vs. ) CASE NO. 77-341
JOHN H. HOPKINS, JR., )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before Diane D. Tremor, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on September 21 and 22, 1977, in Room 406 of the Judicial Building, St. Petersburg, Florida.
For Petitioner: George M. Osborne, Esquire
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
For Respondent: Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire
By letter dated February 2, 1977, from petitioner's Superintendent to respondent, an amended information of charges dated May 25, 1977, and a second amended information of charges dated June 27, 1977, petitioner seeks to cancel respondent's teaching contract and permanently dismiss him from the Pinellas County school system. Respondent is charged with being absent without leave in violation of Florida Statutes 231.44. In addition, it is charged that respondent has been guilty of misconduct in office, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty and incompetency, all in violation of F.S. 231.36. In support of these charges, petitioner presented certain documents which were received into evidence and the testimony of the following members of the Pinellas County school system: John Hudson, assistant superintendent for personnel; Tom Zachary, former principal of Disston Middle School; Lee Benjamin, area assistant superintendent; George E. Geiflzer, director of auditing; Robert Twitty, assistant principal of Disston Middle School; Douglas McBriarty, director of instructional personnel; Hazel M. Morgan, media specialist at Disston; Shelby Ridel, resource teacher; William Beggs, science supervisor of secondary schools; Kenneth Watson, former principal of Dixie Hollins High School; and Katherine M. Gross, science teacher at Disston. Respondent
testified in his own behalf and offered certain documents received into evidence as Exhibits A through H.
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:
Respondent John H. Hopkins, Jr., has been employed with the Pinellas County school system since 1961. He has taught in elementary, junior high, middle and high schools.
In addition to sick leave, a teacher employed with the Pinellas County school system is entitled to the following days of leave without loss of pay: two days per year for emergency or extenuating circumstances and two days per year for personal leave. These days are charged to the sick leave allowance of the teacher.
In the 1976-77 school year, respondent was a science teacher at Disston Middle School. When a teacher has unused days which can be charged to sick leave, it is the established practice at Disston for the teacher to notify the assistant principal in advance when he intends to be absent and to complete the paperwork when he returns to duty. If a teacher does not have days accrued which can be charged to sick leave, he must take leave without pay. Leaves of absence without pay must be approved in advance by the county personnel office.
At approximately 8:30 p.m. on January 17, 1977, a Monday, respondent telephoned Robert Twitty, the assistant principal at Disston and told him he would not be at school for the rest of the week. Mr. Twitty asked for the reason, and respondent informed him that he was going to Washington, D.C. for President Carter's inauguration. Twitty told respondent to call Mr. Tom Zachary, Disston's principal, and notify him of respondent's plans. Respondent did attempt to call Mr. Zachary at his home, but Zachary was out. When Zachary got home, he returned respondent's call, but was unable to reach him. On January 17, 1977, respondent, had one and one-half days remaining which could be charged to sick leave. Respondent did not return to school that week. On January 21, 1977, a Friday, the Pinellas County schools were closed due to cold weather. This decision to close the schools was not made by the Superintendent until approximately 9:30 p.m. on January 20, 1977.
On Sunday evening, January 23, 1977, respondent again called Mr. Twitty at home and advised him that he would not be returning to duty at Disston on Monday because he was going to the county office to resolve some problems. Respondent telephoned Mr. John Hudson, the assistant superintendent for personnel, on Monday, January 24, 1977, but Hudson was not in. On Tuesday, January 25th, respondent had a doctor's appointment which took about two hours. He did not report to work on this day or for the rest of the school week. On Wednesday, January 26th, respondent spoke with Hudson on the telephone. While Hudson could not recall the substance of this conversation, It was respondent's recollection that Hudson told respondent to report back to Disston on Monday, January 31st. Dr. Douglas McBriarty, petitioner's director of instructional personnel, telephoned respondent on January 27, 1977, and told respondent that he had spoken to Superintendent Sakkis and, by his direction, respondent was to report to work the following morning. Respondent did not report to Disston on January 28th. At the hearing, respondent had no recollection of having talked to Dr. McBriarty on January 27, 1977.
On the morning of January 31, 1977, respondent reported to work at Disston. He was called into Principal Zachary's office and was told that Dr. McBriarty would be coming out to the school later to discuss respondent's absence from school. Respondent then went up to his classroom. Assistant principal Twitty came into respondent's classroom and told him that Zachary wanted to see his lesson plans. Feeling that he was being harassed by Zachary, respondent told Twitty that he was leaving school and going to Clearwater to the county offices. As respondent was walking out to his car, Mr. Zachary came out to the parking lot and told respondent not to leave because Dr. McBriarty was coming. Respondent left the school and did not return.
By letter dated February 2, 1977, to respondent from Superintendent Sakkis, respondent was notified that he was suspended from his duties at Disston without pay beginning Monday, January 24, 1977, and that it would be recommended to the School Board that he be dismissed. This action was based upon charges that respondent had been guilty of being absent without leave, misconduct in office, gross insubordination and willful neglect of duty. These charges were supplemented and amended by pleadings dated May 25, 1977, and June 27, 1977.
