STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ) EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-5133
)
LAWRENCE JOESPH FERRARA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Don W. Davis, on May 24, 1988 in West Palm Beach, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
FOR PETITIONER: J. David Holder
325 John Knox Road Building C, Suite 135 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
FOR RESPONDENT: Thomas W. Young, III
General Counsel, FEA United
208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
BACKGROUND
By administrative complaint, petitioner charged Respondent had failed to demonstrate minimal standards of competency required of educators in Florida during the 1981-82 school year and each subsequent school year until his suspension on February 19, 1986; that his personal conduct during that time period seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the Palm Beach County School Board; that he violated provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education through his failure to make reasonable efforts to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health or safety, and his intentional exposure of students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing. This proceeding ensued. At hearing, testimony of many witnesses was submitted in the form of prior sworn testimony. Petitioner presented the testimony of 36 witnesses.
Petitioner's exhibits 7 through 121 were received in evidence, along with the one joint exhibit offered by both parties. Respondent presented the testimony of 14 witnesses and the joint exhibit. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. Those proposed findings are addressed in the attached appendix.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is Lawrence J. Ferrara. He holds Florida teaching certificate number 150262, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. He is certified to teach social studies, grades 7-12. He has not been assigned to teach outside of this subject area at any time relevant to this proceeding.
While Respondent's performance for the school years 1981-82 through 1985-86 is at issue in this proceeding, a review of his annual evaluations for the years 1966 to 1986 indicate a continuing problem in the control of students in the classroom and teaching effectiveness.
Respondent was assigned to teach at John I. Leonard High School beginning with the 1970-71 school year and remained in this assignment until his suspension on February 19, 1986.
John I. Leonard High School consisted of a 40 acre campus, 145 teachers, and about 2,200 students during the 1985-86 school year.
Luke Thornton has served as principal of John I. Leonard High School since October 22, 1981. In dealing with employees, he follows guidelines set out in the collective bargaining agreement with the Classroom Teacher's Association. He is also guided by district school board policy, administrator's directives and the John I. Leonard High School Teacher and Student Handbooks.
Thornton has several assistant principals, including "deans", who are authorized to counsel and reprimand employees. Deans are, however, primarily responsible for discipline of students and working with parents.
Guidance counselors at the high school are also known as Senior High Counselors. They provide individual and group counseling to students, interpret test results and assist students in career planning. Guidance counselors may counsel other staff members when need arises.
While designated department chairpersons within the school have authority to counsel with teachers in their respective departments, the chairpersons do not have the authority to reprimand or evaluate teachers.
The chairperson for the social studies department at John I. Leonard High School is Catherine Thornton (no relation to the principal, Luke Thornton). As the chairperson, Ms. Thornton reviews lesson plans of all 16 teachers in the department to assure that objectives of the unified curriculum program are covered by the teacher. This action is mandated by the school board.
Teachers are required to prepare lesson plans one week in advance. They must also prepare emergency lesson plans which can be used by a substitute teacher in the event the teacher is unexpectedly absent.
Course assignments within the social studies department are recommended by the chairperson and reviewed by the assistant principal assigned to that task. The entire schedule is eventually approved by the principal.
Textbooks are issued to each teacher within the social studies department by the chairperson. The teacher returns the books at the end of the semester or school year. If books are not returned, the teacher must collect the cost of the missing textbook from the student responsible for it.
The 1981-82 School Year
During the 1981-82 school year, Respondent was assigned three 9th grade American government classes and two 11th grade history classes. Respondent's hours of work, to accommodate this teaching schedule, were normally 9:45 a.m. until 5:15 p.m. In previous years, Respondent's assignment had been all 11th grade classes and his hours were normally 6:45 a.m. through 2:15 p.m.
Shortly after the beginning of the school year, Luke Thornton became principal. Respondent sought to have his assignment changed by Thornton. The principal denied the request and told Respondent the subject would be revisited at the semester's end. At the end of the semester, Thornton again denied Respondent's request for change in course assignment due to disruption that would be caused in the master schedule, concerns about Respondent's performance, and what Thornton considered to be an excessive amount of failing grades received by students in Respondent's classes during the first nine weeks of the previous semester.
