STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 85-3223
)
LAVERNE REAVES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice; a hearing was held on January 23 and 24, 1986; in Miami, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 301
1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Curtis L. Jones, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 105182
Miami, Florida 33101
The issue is whether Respondent, Laverne Reaves, should be dismissed from her employment with Petitioner based upon grounds of incompetence, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination.
The Petitioner presented nine witnesses: Dr. Mildred Augenstein; Sarah Nelson, Charles Houghton, Herman A. Mills; Zelda Glazer; Susan Ruskin; Raymond Fontana, Roger Frese; and Dr. Patrick Gray. Petitioner presented two rebuttal witnesses: Zelda Glazer and Dr. Patrick Gray. Additionally; Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1-33 and 35-43 were admitted in evidence. Official recognition was taken of a contract provision found at pages 88-
89 of Article 33 of the contract between the United Teachers of Dade and The School Board of Dade County, Florida.
Respondent presented two witnesses: Dr. Patrick Gray and Laverne Reaves. Additionally, Respondent's exhibits 1-4 and 6
were admitted in evidence.
The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as permitted by the statutes. All proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent, Laverne Reaves, has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since the 1966-67 school year and has been a junior high English language arts teacher since the 1971-
72 school year.
For the 1982-83 school year and the subsequent years, except for a period of maternity leave, Respondent was employed as an English language arts teacher at Highland Oaks Junior High School (Highland Oaks).
Prior to Respondent's assignment to Highland Oaks, her yearly evaluations indicated acceptable performance.
In Fall, 1982, the Dade County School Board initiated a pilot program known as the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Highland Oaks was one of the schools selected for the pilot program.
During the time she was at Highland Oaks, beginning with the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to demonstrate acceptable teaching in every classroom observation and in every language arts assignment.
After an absence due to a back injury, Respondent reported to Highland Oaks at the end of September or at the beginning of October, 1982, after the beginning of the school years. Respondent missed the teacher orientation session because of her injury.
When Respondent arrived at Highland Oaks, Ms. Ruskin, the English language arts department head met with her, as with any new teacher, to orient her to the textbooks to be used at each level, course outlines, basic curriculum, and the teacher manuals.
Parents of the students began registering complaints the second day Respondent taught at Highland Oaks, and continued to complain on a regular basis. One of the major complaints was that the children were being taught at a level beneath their ability. These were Level III students (average-above average
ability) who were being taught as Level II students (below average ability). Due to a scheduling error, Respondent believed that one class of Level III student was Level II. The complaints came not only from the class in which the administrative scheduling error was made, but also from other classes. The error was soon corrected.
The parents also complained about Respondent's preparation for the classes and her knowledge and ability to teach. In addition to not teaching on the level of the students; she was assigning them book reports that were at a very elementary level. She was using textbooks that were far below their level. Her language was not appropriate. She assigned work to the class but did not explain it.
The parents also complained that Respondent's homework assignments were not meaningful and that when she gave homework, she did not collect it, grade it, return it, or use it as part of the instruction. She wasted a lot of class time going off on tangents.
The parents also complained that Respondent lacked control of the classroom and that she did not maintain appropriate relations with the parents. They complained that she called the students names, such as "stupid" and "ignorant," and constantly told the children to "shut up." She was hostile and aggressive and sometimes embarrassed and ridiculed students. The parents stated that Respondent threatened the students if they complained to their parents.
The parents wanted to have their children removed from Respondent's class. The children did not want to go to her class. The parents felt that the situation was potentially dangerous as Respondent ignored dangerous situations.
Because of the parental complaints, Assistant Principal Sarah Nelson had a conference with Respondent on October 8, 1982.
Ms. Ruskin met with Respondent on October 12, 1982, in an effort to assist Respondent in the problems she was having in discipline, assigning homework, and general curriculum problems.
Ms. Ruskin provided additional materials to Respondent in an effort to help her. These included books, tests, balanced curriculum, classroom materials, semester course outlines, SAT outlines, and publications about writing, course objectives for advanced level students, and suggested activities for lower level students. Other teachers in the department offered help, as well. Although Ms. Ruskin indicated that she was available to help in any way, Respondent never came to her for assistance.
Respondent was officially observed in her seventh grade English Level II class on October 13, 1982, by Ms. Nelson. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable, and specifically, unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and
planning because the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning and Respondent had not turned in lesson plans on a regular basis, as required. The objectives were too general and the homework was not specific enough. The expectations for Level III students were not higher than for Level II students.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she failed to adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of her students, e.g., Level II versus Level III students, and she did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter to the different levels. Her level of questioning was not done in enough depth. Her lesson lacked closure, i.e., review, recap. She failed to explain words which needed explanation. Spelling and vocabulary were to be done on a weekly basis, and yet, Respondent had only given one spelling test since the beginning of school.
