§ 351.26. Unsatisfactory rating.

 (a)  Two consecutive unsatisfactory ratings of a professional employe shall be necessary to dismiss on the grounds of incompetency. This requirement insures that dismissal is not based on the first instance of unsatisfactory performance but that dismissal follows notice and an opportunity for the professional employe to improve.

 (b)  The intermediate unit director or district superintendent shall approve and sign the rating form when an unsatisfactory rating is recorded.

 (c)  Whenever an unsatisfactory rating is given, it shall be supported by anecdotal records. The records shall include specific evidence likely to be important in the event of dismissal.


   The provisions of this §  351.26 adopted August 24, 1979, effective August 25, 1979, 9 Pa.B. 2884; corrected November 26, 1982, effective February 16, 1980, 12 Pa.B. 4055.

Notes of Decisions

   Anecdotal Records

   The arbitrator’s award denying discharged teacher’s grievance concluding that observation by district superintendent of teacher prior to her termination was impossible due to teacher’s failure to work the remainder of school year because of illness was upheld as the award drew its essence from the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Court determined that the basis of the arbitrator’s award represented a reasonable interpretation of the labor agreement between the parties. Shapiro v. School District of Philadelphia, 637 A.2d 718 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

   The Board need not formally introduce supporting anecdotal records of an unsatisfactory rating upon which the dismissal of a temporary professional employe was based as long as the person who rated the temporary employe testifies and explains the rating process. Phillis v. Board of School Directors of Mechanicsburg Area School District, 617 A.2d 830 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992); appeal denied 634 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1993).

   Commonwealth Court has construed this regulation to require that unsatisfactory ratings be approved and signed by the district superintendent or intermediate unit director and that the rating be supported by anecdotal records. The ratings need not contain numerical scores citing Hamburg v. North Penn School District, 484 A.2d 867, 869 (1984). School District of Philadelphia v. Kushner, 530 A.2d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987); appeal dismissed 552 A.2d 667 (Pa. 1989).

   The failure to use numerical scores as contemplated by the regulations which created the DEBE-333 form has no effect upon a rating of a teacher as unsatisfactory, since this section requires only that unsatisfactory ratings be approved and signed by the district superintendent or intermediate unit director and be supported by anecdotal records, and not that the unsatisfactory ratings contain numerical scores. Hamburg v. North Penn School District, 484 A.2d 867 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

Cross References

   This section cited in 22 Pa. Code §  351.23 (relating to alternative rating form).

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.