vs. ) CASE NO. 78-495
MRS. EUOLIA YATES, )
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above styled case on June 15, 1978 at Clearwater, Florida.
For Petitioner: Mark F. Kelly, Esquire
For Respondent: George M. Osborne, Esquire
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
By letter dated February 15, 1978 the Superintendent of Schools, Pinellas County, Florida advised Mrs. Euolia Yates, Respondent, that he was recommending to the School Board that she be dismissed from her position as a teacher in the Pinellas County school system and that her continuing contract be terminated by reason of incompetency. This proceeding resulted from Respondent's request for a hearing to contest this allegation of incompetency. At the hearing 7 witnesses were called by Petitioner, 2 witnesses, including Respondent, were called by Respondent and 19 exhibits were offered into evidence. All exhibits were admitted except Exhibit 15 to which Respondent's objection was sustained.
Mrs. Euolia Yates, Respondent, holds teacher's certificate number 181546 issued 11/3/69. She was employed in the Pinellas county school system as a substitute teacher on an hourly basis from August 1969 until November 1970 when she was employed in the Adult Home Economics program. She became a full- time employee in October 1971 as an Adult Home Economics teacher.
Respondent obtained an A.A. degree from Gibbs Junior College in 1960 and worked in a private pre-school program while attending Gibbs as well as afterwards. She was owner-operator of Jordan Park Nursery Kindergarten, Inc. from 1962-1968. In 1968 Respondent was appointed as an instructor in an Adult
Basic Education program commenced under a federal grant for the economically deprived.
In 1971 Respondent obtained her B.S. degree in Education from the University of South Florida and she was appointed to the Pinellas County Schools as a full-time teacher in October 1971. She continued in the Adult Education program until federal funds were withdrawn in 1977. The program, in which she was teaching, involved an adult - pre-kindergarten child program where parents and child both attended the classes where the parent was taught how to better relate to the child, hygiene, nutrition, etc. In this program Respondent maintained good relations with the community from which the attendees were drawn and was effective in recruiting students for the program. It was while in this program that she obtained continuing contract status.
When the Adult Education program closed Petitioner was faced with finding a position for Respondent. Because of her certificate and prior experience with pre-school age children she was assigned to Pinellas Park Elementary School as a kindergarten teacher to replace a teacher on maternity leave. She remained at Pinellas Park for the second semester of the 1976-77 school year.
Respondent had served her internship in 1971 at Pinellas Park and received a relatively low evaluation of average and fair from the evaluating teacher who found Respondent lacking in initiative, planning ability, and disposed towards napping after lunch while she was supposed to be observing.
During the semester Respondent served at Pinellas Park as a a full-time teacher the kindergarten operated in a POD situation with three teachers and approximately 75 children. The POD situation was designed to allow teachers to operate with a large group under one teacher at certain times so the other teachers could give more individual attention to those pupils needing the extra attention. Because Respondent had problems maintaining discipline it became necessary to forego the larger groups. During this period Respondent had difficulty keeping her plan book current or even doing the planning of her class schedule despite the two other teachers assuming some of the Respondent's duties in order to allow her more time to plan her curriculum. Maintaining the teacher's day-by-day plan book is essential not only to help the teacher insure all proper topics are covered but also to allow a substitute teacher to take over the class without loss of continuity during absence of the regular teacher. Respondent had difficulty maintaining discipline in her group, in communicating with her pupils and in remembering their names.
Even when she had a plan for the day Respondent frequently failed to follow it thereby disrupting the program of testing in sequential skills. Her control of the class, as observed by the principal, was weak. The grammar and spelling used by Respondent in notices placed on the board was often inaccurate. She failed to carry out the required instructional program and the tests to ascertain how much they had learned. Exhibit 2, which is a two-part report on one of her students, the first report of which was prepared by the teacher who was replaced by Respondent, shows the exact same marks were given by Respondent on the second report that were given by the former teacher on the first report. This would indicate that either the pupil was not truly evaluated on the second report, or that he made absolutely no change in the second semester in his learning ability. Other reports on the pupils which were supposed to be assigned monthly were never assigned by Respondent while at Pinellas Park.