The homework did not have any meaningful value and the students who did the homework were not rewarded by having it collected. Students who did not do the homework were not penalized in any way.
Although classroom management was rated acceptable; Mrs. Nelson was concerned that it took Respondent 20 minutes out of a 50-minute period to have the class begin working. There was too much movement in the room, which distracted students who were trying to read. Mrs. Nelson recommended that Respondent establish and enforce classroom rules.
Mrs. Nelson further recommended that Respondent clearly state her objectives in the next week's lesson plans and that those objectives be differentiated for the two levels taught.
Mrs. Nelson discussed the deficiencies in Respondent's lesson plans with her approximately a dozen times.
Mrs. Nelson also offered to make sure that Respondent had the proper books and materials and that if she needed any additional help, she would be happy to help her and indicated that Ms. Ruskin would also be able to assist.
Respondent was next formally observed on November 9, 1982, by Dr. Mildred Augenstein, principal, in her seventh grade Level III class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management; and techniques of instruction.
Based on the observation of October 13, 1982, and her own observation, Dr. Augenstein established a written
prescription to help Respondent remedy her problems. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in preparation and planning at the November 5, 1982, observation, Dr. Augenstein made specific recommendations as to preparation and planning because of the unacceptable ratings on October 13, 1982. These included turning in lesson plans weekly to Mrs. Nelson. They were to be done in depth, separately for Level II and Level III classes. They were to contain specific components and were to reference the Balanced Curriculum, a School Board rule on course objectives. The requested actions were to be completed by December 3, 1982.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subject matter, e.g., inaccurate definition of science fiction. She read off words for a spelling test without giving the students a sentence in which they could hear the words. This confused the children.
Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in upgrading her preparation in English language arts. These included specific exercises in the TADS prescription manual dealing with knowledge of the subject matter, to be completed by December 8, 1982. Respondent was also instructed to contact the Teacher Education Center (TEC) to identify any course offerings in the area of language arts by December 15, 1982. Respondent was to visit other language arts classrooms in order to observe the different levels of instruction prior to December 15, 1982.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students spoke at will without raising hands. There was a constant undercurrent of conversation, and Respondent kept "shushing" them as a whole group without dealing with the specific behavior of individuals and making corrections. Respondent did not begin the class promptly.
Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in classroom management. These included beginning classes promptly and establishing a set of simple class rules and following through on them by December 15, 1982. Respondent was directed to investigate a course on assertive discipline or teacher effectiveness training and to enroll in a TEC course in classroom management by March, 1983. Respondent was directed to review the faculty handbook which contained the rules and regulations of the school and was asked to work with the assistant principal, Mr. Fontana, to set up a set of classroom rules.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of
instruction because she failed to employ techniques which provided stimulating, varied and productive learning experiences for the students. Her lesson was not sequenced properly in that no background was given and there was no follow-through at the end as to what had been accomplished. When the students tried to ask questions for clarification, Respondent failed to answer them. The students were very confused. Respondent failed to anticipate the problems that the students would have in the lesson.
Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in improving her techniques of instruction. These included the TADS manual exercise on questioning skills, verbal interaction, effective teaching strategies, and instruction sequence; to be completed by January 15, 1983. Respondent needed to learn how to ask questions which led the students into more critical thinking and analytical skills, and not simply ask low level recall questions. Respondent was to demonstrate at least one new teaching approach by January 15, 1983.
Parent complaints continued and culminated in a meeting on November 23, 1982, between a group of 19 parents and the principal. The principal held a meeting with Respondent on November 29, 1982, to discuss those complaints.
Thereafter, the complaints continued and were far in excess of any that the principal had ever received about any other teacher.
On December 13, 1982, the principal directed a memorandum to Respondent regarding her failure to comply with provisions of the previous prescription. Respondent had failed to turn in lesson plans as directed and her plans still did not differentiate between Level II and Level III. Children were given simple spelling words, e.g., leg, heat, without being given the purpose for their study. This confused the students as to why they were being made to learn easy words. The students were given a list of adverbs to use in a sentence and the words were not all adverbs.
Parent complaints continued. One complaint concerned a disturbance in Respondent's classroom. Rather than dealing with it appropriately, Respondent stated that the two students who were involved should hang themselves. Parents tended to view Respondent as belligerent, abusive, and non-responsive to the academic and emotional needs of the students.
