STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) EDUCATION, PROFESSIONAL )

PRACTICES COUNCIL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 79-1098

)

JOHNNIE M. BENNETT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 24, 1979. The hearing was held in Room 510, Richard P. Daniel State Office Building, 111 East Coast Line Drive, Jacksonville, Florida, commencing at 9:30 a.m. This Recommended Order is being entered subsequent to the preparation of a transcript of these proceedings and after allowing the parties an opportunity to submit Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations. See Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: J. David Holder, Esquire

110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: William F. Kachergus, Esquire

603 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202

ISSUE

This case has been presented for hearing in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The substance of the case concerns an amended petition for the revocation of the Respondent's teacher certificate before the State Board of Education of Florida, Case No. 78425-M. That case was investigated after receipt of a report from the Duval County School Board, Duval County, Florida. Subsequent to the receipt of that report and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6A-4.37, Florida Administrative Code, inquiry was made into the details of the Duval County report and, subsequently, the Commissioner of Education of the State of Florida found probable cause on November 28, 1978, to file the Amended Complaint. The material allegations of the Complaint are that the Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, is incompetent to teach because:

1. Respondent has proven incapable of keeping clearly defined records for student attendance, participation and grades.

2. Respondent has failed to analyze individual needs and individual potential of students assigned to her and to provide instruction to students in accordance with their needs and potential.

   
   

3. Respondent has proven incapable of creating a classroom atmosphere which fosters interest and enthusiasm for learning.

   
   

4. Respondent has failed to provide clear, understandable instructions to her students, resulting in confusion as to the students' assignments.

   
   

5. Respondent has failed to create student interest in her classroom by failing to use materials and teaching techniques appropriate to the abilities and backgrounds of her students.

   
   

6. Respondent has proven incapable of interpreting student work and providing accurate feedback to her students.

Based upon these allegations, the Petitioner contends that the Respondent has violated the provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This cause comes on for consideration based upon the allegations set forth in the amended petition for revocation of the Respondent's teacher's certificate spoken to in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. Those comments made in the issues statement are hereby incorporated into the Findings of Fact.

   
   

2. The Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, holds Florida Teacher Certificate No. 88299, Graduate, Rank III, which is valid through June 30, 1982. That certificate covers the area of business education, vocational office education and cooperative business education.

   
   

3. The evidence adduced in the course of the hearing directed to the proof of the allegations made, concerned the Respondent's teaching performance while she was employed at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School in the academic year 1976-77, and at Edward H. White Senior High School during the academic year

   1977-78. Both of those schools are located in Duval County, Florida. Various employees of the Duval County School Board and students from that system testified for the Petitioner and certain documents were presented as items of evidence. In addition, testimony was presented through witness Elizabeth Seitz, an outside consultant with an expertise in conducting teacher performance evaluations. Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented witnesses who spoke to her performance at the aforementioned schools and her performance prior to the occasion of being assigned to those schools.

   
   

4. In the academic year 1976-77, the Respondent was assigned to the Business Department at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School. During that school year, several members of the staff of the school had an opportunity to observe the Respondent's instruction on a number of occasions.

   
   

5. One of those persons was James C. Roberts, the principal of Sandalwood. He observed the Respondent using a technique which would involve instructing one student while other students were left out of the discussion and those neglected students directed their attention to matters other than the subject matter of the class discussion. There were also several occasions when the principal

   observed that the Respondent had left her classroom unattended while class instruction was scheduled for presentation and she took her leave without making the necessary arrangements to have someone conduct her classes in her absence.

   In addition, as a part of the evaluation process, Mr. Roberts collected the Respondent's class roll book which reflects the attendance and grades of the students. This may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. The roll book, as pointed out by the witness, Roberts, fails to have a sufficient number of entries in the first nine weeks period of the school year 1976-77, by which someone could determine how the grades that were processed at the end of that term were arrived at. When confronted with this fact, Mrs.

   Bennett was unable to explain the deficiency.

   
   

6. Mr. Roberts had also received complaints from parents that the Respondent had used profanity in the presence of students while classes were being conducted. These complaints were verified by testimony offered through students who attended the hearing. Some of the remarks made were comments such as, "Oh, shit", at a time when the Respondent was frustrated at an attempt to thread film in a movie projector; "Get the hell out of here" at a time when a student was being sent to the Dean; and another occasion using the expression, "Pissed off".

   
   

7. A further incident at Sandalwood reported and established through the testimony was an incident in which the Respondent said that a student was "nutty as a fruitcake" and made those remarks in the presence of other students in a way that embarrassed the student to whom the remark was directed.