Respondent had previously been suspended by the School Board without pay from March 4 through March 19, 1976. This action was based upon misconduct in office in that respondent had been absent without proper authority. (Exhibit No. 2)
Prior to being transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975,. respondent taught biology and general science courses for five years at Dixie Hollins High School. Kenneth Watson, then principal of Dixie Hollins, had numerous problems with and complaints about respondent. These involved the grading and disciplining of students in his classes, the quality of his teaching, refusal to admit to his class a student who had been given an admission slip by the dean, the school's receipt of telephone calls and messages for respondent unrelated to his teaching assignments and respondent's relationship with his students. Although respondent was the first black teacher at Dixie Hollins, Principal Watson did not conceive respondent's problems to be of a racial nature. He felt that respondent's difficulty was the manner in which he handled students and presented materials to them. Dr. McBriarty observed respondent's classes at Dixie Hollins on three or four occasions and found that respondent was not able to communicate with students and that there was not a satisfactory teaching relationship between respondent and his students. Feeling that respondent was no longer effective at Dixie Hollins and in order to allow him an opportunity to improve his performance, it was determined by respondent's superiors that he should be transferred to Disston Middle School in January of 1975. This was to be a temporary transfer until a position was available in another high school.
Prior to his transfer to Disston, respondent ordered from Westinghouse Learning Corporation a biology course instructor's kit for a 30-day on-approval examination. The invoice was addressed to respondent at Dixie Hollins High School, and the total amount due if the materials were not returned within 30 days was $177.25. The merchandise was ordered by respondent without a prior purchase order and was not returned within the 30-day period. When the bill from Westinghouse came to the attention of the school, which was after respondent had been transferred to Disston, inquiries were made. No one seemed to know where the kit was. The materials were finally returned to Westinghouse some months later and the charge was cancelled from the School Board's account. There was no evidence that respondent ever personally requested the school or the county to pay for this material.
Although respondent was dissatisfied with being assigned to teach in a middle school in lieu of a high school, his first semester's performance at Disston Middle School was without serious criticism and his principal's appraisal ranged from good to excellent. His problems began when he was reassigned to Disston for the 1975/76 school year, and intensified during the 1976/77 school year. On the "instructional appraisal and improvement form for 1975/76, Principal Tom Zachary rated respondent as unsatisfactory in the areas of classroom management, preparation and organization, and attitude and growth. Zachary urged respondent to take part in middle school certification.
Respondent was again assigned to Disston for the 1976/77 school year, although he had requested a transfer to a high school. Due to the poor evaluation for the previous year, in August of 1976, Principal Zachary prepared and discussed with respondent a list of objectives and directives to help improve respondent's instructional abilities and his evaluation for 1976/77. (Exhibits 12 and 13)
During the first semester of the 1976/77 school year, several of respondent's superiors visited his classroom. Principal Zachary observed respondent's classes on several consecutive days in November of 1976. During his first days' observation, the students were assigned to copy materials from the blackboard. When he visited the class the following day, no reference was made by respondent to the blackboard material. Zachary found the students to be inattentive to respondent with respondent providing no signs of direction, no continuity and no teaching techniques. In Zachary's opinion, no learning was taking place and respondent's classes were completely disorganized. Area assistant superintendent Lee Benjamin observed three of respondent's classes on December 14, 1976. While he found the second period class, a class of higher ability, to be satisfactory, the first and third period classes were observed to be chaotic with no real learning or discipline occurring. Mr. Benjamin felt that the students did not understand what the assignment was due to the unclear nature of respondent's instructions. It was Benjamin's opinion that respondent had great difficulty with teaching and discipline and therefore was not effective. In early January of 1977, science supervisor William Beggs visited three of respondent's classes. While he found the second period class to have some degree of order and direction, the first and third period classes were observed to be highly disorganized. The students did not appear to understand what they were supposed to accomplish and respondent was not adhering to his lesson plans. Upon a review of respondent's lesson plans, Beggs did not feel that respondent was covering the subject matters expected of a seventh grade life science course.
In late November of 1976, respondent was involved with the TORC (teacher renewal) program. Dr. Shelby Ridel, a resource teacher for petitioner, observed respondent's classes to be utterly chaotic, with no pattern or continuity in the tasks to be performed. The students were confused by the assignments given them, and respondent would not answer their questions. He often sent students out to the hall for disciplinary reasons. While respondent appeared cooperative with and receptive to the changes suggested by Dr. Ridel, she saw no real improvement in his classes over the several weeks she worked with respondent. She felt that respondent's greatest problem was classroom management.
Assistant Principal Twitty, who was responsible for the discipline of Disston students, experienced more than usual discipline problems with respondent's classes. Respondent was told on numerous occasions not to put
students out in the hall for disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless, he continued to do so. Such action not only violated school policy; it also was disruptive to teachers in nearby classrooms.
Along with several other teachers, respondent was assigned to an interdisciplinary team to work with students and their parents. As a part of his responsibilities, he was to prepare the science section of a newsletter. He often failed to attend the team meetings and, on at least one occasion, he failed to prepare his section of the newsletter.
