This appeal ensued. Petitioner's request for interim relief was denied on April 13, 2000. Petitioner alleges that respondents engaged in an excessive and abusive use of discipline and denied her and Nichole due process. She argues that respondents failed to follow the district's written policy, which states that a student will not begin serving an in-school suspension until the day after the suspension is imposed. She asks for the expungement of the truancy from Nichole's record and the restoration of her privileges.
Respondents assert that the appeal is untimely and has become moot.
Respondents further argue that petitioner and Nichole were afforded all the process they were due because in-school suspensions do not give rise to a right to a full disciplinary hearing under Education Law 3214. Respondents concede that they did not follow the district's written policy and state that their policy is under review. Nichole served her in-school suspension on January 31, 2000. The period during which she was ineligible for senior privileges ended when students returned to school after Easter break. The appeal therefore must be dismissed as moot.