Respondent allowed petitioner's son to remain enrolled in its schools based upon petitioner's prior residence in the district and her assertion that she was in the process of moving back to an address within the district. Petitioner's appeal to respondent's Executive Director of Pupil Services was denied on January 16, 1998. This appeal ensued. Petitioner contends that she will be moving back to respondent's district as soon as she is able to locate suitable housing. She alleges that she offered to pay tuition for her son, but that respondent stated that it did not accept nonresident students on a tuition-paying basis.
Petitioner alleges that respondent admitted that it accepts tuition for foreign students.
Petitioner argues that her son, as a student with a learning disability, will be adversely affected by removing him from respondent's schools. She requests that I issue an order permitting her son to continue in respondent's schools through the end of the 1997-98 school year. Respondent contends that the appeal should be dismissed because petitioner is not a resident of the district. Respondent asserts that it does not accept tuition-paying nonresident students and only accepts tuition from certain foreign students, who reside within the district, who are required by federal law to pay tuition as a condition of the issuance of their visas. The appeal must be dismissed as moot.