   
   

8. There was an allegation investigated by the principal dealing with the destruction of classroom furniture, in which the claim was made that Mrs. Bennett allowed the members of the class to destroy the furniture during the conduct of a class; however, the testimony offered is not of the quality that would establish responsibility on the part of Mrs. Bennett for the alleged vandalism.

   
   

9. Doris Moon, the Department Chairman of the Business Department at Sandalwood Junior Senior High School in 1976-77, offered testimony. Her testimony established that at the end of the first semester of the school year, from her observation, the students in Mrs. Bennett's class were not listening. Mrs. Moon also established that Mrs. Bennett's papers for aiding in instruction directed to the students, were not in good order. She made the same observations about Mrs. Bennett's grade book that was made by Mr. Roberts and those observations were valid. This concerns the insufficiency of entries in the grade book dealing with a method and arriving at a grade from the nine-week term. Mrs. Moon observed that on at least five occasions the Respondent left her classes unattended without pursuing the necessary procedures for such an absence. Mrs. Moon's remarks established that the class members were too noisy, thereby creating a problem for those class members in adjacent classrooms. Finally, Mrs. Moon's testimony revealed that the lesson plans of the Respondent were not adequate to apprise a substitute teacher of the nature of the class to be taught and the objectives to be pursued, and this lack was contrary to school procedures.

   
   

10. Dr. Margaret Griffin, who was the Assistant Principal at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School in 1976-77, gave testimony. She observed that the instruction given by the Respondent in the second semester was principally visual aids, other graphic aid materials and handouts, without defining lesson objectives adequately. The students were not participating at the time that Dr. Griffin observed the class; they were merely sitting around talking. She also

    observed Mrs. Bennett speak to four or five students amount remarks that the Principal had made to Mrs. Bennett, while other students were left out of the conversation. This conversation was not directed toward the realization of educational goals. Dr. Griffin also viewed the Respondent's classes at a time when the Respondent had left the classroom unattended without following the necessary procedures for leaving the classroom and at a time when the Respondent had been instructed on the technique for signing out of the classroom.

    
    

11. All these matters led to unsatisfactory evaluations of the Respondent which were made by the Principal, Mr. Roberts. The routine evaluation was made on March 9, 1977, and a follow-up evaluation was made on May 17, 1977, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the initial evaluation. These evaluations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively, admitted into evidence.

    
    

12. Due to the difficulty which the Respondent had experienced at Sandalwood Junior/Senior High School, she was afforded the chance to return to that school or to be placed in another school. She elected to be placed at Edward H. White High School for the year 1977-78. When the Respondent arrived at Edward H. White High School, she was assigned to teach courses to business math and typing. There ensued the same pattern of conduct on the part of Mrs. Bennett that had been evidenced in the year at Sandalwood.

    
    

13. The Principal of White High School, John Thombleson, testified at the hearing about his observation and evaluation of the Respondent. This testimony established that the class members had a very negative attitude toward her and Mrs. Bennett's teaching performance in terms of techniques and rapport with the students was not satisfactory. Thombleson noted that there was a lack of class discipline and control and a lack of guidance for the students in the course work. In addition, Mrs. Bennett was not punctual in arriving at her classes.

    
    

14. Mrs. Bennett also had problems maintaining a proper grade book and Mr. Thombleson was aware of that difficulty. As with the circumstance at Sandalwood, the grade book was deficient in a number of entries, thereby making it difficult to conclude how the Respondent had determined the grade for the respective students. Excerpts of the grade book which are in question may be found as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 18 admitted into evidence.

    
    

15. Mr. Thombleson sat in on a parent-teacher conference between Mrs. Bennett and the parents of a student. In the course of that conference Mrs. Bennett was overly emotional and did not handle the situation appropriate.

    
    

16. Mrs. Bennett's difficulties led to an unsatisfactory evaluation in the period covered by an evaluation of October 31, 1977, and March 15, 1978. These evaluations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibits 12 and 13, respectively, admitted into evidence.

    
    

17. Grace Hinson was the head of the Business Department at Edward H. White High School in 1977-78. She observed Mrs. Bennett's performance as a teacher and her analysis of Mrs. Bennett's performance establishes that Mrs. Bennett did not promote the proper discipline in the classrooms and lacked organization. In particular, the students were loud and disruptive of other adjacent classes. At times, students were asleep in Mrs. Bennett's classrooms and at times the students were openly cheating. In the typing classes students did not understand the instructions and, consequently, did not know what they were required to do. The students in the math classes of Mrs. Bennett were unruly. Ms. Hinson's observation of the Respondent's grade book in terms of the adequacy of the grade book was the same as that noted by Mr. Thombleson.

