OA and OSE concluded that the incident did not compromise the administration of the examination or that a retest was otherwise warranted.
While petitioner asserts that this incident “completely shatter[ed] [the student’s] concentration and caus[ed] psychological distress during one of the exam’s most pivotal sections,” he has not proven that respondent acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Therefore, the appeal would be dismissed on the merits (Appeal of Goodman, 35 Ed Dept Rep 93, Decision No. 13,477).
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
[1] Under State law, this examination is “the principal means of admission” into respondent’s Specialized High Schools. See Appeals of C.K., et al., 59 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,748.