On December 14, 1982, Respondent was released from classes to observe other language arts classrooms and to obtain direct assistance from the department head who was also released for the afternoon.
Respondent was next formally observed in a seventh grade class on January 6, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent still had not completed her previous prescription.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and
planning because her lesson plans were not realistic or appropriate and were not followed through.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used a sentence that lacked a verb, i.e., "what hour you went to bed last night?" She also gave a spelling test of homonyms, but in some of the sentences, she used two of the homonyms, and the students were confused as to which form they were supposed to spell, e.g., "I want to go there too."
While Respondent was rated acceptable in classroom management, that category was minimally acceptable. There was still an undercurrent of whispering and very few students were raising their hands before speaking out.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she had difficulty in sequencing the material, explaining and clarifying it. There was no connection made to what the students had previously learned. Respondent was not able to make clear to the students what an inference was.
She never went beyond the textbook definition. She did not relate the term to the students' lives. The homework assignment was given very hurriedly and was vague. The students were unsure of what they were supposed to do.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no evidence that student compositions were being written, collected, evaluated, and redone. That is a requirement of the Balanced Curriculum. When Respondent returned some papers to the students to look at "for a minute," she did not give them time to assess their progress.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because when a student asked a question, Respondent made no response. The teacher-student interchanges were very cold and condensed, and there was much uneasiness. The teaching climate was hostile, punitive, or retaliatory.
Since Respondent had not yet completed the previous prescription, she was directed to continue working on it.
On or about January 11, 1983, Dr. Augenstein gave Respondent a list of TEC courses which would be helpful to Respondent in the areas in which she needed remediation.
Parent complaints continued. On or about January 19, 1983, a parent complained that the work in her child's Level III class was too elementary. Upon review, Dr. Augenstein concurred.
Respondent's class schedule was changed at the end of the first semester in order to give her an opportunity to perform
acceptably with students of a lower level and to eliminate some of the parental pressure. It was thought that perhaps she was most familiar with that type of student from her pervious school and that would allow her more time to complete her prescriptive activities.
Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on February 8, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she mispronounced words, e.g., denouement, architecture. Although "denouement" had been previously pronounced correctly in a filmstrip, Respondent mispronounced it. "Architecture" was pronounced "arch-chi-tek-chur" (as in church) in a lesson dealing with "ch" being used as a "K" sound (as in chaos). This confused the students in the major point of the lesson.
Classroom management was rated unacceptable because after the lunch break, the students did not quiet down until the principal came back into the classroom. Although Respondent was not formally observed during the next period, the principal informally noted the noise coming from Respondent's classroom while she was observing the teacher in the next room. That teacher indicated that Respondent's classes were always that noisy.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not clarify or answer student's questions to a degree that was correct or satisfying to the students. She did not encourage and structure student participation. The lesson did not come to an end other than by the ringing of the bell, i.e., no closure.
In spite of the fact that Respondent was teaching an entirely different group of students, the problems were a continuation of those seen in the prior observations. Respondent was directed to continue the prescriptive activities from November, 1982. As of the date of this observation, Respondent had not fulfilled her previous prescription. She had not demonstrated the new teaching technique to either Mrs. Nelson or Dr. Augenstein.
Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Mrs. Nelson on February 17, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students were noisy and she had a great deal of difficulty getting them settled. There was an undercurrent of noise throughout the whole class period. One student who was blowing bubbles was never reprimanded. Another student continued to get up and down out of her seat.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there was no focal point to the lesson. Nothing was emphasized. The main points could have been reinforced on the chalkboard or by the use of some other media, e.g., overhead projector, supplementary materials, to better helped those students who are visual rather than auditory learners.
Although Respondent was rated acceptable in assessment techniques, she still did not collect the homework after asking the students how many had it. Only five students had the homework and there was no reinforcement for them.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because some students monopolized the discussion while others never participated and were completely off task. No encouragement was given to those students who did not participate. However, due to a technical error in checking the boxes on the observation form, Respondent should have been given credit for satisfactory teacher-student relationships. This technical error would not remove Respondent from prescription.
Rather than writing a new prescription for Respondent, Mrs. Nelson reviewed and discussed the prescription of November 24, 1982, with her. She did this because she felt as though that that prescription was a very good one and it had not been completed by Respondent.
On February 23, 1983, a conference-for-the record was held with Respondent to discuss the problems that Respondent had been having, the help that had been given to her, the status of the remediation efforts, and to clarify decisions related to employment recommendations.
Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class on March 2, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein and by an outside administrator, Roger Frese. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction.
Respondent had difficulty in presenting the subject matter in a sequenced manner. While the lesson plan indicated that the students would study components of the short story, with
the exception of merely mentioning the names of the components, the students jumped right into paragraph writing dealing with characterization without any development of the concept of characterization and without instruction on how to write.
The written products of the students indicated confusion and misunderstanding.
When the students asked questions, Respondent had an opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding: however, she failed to respond to their questions. When the students read their papers aloud, Respondent failed to indicate whether they were correct.
Because Respondent did not ask questions and did not respond to the questions asked by the students; and because of the many wrong answers given and accepted by Respondent; there was no way to determine that Respondent did in fact have a grasp of the topic.
There was no closure to the assignment.
Respondent assigned a homework activity which was not an extension of the day's assignment. It was a new assignment given without prior instruction.
In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies, Dr. Augenstein directed her to continue the prescribed activities of the November 24, 1982 prescription.
By memorandum dated April 22, 1983, Dr. Augenstein recommended course work to help remediate deficiencies in Respondent's knowledge of subject matter.
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Dr. Herman Mills, on May 24, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter. The sequencing of information was illogical and unclear. Dr. Mills found that Respondent had gaps in her education, as evidenced by her statements that Canada was a French-speaking country and Korea was a city. Respondent gave the students a handout with an error. "More bigger" was used on the handout, and Respondent failed to indicate to the class that a comma was missing. This confused the students in finding a dissimilar word in a given series. Respondent gave another wrong answer because she did not recognize the dissimilar word in a series of words.
During the 1982-83 school year, administrators occasionally went to Respondent's classroom so that their presence would help Respondent get the class under control.
Respondent's yearly evaluation indicated that she had not remediated deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction, and Dr. Augenstein recommended a return to annual contract, i.e., loss of tenure. That recommendation, however, was not implemented.
In September, 1983, Dr. Augenstein assigned Dr. Mills the task of determining the degree of Respondent's compliance with her previous prescription. At his first meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills discovered that she had had none of the prescriptive activities signed off. At a second meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills verified that Respondent completed a TEC course in techniques of instruction. On September 27, 1983, Dr. Mills directed Respondent to obtain sign-offs on her prescription by September 30, 1983. When he met with her on October 5, 1983, he discovered that the only item signed off was the activity of meeting with Mr. Fontana, assistant principal, on classroom management.
Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson stated in the plan was not feasible. Respondent had not anticipated how long the various tasks would take, and since this was the same teaching assignment as the previous year, she should have had an idea of the reasonable time for the assignment.
She listed a homework assignment that could not be done because the set of books involved was a classroom set and were not books that were sent home with the students.
A large number of students did not have their books in class; thus indicating to the observer that they had not been prepared for the work to be assigned.
In order to address Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had difficulty demonstrating the difference between homonyms, homographs, and homophones. She also assumed that the seventh grade students were knowledgeable
of the parts of speech. This would not have been appropriate so early in the year for seventh grade students.
In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, recommending intensive study of subject matter.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was still not emphasizing important points with the use of media, e.g., chalkboard.
Student contributions ended in confusion rather than clarification since Respondent allowed the students to call out homonyms rather than using the homonyms in a correct sentence.
To help remediate Respondent's deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there were insufficient student papers in the students' folders and insufficient grades in the grade book to enable an administrator to make a judgment as to whether the students were making adequate progress. The criterion calls for a variety of assessment techniques, and yet, the only graded tests in Respondent's grade book were four spelling tests. The student folders contained no graded samples of homework or graded compositions. The day's homework was not called for. When Dr. Augenstein asked to see the homework, only six students turned in papers.
In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to enroll in a TEC course in assessment techniques. She was directed not to write in her lesson plans that the students should "go over the. ,"
but that she should be more specific on how she plans to assess the work. She was directed to provide a variety of assessments to include both written and oral work.
Respondent was next formally observed in her reading lab by Dr. Mills on November 16, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her methodology was inappropriate for a reading lab. The purpose of a reading lab is to give the students individualized work based upon their reading levels. The students should have been diagnostically placed into three groups based upon reading levels however, they were being taught
as one group and had been so taught for four days.
Respondent's instructions to the class were vague and unclear. Respondent did not indicate to the class what the correct responses were, but rather, she seemed to be striving for consensus among the students. The students had little idea of what a topic sentence was, and Respondent did not give them any background.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Mills arranged for carrels to be placed in Respondent's classroom. He also had Mrs. Hoffman, a teacher on special assignment in reading, work with Respondent in setting up the reading lab. He further directed Respondent to immediately divide the 20 students into three reading groups according to the diagnostic testing and to provide the necessary materials for individualized work according to their reading levels. He assigned exercise in the TADS prescription manual.
