W. DEVANE, Superintendent of ) Schools, Hamilton County, Florida, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 80-738
Respondent. )
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Michael Pearce Dodson, held a final hearing in this case on June 12, 1980, in Jasper, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
For Petitioner: W. Arvel Drury, Esquire
For Respondent: C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire
These proceedings began on March 14, 1980, when the Superintendent of Schools for Hamilton County, J. W. DeVane (Superintendent) sent a letter to Respondent, Lawrence Udell giving him notice that the Superintendent planned to recommend to the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida, that Respondent be returned to an annual contract. On April 3, 1980, Mr. Udell responded with a request for an administrative hearing by the School Board on the Superintendent's recommendation. The Board requested that the hearing be held by the Division of Administrative Hearings and forwarded the case there on April 15, 1980, for the assignment of a hearing officer and the scheduling of a final hearing.
At the hearing, the Superintendent offered as his witnesses: Ellen Deas, Jimmy Crews, Maurice Hammond and the Superintendent himself. He offered Exhibits 1-5, 7 and 8, which were received into evidence. Mr. Udell presented as his witnesses: himself, Fred Greene, Lt. Col. Rupert Loehner, Margaret Schaff and William McMillian. He offered Exhibit A which was received into evidence.
After the hearing, Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. Careful consideration has been given to those findings. To the extent they are not
contained in this order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent and substantial evidence or as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues for determination here. 1/
The issue here is whether the Superintendent has shown "good and sufficient reasons" for recommending that Mr. Udell be returned to annual contract status as a teacher employed by the School Board of Hamilton County, Florida.
For fourteen years, Mr. Udell has been employed by the Hamilton County School Board as a teacher. He is presently assigned as an auto-mechanics instructor at Hamilton High School. He has held a continuing contract for the last seven years.
The principal of Hamilton High School has been Mr. Maurice Hammond for the last two years. It appears that he is less indulgent of rule violations than was the former school principal, Mr. William Edwards. Mr. Hammond has cracked down on activities such as student card playing which at one time were tolerated by the former administration. This has been at least a partial cause of friction between the old teachers like Mr. Udell and the new principal.
It is the school policy that if a student is absent for more than nine days in a nine-week grading period, he will receive a sixty-five or lower grade for that period. With respect to the grade of Tim Holland, a student of Mr. Udell's for the 1979-1980 school year, Mr. Udell did not follow that policy. The policy was known to him through the teachers' handbook which he received at the beginning at the school year. In Mr. Hammond's opinion, Tim Holland would not have graduated if it has not been for Mr. Udell's violation of the nine-day
rule. Tim Holland missed a total of seventy-five days of the 1979-1980 academic year.
According to Hamilton High School policy, each student must receive nine grades during each nine-week grading period. Mr. Udell has not complied with that policy. During the last complete school year, his students received on the average only three grades.
Hamilton High School students who are seniors and have a class grade average of ninety-five or above are exempt from quarter examinations. During the 1979-1980 year, on at least one occasion, Mr. Udell exempted from quarter exams several senior students who had less that a ninety-five average.
The teachers of Hamilton High School compute the grades for their assigned students. In the 1979-1980 year, Mr. Udell had one of his students compute grades for him. The result was numerous computation errors, all in favor of the students. For instance, Leonard Phillips had a seventy-four for the first grading period and an eighty for the second period yet he received an average grade of eighty for the whole semester. Jack Alford received a sixty the first period, a sixty-four for the second period and an average of seventy for the semester. For the first semester of 1979-1980 alone, at least sixteen of Mr. Udell's forty-nine students received incorrect grades.
Prior to Mr. Hammond's administration at Hamilton High School, there were occasions when students were allowed to play cards during class periods. On April 2, 1979, during a visit to Mr. Udell's classroom, Mr. Hammond observed
numerous students playing cards in the third and fourth periods. Halter in the afternoon when the principal spoke with Mr. Udell about the indent, he responded that card playing occurred in other parts of the campus and "the best thing to do was to give me that oil [needed to operate an engine]." This response is typical of Mr. Udell's attitude when deficiencies in his teaching have been pointed out to him. He attempts to rationalize them by shifting repairability onto others. He explained his grading errors by complaining about not having a student assistant or a planning period; yet, with only three grades per student for the whole year, it would take little time for him to accurately compute the grades himself.
In one instance, on January 14, 1980, Mr. Udell left an inadequate lessor plan for a substitute teacher. The plan which was for three classes for two periods stated in its entirety (spelling etc. as on original):
1-14-80
Auto Class
1-2 P. Class
Basic Tune-up on six cyl. engine Practice on training unit that is on roll cabinit tools are in top drawer in roll cabinit Check training unit with sun scope This is for all classes one group work on engine one on training unit, then change over.