18. Sally Griner, the Curriculum Assistant at Edward H. White High School in 1977-78, testified. Her testimony established that the business math objectives in the classes taught by Mrs. Bennett were not covered. Her observation of Mrs. Bennett's classes also established there was a lack of discipline in the classroom and the students were not involved in the classroom activities and were asleep at times. Ms. Griner saw students reading newspapers in the personal typing class. Ms. Griner's analysis of the teacher performance of Mrs. Bennett pointed out that Mrs. Bennett had the capacity to work with one or two or three students, but not with the overall class. Efforts were made by Ms. Griner and others to improve Mrs. Bennett's performance, but those efforts were not successful. Upon agreement with Mrs. Bennett, the witness, Griner, administered a Flanders Interaction Analysis, which is designed to reveal the amount of time spent in lecture and the amount of time spent in student participation. This analysis revealed that 86 percent of Mrs. Bennett's time was lecture and 14 percent student participation, which revelation showed the distribution of time to be too heavily weighted in favor of the lecture method.

    
    

19. In view of the problems that Respondent was having at Edward H. White High School, the Principal, Mr. Thombleson, asked that the Professional Practices Council assign a professional reviewer to check the quality of Mrs. Bennett's teaching performance. The Respondent agreed to this review and on December 6 through 8, 1977, Elizabeth Seitz performed such a review. The details of Ms. Seitz's evaluation may be found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 18. Summarizing Ms. Seitz's findings, she concluded, it is established through her concluding remarks that Mrs. Bennett did not maintain clearly defined records in the classroom; that Mrs. Bennett was not aware of the different levels of the business math classes; that Mrs. Bennett did not create an atmosphere conducive to learning; that Mrs. Bennett's directions created confusion as to what the students were to do; that Mrs. Bennett was inconsistent in dealing with students; and that Mrs. Bennett did not interpret work to provide accurate feedback.

    
    

20. Finally, the Respondent engaged in open profanity in other classes at Edward H. White, using the words, "damn", "hell" and "bitches". All of these words served to embarrass the students. Mrs. Bennett also referred to pregnant students in the class as "OBW's", an abbreviation for "old big-bellied women" Other comments to the class members included the comments that a student was "dumb" and a "smart mouth".

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this action.

    
    

22. The Respondent's Exhibit 2, which was offered into evidence in the course of the hearing and for which ruling on the admission was reserved until the time of the Recommended Order, is hereby admitted.

    
    

23. Through the Amended Petition for the Revocation of Teacher's Certificate, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent, Johnnie Mae Bennett, with being incompetent to teach, in that:

    
    

    1. Respondent has proven incapable of keeping clearly defined records for student attendance, participation and grades.

    2. Respondent has failed to analyze

       individual needs and individual potential of students assigned to her and to provide instruction to students in accordance with their needs and potential.

    3. Respondent has proven incapable of creating a classroom atmosphere which fosters interest and enthusiasm for learning.

    4. Respondent has failed to provide clear, understandable instructions to her students, resulting in confusion as to the students' assignments.

    5. Respondent has failed to create student interest in her classroom by failing to use materials and teaching techniques appropriate

       to the abilities and backgrounds of her students.

    6. Respondent has proven incapable of interpreting student work and providing accurate feedback to her students.

       
       

24. Based upon a full consideration of the facts previously set forth, which were offered through the testimony of the aforementioned witnesses and other supportive evidence, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, is incompetent to teach within the meaning of Subsection 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, and is subject to the penalties which may be imposed after such a determination.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Florida Teacher's Certificate No. 88299, Graduate, Rank III, held by the Respondent, Johnnie M. Bennett, be PERMANENTLY REVOKED.

DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

ENDNOTES

1/ See Appendix

COPIES FURNISHED:

J. David Holder, Esquire

110 North Magnolia Drive, Suite 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

William F. Kachergus, Esquire 603 Florida Theatre Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Dr. Juhan Mixon

Professional Practices Council Room 3, 319 West Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

APPENDIX

The parties in this case have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations, and these matters have been reviewed prior to the entry of this Recommended Order. To the extent that these items offered by the parties are consistent with the Recommended Order herein, they have been utilized; to the extent that they are inconsistent in their offerings, they are hereby specifically rejected.

Docket for Case No: 79-001098

Orders for Case No: 79-001098