A parental complaint was lodged against Respondent for using profanity in the classroom on November 30, 1983. An investigation into the matter revealed that a student had used profanity and that Respondent, in chastising him, repeated the profanity a number of times. Respondent was advised against the use of profanity in the classroom and to use standard referral procedures in handling such matters.
A conference-for-the-record was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss Respondent's performance to date. Respondent was informed that failure to remediate and improve her performance could have an adverse impact upon her employment status.
On February 14, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in her ninth grade reading class by Dr. Augenstein. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she continued to demonstrate the same kinds of problems she had previously demonstrated. There was no evidence that Respondent was applying the previous help from the TADS manual.
No objective was given in the lesson plan. Although a homework assignment was listed in the previous day's lesson plan, none was collected. The homework assignment for this day, as listed in the plan, was never assigned. Respondent was still putting in her plan that students should "Go over today's
lesson." The terminology "go over" was still being used despite an earlier prescription indicating that the term was vague.
Respondent was confusing assessment activity with programmed instruction. She demonstrated a lack of understanding of programmed instruction.
To remediate Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein directed Respondent to enroll in a TEC course in preparation and planning as prescribed on October 19, 1983.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because Respondent gave no feedback to the students as to the correct answers. She did not orient the students to what they were doing. When they asked questions, she was very vague in answering.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, which suggested the need for intensive study of the subject matter.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she presented no lesson and did not carry out a question-answer sequence as indicated in her lesson plans. The students spent the entire period doing an activity which was not introduced to them and was not monitored by the teacher. There was no follow-up and the students did not get feedback as to whether the work was correct. The students who finished early sat with nothing to do. Respondent spent the period grading papers and provided assistance to a few students who asked for it.
To aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred Respondent to the pages in the TADS prescription manual which had been prescribed on November 24, 1982.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because her grade book contained no grades for the last four weeks of the first semester. Minimally, a teacher should have two grades per week. There was no evidence of graded homework or formal writing instruction in the grade book or the student folders. Some of the students had no papers in their folders for several months. Most of the papers that were in the folders were simply ditto sheets, quick, objective, short answer papers.
The "essay" portion of the ninth grade final examination for the first semester was a multiple choice test
rather than an essay test, contrary to the guidelines for final examinations in the faculty handbook and School Board Rule.
In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the prescription of October 19, 1983.
Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade class on March 6, 1984, by Dr. Augenstein and Zelda Glazer, supervisor of language arts. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction; and assessment techniques.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because in a lesson dealing with parts of speech,. she accepted incorrect answers from students and even put some of them on the board. She incorrectly identified a number of words as adjectives when they were actually adverbs; verbs, and nouns. When the students gave wrong answers, Respondent did not correct them.
Respondent relied on rote definitions for the parts of speech. These were difficult for low level students to understand.
In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was directed to review with the language arts supervisor or the department chairperson the identifying signals for adjectives and nouns, so that rote definitions would not be the exclusive explanations made to the students.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no sequence for the lesson. Respondent's lesson lacked motivation and closure. No background was given, and no re-teaching was done of areas where the students lacked knowledge. Respondent did not recognize and anticipate difficulties in the lesson. She did not answer the student's questions and did not use students' wrong answers as a teaching experience. There was no attempt to explain why wrong answers were wrong, but rather, they were simply accepted, thus confirming the student's opinions that they had given correct responses.
In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Respondent was directed to review with the department chairperson or a school administrator the sequencing of a lesson and to write a lesson which was carefully sequenced. The lesson should include the requisite components, i.e., review, participation in a drill or repetition, and application of the skills learned.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the work in the students' folders did not reflect a variety of formats. The papers were merely simple drills or exercises. There were no compositions and no opportunities for applying the skills which were taught. By this time of year, Respondent should have had approximately 15 to 20 compositions in each student's folder.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to develop a unit test using writing production as one element of the test.
A conference-for-the-record was held on March 6, 1984. Respondent's assessments and prescriptions were reviewed. The help afforded to Respondent was also discussed. Dr. Augenstein indicated that she would be initiating the procedure for dismissal for cause.
In March, 1984, shortly after the conference for the record, Respondent began approximately one year's maternity leave.