The principal at Pinellas Park has been employed in the field of education for some 40 years and observed Respondent in her classroom on a daily basis. He described Respondent's performance as the weakest he had ever seen in kindergarten, despite the fact that she was well liked by the children. As a result of his early observations of Respondent the principal had a supervisor come in on two occasions to help Respondent in carrying out her duties. He received complaints from at least two parents that their children couldn't understand Respondent when she talked to them. Specifically Respondent was found deficient at Pinellas Park in:
Following curriculum guidelines for the Santa Clara testing program used by the school;
Classroom management and keeping children active on constructive work;
Ability to work with others. (Respondent withdrew and didn't work with the other teachers);
Official record keeping; and
Inability to communicate by written word.
As a result of these discrepancies Respondent was given an unfavorable evaluation at the end of her semester at Pinellas Park Elementary School.
The following semester commencing in the fall of 1977 Respondent was transferred to Orange Grove Elementary School as a kindergarten teacher i a newly activated kindergarten. Prior to the commencement of the school year Respondent visited Orange Park and talked with the principal who told her that she was aware of Respondent's evaluations and qualifications and that they were not good. The principal offered to help her as much as possible.
When the semester started, the first problem coming to the principal's attention involved the inventory of kindergarten supplies. Since this was a new kindergarten all new equipment and supplies were provided and it was necessary for Respondent to take the inventory and check off the equipment and supplies as received. Respondent was advised how the inventory was to be taken. When the inventory was checked by a kindergarten supervisor numerous errors were found showing things on hand that had not been received and things received which had not been shipped. Respondent was told to redo the inventory and subsequently reported that it had been redone over a weekend. A recheck was made and no change in the errors was noted.
During a faculty meeting involving staffing at Orange Grove Respondent was observed by the principal to be asleep. Following the meeting Respondent turned in a form report not applicable to kindergarten teachers.
Prior to commencement of the fall term all of the teachers, including Respondent, were given instructions in conducting the Santa Clara testing program which was used by all Pinellas County schools. After the principal observed Respondent having difficulty administering the program she requested the county supervisor to come to the school to help Respondent. The supervisor and her assistant spent two days at Orange Grove going through the testing procedures with Respondent despite the fact that the instructions accompanying the program are sufficiently clear that the average teacher can successfully conduct the tests by simply following the instructions.
The principal visited Respondent's class, as well as all other classes at Orange Grove, at frequent intervals. Initially the principal provided Respondent with an aide to help her properly conduct the class and the program.
After observing Respondent for a few weeks the principal found the aide doing the tasks she expected Respondent to perform while Respondent observed. The aide was then reassigned.
After Respondent was again instructed regarding the necessity and procedures for planning she was asked to provide the principal a plan showing her expectations for improvement of the class during the semester. Exhibit 5, which purports to be such a plan, was largely copies from the Santa Clara instructional material. A sample similar to the plan expected is shown in Exhibit 6.
On numerous occasions Respondent was advised by the principal and supervisors of the areas in which her performance was unsatisfactory and in which she needed to improve. At their initial visit to Orange Grove Elementary School Respondent was advised that she would have to improve her previous unsatisfactory evaluation and that every effort would be made to assist her.
As a result of the visits to Respondent's class by the principal and the supervisors and observations made during these visits, Respondent was evaluated unsatisfactory by the principal at Orange Grove Elementary School. The observations which led to the evaluation were:
Respondent's maladroit handling of the inventory at the beginning of the school year.
Difficulty in following simple instructions in preparing plans, conducting Santa Clara testing, and other routine tasks.
Spelling errors including the names of the children. Children's names were misspelled on material they had done and which was placed on bulletin boards for the parents to see at Open House. Numerous spelling errors appear in Respondent's Plan Book. (Exhibit 7).
Poor grammar. Not only did Respondent use poor grammar in submitting reports (Exhibits 10 and 11) but frequently used incorrect tense in
talking with the class. Examples observed include: "What my name is?; No, he don't; What it look like; What the green light mean," etc.
Problems carrying out the testing program. Despite the numerous visits by the supervisors Respondent never mastered the Santa Clara testing program. As a result it was necessary to hold up the report cards prepared by Respondent until the class could be retested by the supervisors.
Following receipt of the evaluation from Orange Grove Elementary School Petitioner requested an observation and report by the Professional Practices Council (PPC) of the Department of Education. A reviewer from the PPC observed Respondent in her classroom for three consecutive days and her report was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 19. She found Respondent failed to follow the prescribed program or her own lesson plan, failed to administer instruction in proper sequence, failed to maintain discipline in the classroom, left children unattended, and during the three days observed, conducted 45 minutes of proper instruction for her class. Some 4 hours of instruction is expected daily.
