Selected key points made in recent decisions of the Commissioner of Education

Improper service of an appeal to the Commissioner of Education

The Commissioner dismissed this Education §310 appeal for improper service, noting that §275.8 (a) of the Commissioner’s regulations requires that the petition be personally served upon each named respondent.  "If a school district is named as a respondent, service upon the school district shall be made personally by delivering a copy of the petition to the district clerk, to any trustee or any member of the board of education, to the superintendent of schools, or to a person in the office of the superintendent who has been designated by the board of education to accept service (8 NYCRR 275.8 [a], Appeal of B.H., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,246; Appeal of Peterson, 48 id. 530, Decision No. 15,939). 

As here relevant, the petition was sent by U.S. mail to respondent’s district clerk.  The Commissioner observed that service by U.S. mail "does not constitute valid service of a petition pursuant to Education Law §310" and, therefore, "the appeal must be dismissed."*

The Commissioner then opined that "Even if the appeal were not dismissed on procedural grounds, it would be dismissed on the merits.  In an appeal to the Commissioner, a petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief." The Commissioner also noted that "As [the school district correctly noted], there is no requirement that a board of education conduct a nationwide search for a superintendent."

Petitioner, said the Commissioner, has otherwise failed to demonstrate that the school district acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner in appointing its new superintendent. (see Appeal of S.E., 51 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,352; Appeal of J.P., et al., 42 id. 226, Decision No. 14,832).

* The Petitioner’s affidavit of service contained the following notation:  “Affidavit of service by mail [s]ince the school district is on Spring Break this week.”  This, said the Commissioner, "does not establish that district offices were closed or that [Petitioner] was otherwise prevented from effectuating personal service."

Click HERE top access the Commissioner's decision.

Determining seniority in the course of abolishing a position

In this appeal the Petitioner appealed the action of the Board of Education in abolishing her position of library media specialist, joining several named individuals as "necessary parties." The Commissioner sustained Petitioner's appeal "to the extent indicated."

Petitioner claimed tenure in the district as a library media specialist.  On June 18, 2020, the school board adopted a resolution abolishing, among others, a library media specialist position, effective June 30, 2020.  The school district then identified Petitioner as the least senior person in the tenure area of library media specialist. 

Addressing the merits of the Petitioner's appeal, the Commissioner observed that at the time of a probationary appointment or appointment on tenure, a board of education must identify “the tenure area or areas in which [a] professional educator will devote a substantial portion of [her or] his time”, i.e. assigned to any tenure area to which she devotes a “substantial portion” of her time, defined as “40 percent or more of [her] total time spent … in the performance of [her or] his duties …” (see 8 NYCRR 30.1 [g]).

The Commissioner opined that "Given the limited and ambiguous information in the record, it is impossible to determine which employee’s services should have been discontinued." The Commissioner then admonish [the appointing authority] to comply with Part 30 of the Rules of the Board of Regents in appointing individuals to tenure-eligible positions. "It is unacceptable that [appointing authority] was unable to produce a single document establishing the tenure area(s) to which [Petitioner] and the named necessary parties were appointed] noting that the failure appointing authority "to identify this information, which is required by 8 NYCRR 30-1.3, now necessitates a recreation of its institutional thought process from several years ago—all while the employment of one or more people hangs in the balance" noted the Commissioner.

Click HERE to access the text of the Commissioner's decision.

Challenging actions taken by members of the staff of the State Education Department

Petitioner in this appeal challenged a determination of the New York State Education Department’s Office of Special Education (“SED”) that she engaged in misconduct and acted incompetently during a special education due process hearing.  The Commissioner dismissed the appeal for "lack of jurisdiction."

The Commissioner explained that "It is well settled that Education Law §310 does not authorize an appeal to the Commissioner from actions taken by members of the staff of the State Education Department", noting that  "Such actions can only be challenged in a proceeding brought in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules."

Click HERE to access the decision of the Commissioner.

Extending a probationary period

A probationary teacher [Probationer] taught Social Studies. Subsequently Probationer agreed to serve an additional one-year probationary period, ending February 1, 2022.

By letter dated October 8, 2021, the assistant principal requested a meeting “regarding improper usage of an instructional period.”  The letter informed petitioner that she could bring a union representative because the meeting could lead to disciplinary action. Ultimately the superintendent informed Probationer that her probationary appointment, would end at the close of business on January 31, 2022.

Pursuant to its authority under Education Law §2573(1)(a), the New York City Department of Education [DOE] "may discontinue the services of a probationary teacher 'at any time and for any reason, unless the teacher establishes that the termination was for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, violative of a statute, or done in bad faith.'”

In an appeal to the Commissioner, the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested and establishing the facts upon which he or she seeks relief  and here the Commissioner determined that Probationer "has not proven that [DOE] discontinued her probation in bad faith."