Respondent's yearly evaluation for 1983-84 indicated that Respondent ended the year on prescription for deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, and that Dr. Augenstein had recommended her for dismissal. The actual evaluation form (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) contains a typographical error in that the "X's" are reversed. The unacceptable categories are marked acceptable and vice versa.
Respondent returned to Highland Oaks on April 15, 1985.
She was given special help to acclimate her after her year's leave. Although Dr. Augenstein had never done so before; she purchased the services of the substitute teacher who had replaced Respondent during her leave in order that Respondent could have the minimum of one full week when she returned to prepare for her classes and so that the substitute could work with her on an as needed basis. Respondent was to observe the classes during that week, go over the student's progress, and plan in depth for the rest of the school year. Dr. Mills assisted in attempting to make a smooth transition between the substitute and Respondent.
Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on May 2, 1985, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of
instruction. Since she had recently returned from leave, Dr. Augenstein did not rate her in assessment techniques. The class observed was an eighth grade Level IV class, the precursor to high school honors English.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not demonstrate that she had knowledge of research projects and library research skills. The students were completely confused and frustrated by Respondent's teaching. They were trying to get clarification from Respondent but were not able to do so.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein recommended that she observe other Level IV English classes and that she do a research project herself so that she would learn enough about it in order to teach it.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not meeting the needs of advanced learners. She was not using inductive and critical thinking approaches. She frustrated them by putting off their questions and giving conflicting and misleading information when she tried to answer questions.
In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein directed her to design and present a lesson using strategies for inductive and critical thinking. She was to include higher order questioning skills, pre-writing strategies, and techniques for promoting student involvement. Dr. Augenstein indicated that Charles Houghton, North Area project manager for secondary language arts, would assist and critique demonstration lessons.
Mr. Houghton came to Highland Oaks to assist Respondent on Wednesday, May 15, 1985. He discovered that Respondent lacked an understanding of research. Mr. Houghton indicated that he would return on Friday, May 17, 1985, in order to give assistance to Respondent. He would gather materials for her, would go over them with her during her planning period, and would stay with her through the classroom period to see how she did. When he came back on the 17th, he discovered that Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help.
Respondent was next observed in her English class by Dr. Mills on May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning; classroom management, and techniques of instruction.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction because although lesson plans had been made, they were not being followed.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no lesson being presented. Respondent shouted at the students, but they continued to remain off task. The student behavior was almost chaotic.
In an effort to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies, Dr. Mills met with Respondent and indicated that it was imperative that she follow through on the prescription Dr. Augenstein had given her. She was given further prescriptive activities which were similar to those she had been given before.
Respondent was next formally observed in her eighth grade class on June 6, 1985, by Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Glazer. Respondent was rated unaccepted in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships.
Mrs. Nelson did not see much of an improvement over her prior observation done in 1982.
Respondent was teaching a lesson in similes and metaphors in the poem, "Danny Deever" by Rudyard Kipling. "Danny Deever" is a ballad written in cockney dialect about the public hanging of a solider in the British army. The poem contains no similes or metaphors.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because the plan was not followed. The poem which had been indicated as a homework assignment was the one used for class discussion and was an inappropriate choice for simile and metaphor discussion. Respondent could not provide an example of a metaphor when asked by a student, thereby indicating that she did not have knowledge of what a metaphor was.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in preparation and planning, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made many errors in the interpretation of "Danny Deever." She referred to the dialect of the poem as United States southern dialect and misinterpreted the meanings of dialectical words, resulting in completely misinterpreted lines. Respondent did not contemporize the poems to the children's lives in order to help them better understand the poem.
In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was referred back to the previous prescription of May 2, 1985. In addition, she was directed to review her lessons carefully in order to be prepared for student questions and to be able to provide appropriate examples.
Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she took ten minutes to take the roll. Even after roll call, there was considerable socializing among the students. Quite a few students were late to class, but they were not questioned as to why they were late. With a seating chart, Respondent would have only needed two minutes to take attendance. The average teacher learns who her students are in less than a week, and Respondent had had the students since April 15, 1985. No attempts were made to prevent off task behavior.
Inappropriate student behavior was mildly noted but was not effectively handled with firmness or suitable consequences. Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help.
In order to help Respondent remediate her classroom management, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the sequence of the lesson was erratic or haphazard.
The students were asked to read the poem aloud, and they had great difficulty with the dialect. Therefore, the poem was not a positive experience for them.
Respondent provided no background information in order to set the tone for the study of "Danny Deever." She gave no background on the poet or on the form of the poem.
Correct and incorrect responses were accepted in exactly the same fashion without comment or question.