During the fall semester, Respondent was absent on several occasions. After the refusal of his request at the end of the semester for a change of his teaching assignment, Respondent took a leave of absence for the entire second semester.
During Respondent's absences in the 1981-82 school year, Mary Sandt substituted as the teacher of his classes. Lesson plans were available during the first semester. However, no lesson plans were provided for the second semester. Respondent did not provide any assistance to the substitute teacher in this regard, although testimony of Sandt establishes that other teachers normally provided such assistance.
More than any other teacher during the 1981-82 school year, Respondent referred students from his classes to the deans for disciplinary reasons. The referrals were for minor infractions such as talking out of turn, sharpening pencils, and squeaking chairs. Sometimes he referred groups of students for discipline.
Earl Higgs, a dean during this school year, discussed ways of handling minor infractions with Respondent. Higgs advised Respondent to review the John
I. Leonard Handbook discipline provisions. Respondent was not responsive to these recommendations. Higgs was required to review class rules with Respondent's students on at least three occasions as a result of being called to the class by the Respondent because the class was out of control.
Initially, Mary Sandt had some disciplinary problems with Respondent's classes during her substitute teaching for him, but the deans provided her with assistance in gaining control. Thereafter, she was able to control the students with only minor problems. Before referring students, Ms. Sandt attempted to resolve discipline problems in the class. If unsuccessful, she documented her action on a discipline referral slip. Respondent did not follow this procedure.
Luke Thornton's first evaluation of Respondent following the 1981-82 school year noted Respondent had a considerable amount of discipline problems
with 9th and 11th grade students. In addition, it was noted that students have "difficulty understanding his approach to teaching." Respondent's ineffective working relationship with associates and his failure to attend open house and graduation functions at the school were also noted. The evaluation reflected no areas of strength beyond the observation that Respondent "uses various methods and materials."
The 1982-83 School Year
The chairperson of the social studies department recommended that Respondent be assigned all 9th grade American Government classes for the 1982-83 school year. The recommendation was approved by Assistant principal Shirley Jackson and by Luke Thornton, the principal.
Respondent felt "absolutely demoralized, devastated and dehumanized" and worthless in the eyes of fellow teachers as a result of his assignment to teach 9th grade.
The 1982-83 school year produced numerous complaints about Respondent's teaching. His teaching technique essentially consisted of giving students a text book reading assignment and have them answer review questions at the end of the chapter. Students completed these assignments in class time while Respondent read the newspaper or listened to the radio. Students cheated on many occasions in order to complete their work by passing answer sheets around the classroom while Respondent was present.
Respondent sometimes gave lectures to his classes. Many times the lectures had nothing to do with the course content. Respondent discussed a lawsuit he had initiated against the school board without relating it to the lesson content. He repeatedly told his students they were immature, he hated them and he preferred to teach upperclassmen. Respondent would tell students to be quiet or find the answer in the book when they asked for assistance. Respondent called students names such as "jackass" and "jerk" in class.
Students did not pay attention to Respondent because they found his classes boring. Respondent's general reputation among students was that he was not a good teacher; that he treated students in the same manner each year, and that he was "weird."
Many of Respondent's students tried to transfer out of his class. Reasons given to Pat Konttinen a school guidance counselor, for requesting transfers included no motivation for students, inability to understand Respondent's lectures when he gave them, Respondent's failure to lecture on the subject matter, testing students on materials not covered in class, and that the class was boring.
Ms. Konttinen discussed specific complaints of students with Respondent, but he did not change his teaching style.
The testimony of students concerning the 1982-83 school year reveals that they have had no other teachers at the school who taught as poorly as Respondent.
Respondent had the highest rate of textbook losses for the 1982-83 school year.