Respondent contended that she became "uptight" when closely observed and that was the reason for her poor performance at both schools. She didn't feel Orange Grove a "comfortable" place to work because the principal visited the classroom at too frequent intervals. Continued visitation in her classroom "frustrated" her. Being "uptight" induced her spelling errors. When assigned an aide she assumed she could use the aide for her benefit and assign to the aide whatever task she deemed appropriate. Her planning was originally interfered with because of the inventory she had to take. Respondent further alleged that much of her problem stemmed from racial prejudice but submitted no evidence to support such contention. Respondent believes her day-by-day plan was adequate but she acknowledged there were errors in her report cards. According to Respondent the lead teacher and principal at Pinellas Park were prejudiced against her, the principal is a phoney who didn't deal with her fairly and all the witnesses' testimony was tainted. She acknowledged dozing in class while an intern but not at the faculty meetings as testified to by the principal.
The other witness testifying on behalf of Respondent is an instructor and coordinator at Nova University where Respondent is enrolled in a graduate program and is making A's and B's. This witness has found no outstanding problem with Respondent's grammar and considers her to have a normal black dialect which, in her opinion, is acceptable for use by a teacher in kindergarten. Although Nova gives applicants for graduate school the GRE test the scores obtained are disregarded in accepting applicants to the graduate program. A student at Nova can redo a paper as many times as necessary to obtain a passing grade and a B average is required to stay in the graduate program.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 231.36(6) Florida Statutes provides inter alia that any member of the instructional staff may be dismissed for incompetency. In implementing this provision Rule 6B-4.08 Florida Administrative Code provides in pertinent part:
When an action or other matter appears to exist which may possibly result in the future dismissal of any employee, the immediate supervisor should take appropriate action to advise the employee of the matter and the potential consequences if not corrected.
Every possible helpful effort should be made by the immediate supervisor to aid the employer to correct the matter which could cause his dismissal if not corrected.
The record in this case is replete with instances where Respondent was provided assistance. Some of those noted above include being given additional time to prepare plans and receiving assistance from supervisors at Pinellas Park; and numerous conferences at Orange Grove with the principal and supervisors where suggestions and help were provided to Respondent.
Rule 6B-5.02 Florida Administrative Code defines competent as the ability or fitness to discharge the required duties as set forth in this chapter.
Rule 6B-4.09 provides in pertinent part:
Incompetency is defined as the inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. Since incapacity is a relative term, an authoritative decision in an individual case may be made on the basis of testimony by a panel of expert witnesses appropriately appointed from the teaching profes- sion by the Professional Practices Council. Such judgment shall be based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one or more of the following.
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes); (2) repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience....
Incapacity:
* * *
(3) lack of general educational background.
From the evidence submitted it is abundantly clear that Respondent repeatedly failed to prepare the required records and plans; that her communications with her pupils were routinely conducted in incorrect grammar which, despite the opinion of one witness to the contrary, is not appropriate for use in an environment in which young children are being educated; and that, despite her B.S. degree (with a grade point average less than 2.5) from the University of South Florida and her admission to the graduate program at Nova University, there is substantial and competent evidence that Respondent's general educational background is sorely lacking.
Respondent's rapport with her pupils and the high affection in which she is regarded by her pupils has not been effectively used by Respondent in maintaining order and discipline in her classroom. Finally, the evaluation by one wholly unconnected with the Pinellas County school system, wherein it was found that Respondent gave her pupils only 45 minutes of instruction in three days rather than the fours hours per day normally expected leaves little basis for any conclusion other than Respondent is incompetent as a kindergarten teacher.
The fact that she performed satisfactorily in an adult education program wherein the principal requirements appear to be an ability to relate to and communicate with a low income community, while leading to a continuing contract status, does not demonstrate competence in the mainstream of education.
Here Petitioner has afforded Respondent adequate opportunity to improve and an inordinate amount of time has been spent by various persons trying to improve Respondent's performance. It is evident that nothing short of intensive continuing professional education would raise Respondent to the necessary standards of competency. It is both unreasonable and not in the interest of the Pinellas County school system and the pupils it serves, to retain Respondent as a teacher in the hopes that one day she may become competent.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Respondent is incompetent as alleged. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that Euolia P. Yates be dismissed from her position as a teacher in the Pinellas County school system.
DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1978.
K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer
Mark F. Kelly, Esquire
George M. Osborne, Esquire
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