Respondent misinterpreted the meanings of the dialectical words, thereby resulting in irrelevant interpretation of the poem. The students never came to realize that the poem was about a hanging.
All of the topics which should have appropriately been covered in the poem were ignored.
Respondent failed to anticipate the confusion or
misunderstanding in the class. Therefore, no attempt was made to clarify the lack of student understanding or appreciation.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, she was referred to the two previous prescriptions, since they had never been completed nor had her problems been remediated.
Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because student responses were ignored; neither praised nor questioned. Non-participants were not called upon or encouraged to participate. There was a quiet disrespect in the class.
In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in teacher-student relationships, she was referred to specific exercise in the TADS prescription manual dealing with feedback, interacting with students, and recognizing correct and incorrect responses.
Petitioner's yearly evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated that Respondent remained deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and that the principal recommended dismissal for cause.
A conference-for-the-record was held on May 30, 1985, to discuss Respondent's end-of-the-year evaluation and the principal's recommendation for dismissal.
Respondent's final examinations for June, 1985, indicate that Respondent still lacked an understanding of what constitutes an objective examination.
In addition to the formal observations, Respondent was observed informally numerous times. These informal observations substantiated those deficiencies found on the formal observations. Her room was often noisy and Respondent could be heard yelling in an attempt to try to gain control of the class. The students were often out of their seats until an administrator walked in. Her class was noisy regardless of the time of the day or the portion of the period. Respondent was generally seated at her desk with students congregated around her. Rarely was instruction going on and rarely were students on task. When seen in the library, the class was fooling around and little was being accomplished.
It is the consensus of opinion of those administrators who observed Respondent and/or those who reviewed her records, that Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate
to the students in her class to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. These administrators also were of the opinion that Respondent lacks adequate command of her area of specialization, i.e., English language arts, in that she lacks the minimum skills and competencies in both content and methodology to teach English language arts. Dr. Mills believes that Respondent should only teach basic skills English classes, if she teaches at all.
Unfortunately, the evidence compels the same conclusion.
At least 90% of Respondent's prescription for remediation was not met. Given the time, effort, and assistance expended on Respondent's behalf, she did not make the minimum effort necessary to overcome her deficiencies. She lacked basic knowledge which could have been obtained by pursuing the course work that was prescribed. No matter who the observer was or what the specific teaching assignment was; Respondent failed to demonstrate an acceptable level of teaching. Respondent's certification should have enabled her to teach any of the related components within the field of English language arts, including different ability levels.
Respondent demonstrated her lack of knowledge of the subject area during the hearing when she was unable to answer questions that a junior high school teacher should be able to answer, such as the signals which help identify a noun and the noun, verb, adverb and adjective forms of common words.
Effective September 4; 1985; Respondent was suspended from her employment with Petitioner, and Petitioner instituted proceedings to dismiss Respondent from employment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes, provides:
(c) 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 suspended or dismissed at any time during the school year; however, the charges against him must be based on immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness, or conviction
of a crime involving moral turpitude.
Whenever such charges are made against any such employee of the school board, the school board may suspend such person without pay but, if the charges are not sustained, he shall be immediately reinstated, and his back salary shall be paid. In cases of suspension by the school board or by the superintendent, the school board shall determine upon the evidence submitted whether the charges have been sustained and, if the charges are sustained, shall determine either to dismiss the employee or fix the terms under which he may be reinstated.
In this case, the School Board's charges are incompetence, willful neglect of duty and gross insubordination.
In promulgating Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code, the State Board of Education defined "incompetence," "gross insubordination," and "willful neglect of duty" for purposes of Section 231.36(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Pertinent to this case, Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code, provides:
The basis for charges upon which dismissal action against instructional personnel may be pursued are set forth in Section 231.36, Florida Statutes. The basis for each of such charges is hereby defined:
Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. . .
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: (4) lack of adequate command of his or her area of specialization.
* * *
(4) Gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties is defined as a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order; reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority.
By the specific Notice of Charges which sets forth factual allegations and alleged violations, the School Board alleged:
Petitioner has prescribed help for the Respondent in an attempt to aid her in overcoming her deficiencies.
Respondent has been either unable to or unwilling to correct these noted deficiencies.
The above allegations constitute gross insubordination and/or willful neglect of duties as set forth in section 6B-4.09(4), F.A.C., by reason of Respondent's constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey direct orders, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority, and her continuing refusal to remedy her deficiencies.