Udell
A 30-gallon drum of cleaning solvent was sent to Mr. Udell's auto mechanic shop without a purchase order being first submitted. This is contrary to the purchase procedure established at Hamilton High School. It resulted, however, because the salesman sent the solvent before he had Mr. Udell's approval. Mr. Udell was therefore not at fault for there not being a purchase order prior to the delivery of the goods.
Evidence was presented which shows that Mr. Udell adequately handles many of the instructional aspects of his teaching responsibilities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), and Section 120.65, Florida Statutes (1979).
The School Board of Hamilton County, Florida, is responsible for the operation, control and supervision of all the public schools in Hamilton County. Section 230.03(2), Florida Statutes (1979). It has the power to suspend, dismiss and return to annual contract members of the instructional staff. Section 230.23(5)(g), Florida Statutes (1979). The procedure by which a teacher already on continuing contract may be returned to annual contract, as requested here, is as set out in Section 231.36(4), Florida Statutes (1979):
(4) Any member of the district administrative or supervisory staff and any member of the instructional staff, including any principal, who is under continuing contract, may be dismissed or may be returned
to annual contract status for another 3 years in the discretion of the school board, when a recommendation to that effect is submitted in writing to the school board on or before April 1 of any school year, giving good and sufficient reasons therefor, by the superintendent, or by the principal if his contract is not under consideration, or by a majority of the school board. The employee whose contract is under consideration shall be duly notified in writing by the party or parties preferring the charges at least 5 days prior to the filing of the written recommendation with the school board, and such notice shall include a copy of the charges and the recommendation to the school board. The school board shall proceed to take appropriate action.
Exactly what constitutes "good and sufficient reasons" as required by the foregoing statute is not addressed in either the Florida School Code or in the existing case law. Since a return to annual contract is a lesser penalty than a complete dismissal, "good and sufficient reasons" are necessarily a less stringent standard than those grounds enumerated in Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes (1979), for the discharge of a teacher. 2/ The reasons for returning a teacher to an annual contract may not be trivial however. The right to a continuing contract is a precious property right which may not be frivolously taken away. McDowell v. School Board of Suwannee County, Florida, 365 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Texton v. Hancock, 359 SO.2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). For these reasons it is concluded that "good and sufficient reasons" means grounds which substantially impair a teacher's effectiveness to perform his educational function or which amounts to a material violation of the statutes, rules and regulations governing that teacher's behavior.
In this proceeding, the Superintendent 3/ bears the burden of proof. Texton v. Hancock, id.
Notice of the charges to be considered here is provided by the Superintendent's letter of March 14, 1980,with its attachments as provided to Mr. Udell. These charges include:
Students playing cards in Udell's class. April 2, 1980.
Poor lesson plan for January 14, 1980.
Numerous inaccuracies in computing student report cards.
Violation of the 9 day absence rule.
Violation of pass procedure for visitors to classrooms.
Improperly exempting seniors from quarter exams.
Improper purchasing procedures.
The charge concerning student card playing was proven and was candidly admitted by the Respondent. The fact that car playing may have been tolerated by the former principal at Hamilton High School does not excuse it, but does mitigate the violation somewhat. Respondent's lesson plan for January 14, 1980,
certainly leaves much to be desired. It is inadequate for three class of students for two periods of the school day. The charge relating to this issue was therefore proved.
The most serious complaint against the Respondent, which was proven, concerns his inaccurate report cards. The assignment of this function by the Respondent to a student demonstrates a incredibly careless attitude abut an important feature of the educational process. Because the inaccuracies are so glaring, it is unlikely that the Respondent ever reviewed the student's computations. Even if he had do so, the wisdom of delegating that responsibility to a high school student calls into question Mr. Udell's ability to exercise the judgment required by a competent teacher. His exempting unqualified seniors from their quarter exams is further evidence of poor judgment. At the final hearing Respondent provided no explanation for this action.
In addition to the foregoing, the Superintendent proved one violation of the nine-day absence rule. With respect to the charges concerning visitor pass procedures and purchase procedures the Superintendent did not provide competent substantial evidence to believe that Mr. Udell had violated the Hamilton High School policy on those matters.
It is concluded that the Superintendent has proven by competent substantial evidence that Mr. Udell on numerous occasions gave students improper grades, he improperly excused seniors from there quarter exams and on one instance did violate the nine-day absence rule. These established charges do demonstrate that Mr. Udell's effectiveness as a teacher during the 1979-1980 school year was significantly impaired. While each item by itself might not compel that conclusion, their aggregate does. Mr. Udell has shown a singular lack of concern about accurate student grades. That lack of concern persisted through the final hearing and was apparent from his testimony and his demeanor.