Prior to his departure from Disston in January of 1977, respondent had checked out a tape recorder and several books from the school library. He had also borrowed from Dr. Ridel a seventh grade science curriculum guide. The tape recorder was returned by respondent in April of 1977, and the other items were not returned until June or July, 1977. Respondent's explanation for this delay was that no one had requested the return of these materials and that he did not want to go back to Disston after his suspension.
Respondent admitted that his classes gave the appearance of being chaotic and disorganized. It was his explanation that he utilized an individual, systems approach to teach his students and that his superiors did not understand or approve of this teaching technique. He further explained the adverse reaction by his superiors to his classroom techniques by emphasizing the lack of teaching materials and equipment made available to him at Disston, his inexperience in teaching sixth and seventh grade students and his desire to return to high school teaching.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent has been charged with numerous specific offenses which, if proven by petitioner, would constitute violations of F.S. 23l.36(6) and 231.44 and thus be grounds for suspension, dismissal or cancellation of respondent's teaching contract.
The facts adduced at the hearing clearly illustrate that respondent was willfully absent without leave from noon on January 19, 1977, until the time of notification of his suspension in early February. It was respondent's responsibility to make a full and complete inquiry regarding his accrued leave time prior to his expected absence for personal leave. His accrued time having lapsed, it was error for him to be absent from his duties without receiving prior approval for leave without pay from the administration at the county level. Respondent's error in this regard was compounded by his failure to return to his teaching duties on Monday, January 24, 1977, and his failure to comply with the specific instruction of Dr. McBriarty to return on January 28, 1977. Such willful absence without leave violates F.S. 231.44 and also constitutes misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty for which discipline is authorized by F.S. 231.36(6). School Board of Collier County v. Nadine Steele, 348 So.2d 1166 (Fla. App. 1st) 1977). His refusal to return to school upon Dr. McBriarty's instructions and his refusal to remain at school on January 31, 1977, after the direction to do so by Principal Zachary further constitutes gross insubordination in violation of F.S. 231.36(6).
Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to sustain the charge against respondent of incompetency in the area of classroom management and preparation, organization and performance as a classroom teacher. Each witness who personally observed respondent's classroom teaching described the classes as being chaotic, noisy and disorganized, with the students being unable to
comprehend their assignments or understand what was expected of them. While there was no evidence that respondent lacked an adequate command of the subject matter, the evidence illustrates that he was unable to communicate with and relate to his students in an effective manner. Repeated efforts and suggestions from respondent's principal and the resource teacher to enhance respondent's classroom performance resulted in little, if any, improvement during the first semester of the 1976/1977 school year. Respondent's attempts to justify his performance by claiming lack of middle school certification and experience and ignorance on the part of others of his teaching methods is unconvincing.
Respondent had problems at Dixie Hollins High School with discipline, the quality of his teaching and his relationship with students. These problems, among others, were the reasons he was transferred to Disston. He had previously taught in a junior high school before teaching at Dixie Hollins. His principal, area superintendent and others who observed his classrooms had many, many years of teaching and educational experience behind them. It is doubtful that they would lack an understanding of teaching techniques. Respondent was obviously dissatisfied with his assignment to teach general science to seventh graders at Disston Middle School. Such dissatisfaction does not, however, excuse or justify the incompetent manner in which respondent carried out his responsibilities to the students enrolled in his classes.
Among other grounds cited in support of its charge that respondent committed acts constituting misconduct in office, petitioner alleges that respondent violated rules and abused his privileges concerning the obtaining, use, return and purchase of instructional materials. The evidence offered in support of this charge pertains to the Westinghouse instructor's kit and equipment and books borrowed by respondent at Disston but not returned until four to six months after his suspension. While the evidence illustrates some negligence on respondent's part regarding the timeliness of his return of these items, the evidence does not illustrate any intention on respondent's part to permanently deprive the petitioner of these items or to have petitioner pay for items not properly purchased. This charge, standing by itself, would not be sufficient to sustain a finding of misconduct in office.
The petitioner's charges, as amended, contain numerous other allegations against respondent which have not been specifically discussed above. The undersigned Hearing Officer has carefully considered each allegation in light of the evidence adduced by petitioner at the hearing. It is concluded that the remaining allegations set forth in the complaint were not sustained by sufficient competent evidence and should therefore be dismissed.
In conclusion, it is found that petitioner has amply sustained its burden of proving that respondent has been guilty of the following:
willful absence from duty without leave from noon on January 19, 1977, until notification of his suspension in early February;
gross insubordination by his failure to return to his duties when instructed to
do so by Dr. McBriarty and to remain at school when instructed to do so by his principal;
willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office by his willful absence without leave; and
incompetency in the areas of classroom management and preparation, organization and performance as a classroom teacher.
These offenses violate F.S.231.44 and 231.36(6) and constitute grounds for suspension, dismissal and/or cancellation of his contract.
Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is recommended that respondent's teaching contract be cancelled and that he be dismissed as an employee of the Pinellas County school system.
Respectfully submitted and entered this 26th day of October, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
B. Edwin Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 33518
George M. Osborne, Esquire Rutland Central Bank Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Suite 990, Lincoln Center 5401 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609