During the first semester of the 1982-83 school year, Ms. Sandt again substituted for Respondent when he was absent. No lesson plans were available contrary to the requirement that such plans be provided. Respondent also failed to complete emergency lesson plans. Ms. Sandt wrote lesson plans and gave assignments when substituting because she had no idea when he would return.
When Respondent did return, he threw assignments completed by the students in the trash because Sandt had not graded the work. Substitute teachers do not normally grade papers.
The students felt the substitute teacher, Ms. Sandt, was a better teacher than Respondent. During Respondent's absences, Ms. Sandt experienced no discipline problems.
Earl Higgs, in his capacity as dean, continued during the 1982-83 school year to receive numerous discipline referrals from Respondent. In each case, Higgs asked students for their side of the story and advised Respondent of actions taken on referrals. These referrals indicated that Respondent did not have proper control of his classes. Students were referred for minor disciplinary matters because Respondent did not want to handle problems on his own. Students who were referred for discipline by Respondent were either never previously referred by any other teacher, or, at most, referred one other time.
Respondent continued to send groups of students to the dean. Sometimes the students would get out of control talking and laughing in class because "they could get away with it."
On occasion, Respondent would shut the door to the classroom, close the windows and turn off the air conditioner as punishment for the class until the class was in control.
On one particular occasion, Luke Thornton walked back to Respondent's room with four girls after they complained that Respondent would not open the room windows and the air conditioning was not working. On arrival at the room, Thornton found the room extremely hot. Respondent was wearing a sweater and the room windows were closed. The principal opened the windows to prevent students from passing out in the heat.
Respondent improperly grabbed a student by the arm to discipline him during the 1982-83 school year. Bruises were left on the arm. After an investigation, Respondent was counseled concerning the incident.
In his 1983 evaluation of Respondent, Luke Thornton noted that Respondent had knowledge and understanding of his subject matter, maintained an appropriate appearance, possessed appropriate educational qualifications and adhered to the defined duty day. The principal noted no other areas of strength.
Numerous performance deficiencies were noted in a sheet attached to the 1983 evaluation form. Specific recommendations for improvement were cited. In regard to teaching technique, Respondent was informed he should vary methods of instruction. Consistency in discipline standards was noted as a way to improve classroom environment. Respondent was urged to strive to achieve rapport with peers and parents, as well as to timely submit lesson plans.
Luke Thornton held several conferences with Respondent to discuss the deficiencies noted in the 1983 evaluation. Respondent was not receptive to suggestions. He complained of unfair treatment in course assignments and
repeatedly discussed his lawsuit against school officials. Respondent continued to maintain he was better suited to teach 11th graders, although he was certified to teach 9th and 11th graders. The principal told Respondent to be responsible to his students regardless of other personally perceived problems.
He also told Respondent that he should work to improve performance.
While there is no significant technical difference in teaching either 9th or 11th grade, there is a difference in maturity levels of the students in each grade. Such a difference in maturity levels requires a difference in teaching style. Pat Martin, a guidance counselor, testified that ninth grade boys "get a little antsy" and have to be motivated by the teacher. This testimony was corroborated by Assistant Principal Earl Higgs who preferred to teach 9th graders but conceded they required more assistance and can be more difficult to handle.
The 1983-84 School Year
Respondent remained in the same teaching assignment during the 1983-84 school year. He did not request a transfer to another school, nor did he request a schedule change.
Testimony of students of Respondent for 1983-84 school year was consistent with the testimony of his students from the 1982-83 school year. Respondent's teaching techniques did not vary from the previous year.
Respondent's attitude remained unchanged in the 1983-84 school year as he continued to advise his students that they were immature and that he preferred to teach upperclassmen.
Students requested transfers at an increased rate from Respondent's classes, indicating that Respondent was unresponsive and they did not know how they were doing in his class. Respondent was advised of student and parent complaints by guidance counselors Pat Konttinen and Melinda Wong. They observed no change in his behavior. Two written complaints were received by Ms. Wong concerning Respondent's behavior in the classroom.
Respondent did not issue required progress reports to students at the proper time to advise them whether they were failing. When several students were failed by Respondent, they complained about this fact. Luke Thornton discussed this problem with Respondent.
