Teacher received an “U” rating due to a number of factors including attendance and lateness for the 2010-2011 school year. She received unsatisfactory ratings in seven categories in her Annual Professinal Performance Review (APPR). Her principal wrote to her stating that improperly prepared paperwork would be considered and unsatisfactory rating.

As was her right the petitioner requested and received a Chancellor’s Committee hearing. ¬†After the hearing the Chancellor’s committee affirmed the principal’s decision to give the petitioner a “U” rating stating that petitoner had excessive absences before and after weekends and holiday and “a lack of impact on student growth.”

Teacher filed an Article 78 Petition in Supreme Court appealing the Chancellor’s Committee decision.

Special Circular 45 a memorandum issued by respondents in response to the mandate in the Commissioner of Education regulations (8 NYCRR) sect 100.2(o) outlines the methods required for rating personnel.

The Court held that only one observation was insufficient and the fact that the teacher did not have an in-discipline supervisor to critique her work.

Read about this Article 78 reversing a teacher’s U rating here.