The above-quoted paragraphs are the only parts of the Specific Notice of Charges which relate to the charges of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties and the alleged underlying facts which support the charges. At hearing and in its proposed order; the School Board argues that the charges are based on Respondent's "continuing failure to fulfill the required actions prescribed to remediate her deficiences." It is concluded that the Specific Notice of Charges fails to adequately advise Respondent of the alleged factual bases for the charges of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties, thereby failing to provide her with adequate knowledge of that against which she must present a defense. This deficiency is fatal and it is concluded that the charges of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties must be dismissed.
The remaining charge of incompetency includes the repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes); the repeated failure to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of a minimum educational experience:
and the lack of adequate command of her area of specialization.
Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, provides:
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools shall perform duties prescribed by rules of the school board. Such rules shall include, but not be limited to, rules relating to teaching efficiently and faithfully; using prescribed materials and methods; recordkeeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract; unless released from the contract by the school board.
Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-5B11.02 provides:
Student evaluation is an important aspect of the total instructional program. Evaluation devices are to be used for assessment purposes to show each student, the parent(s), as well as the student's teacher(s), what the student has mastered, where the student needs help, and how to motivate the student for continued learning.
Teacher's oral and written tests group discussion, written work, student folders, checklists, and observations are representative of the means to be used to determine student progress. . . .
Dade County School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21 provides:
Employee Conduct
All persons employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida are representatives of the Dade County Public Schools. As such, they are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will reflect credit upon themselves and the school system. Unseemly conduct or the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students is expressly prohibited.
Records and Reports
All personnel shall keep all records and shall prepare and submit promptly all reports that may be required by State Law, State
Department of Education Rules, School Board Rules, and administrative directives.
* * *
V. Instructional Personnel
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools, subject to the rules of the State and District Boards, shall teach efficiently and faithfully, using the books and materials required, following the prescribed courses of study, and employing approved methods of instruction as provided by law and by the Rules of the State Department of Education.
* * *
Article XXI, of the Contract between the Dade County Public Schools and the United Teachers of Dade provides that:
Lesson planning is an essential part of the teaching process and a proper subject for evaluation. The principal or supervising administrator has the authority to determine whether or not instructional objectives and related content are consistent with Board educational policy decisions and established instructional guidelines. The format or organization of lesson plans is best determined by the individual teacher.
Principals or supervising administrators may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization. However, where a principal has substantiated a need for specific organization of lesson plans through personal conferences and classroom observations, the teacher may be required to utilize a set form in preparation of lesson plans.
Lesson plans shall reflect objectives, activities, materials, and assessment techniques.
Petitioner, School Board of Dade County, has established that Respondent was incompetent as defined by Sections 231.36 and 213.09, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.09, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent
repeatedly failed to perform duties prescribed by rules of the School Board and to fulfill the terms of her contract. Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to the children in her classroom, to such an extent the pupils were deprived of a minimum educational experience. Respondent lacks adequate command of the area of her specialization, English language arts. It is concluded that Respondent is incompetent as charged in the Specific Notice of Charges.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent Laverne Reaves, and dismissing Respondent, Laverne Reaves, as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools.
DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1986; in Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 301
1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Curtis L. Jones, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 105182
Miami, Florida 33101
Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2); Florida Statutes; on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner
Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5-151 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-3 and 5-151.
Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as not supported by the evidence and argumentative.
Ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent
Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1.
Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2.
Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6.
Proposed finding of fact 8 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4.
Proposed finding of fact 9 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4.
Proposed finding of fact 14 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6.
Proposed finding of fact 15 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6.
Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 8.
Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 12.
Proposed finding of fact 22 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 24.
Proposed finding of fact 26 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 57.
Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 112.
Proposed finding of fact 32 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 25 and 82.
Proposed finding of fact 35 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 102 and 105.
Proposed finding of fact 44 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85.
Proposed finding of fact 45 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85.
Proposed finding of fact 46 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 148.
Proposed finding of fact 47 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 111.
Proposed finding of fact 52 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 72.
20. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 41, 48, 49, 50, 53, and 57 are rejected as irrelevant.
Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, 23; 25, 29, and 51 are rejected as not supported by the competent, substantial evidence.
Proposed findings of fact 24, 27; and 54 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence and as being argumentative.
23. Proposed findings of fact 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40,
43, 55, and 56 are rejected as unnecessary.
Proposed finding of fact 38 is rejected as unnecessary and argumentative.
Proposed finding of fact 42 is rejected as being misleading and incomplete and therefore not supported by the competent, substantial evidence.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 12, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 05, 1986 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 12, 1986 | Recommended Order | Teacher is incompetent and should be dismissed. Every evaluation showed no basic knowledge of subject and a lack of rudimentary instruction techniques. |