Respondent had the second highest rate of textbook losses for the social studies department. Students defaced a number of books due to Respondent's improper storage of the books.
Respondent continued to ignore requests to make lesson plans available. As of February, 1984, Respondent had turned in three lesson plans for a 20 week time period. By June, 1984, Respondent had completed five lesson plans when he should have completed a total of 36 lesson plans. The lesson plans completed by Respondent were usually unsatisfactory.
Respondent was on leave for approximately three weeks during the Spring semester of this school year. The substitute teacher was Robin Thomas. Respondent left no lesson plans, nor did he have emergency lesson plans available as required. Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, provided Ms. Thomas with assistance. Thomas created lesson plans, gave assignments to
students and corrected the results even though she was not required to do so. She had no problems with discipline in any of Respondent's five classes. She was 21 years old at the time.
When Respondent returned to the class after his absence, the students did not want him back and told Respondent to go away.
Respondent did not consider Thomas' graded assignments. Students were required by Respondent to repeat the work previously given by Thomas. Also, after returning to school, Respondent requested lesson plans from Ms. Thomas contrary to normal procedure.
On several occasions, David Culp, a dean at the school, was advised by Respondent that he, Respondent, refused to teach the class. Students also told Culp that Respondent would stop teaching. Culp received numerous complaints from parents about the lack of teaching their children received from Respondent. Respondent refused to grade papers on one occasion. He also refused to sign a withdrawal slip for a student even though requested to do so by Culp's office.
Both Culp and Earl Higgs received frequent discipline referrals from Respondent. Higgs, serving his last semester as dean during the first semester of the 1983-84 school year, testified that Respondent's referrals did not diminish while he was a dean.
Culp became a dean beginning with the 1983-84 school year. Culp's testimony was consistent with that of Higgs concerning the type of referrals Respondent sent to him. Culp was also called to Respondent's room to assist Respondent in regaining control of the class.
According to Culp, he routinely visited Respondent's class because of his personal observation that Respondent did not have adequate control of students and the atmosphere in the classroom was so hostile that learning could not take place.
Culp discussed Respondent's large number of discipline referrals with Respondent. Culp, like Higgs, had many more discipline referrals from Respondent than other faculty members. Culp estimated 25 per cent of all referrals received by him were from Respondent with the remaining 75 per cent split among the remaining 139 faculty members.
Students continued to complain that Respondent did not open windows or turn on the air conditioner when requested. A parent's complaint regarding Respondent's discipline techniques was filed with Luke Thornton.
Respondent began to come to work late and leave early. This action was noted and Respondent was warned to adhere to the defined duty day.
On April 25, 1984, Luke Thornton placed Respondent on a remedial program known as the Notice, Explanation, Assistance and Time (NEAT) procedure as a result of Respondent's continuing problems. The purpose of the program is to provide assistance to teachers with performance problems. Respondent was given a detailed written summary of all deficiencies noted in his performance and given until October 16, 1984, to correct those deficiencies. Among the deficiencies noted were failure to use acceptable teaching techniques, lack of a positive classroom environment through use of acceptable control, lack of professional and effective working relationships with peers and failure to submit proper records.
Respondent believed the NEAT procedure was a "device used to get rid of tenured teachers, especially those who made waves." He characterized the "T" in NEAT for "termination," not "time".
Respondent's evaluation for the 1983-84 school year noted that the same deficiencies pointed out previously still existed. The evaluation noted that Respondent possessed appropriate educational qualifications and used good oral and written language. Among other subjects, Respondent was criticized for having an inadequate variety of methods and materials, inadequate planning, using inappropriate language with students, discussion of inappropriate topics with students during class time, unwillingness or inability to work effectively with parents, unwillingness or inability to provide a positive learning environment, failure to submit proper records, failure to comply with defined duty days, and failure to have an effective relationship with colleagues. He was admonished to avoid improper language with students, to maintain appropriate standards of discipline and to promote a positive relationship between students and teacher.
The 1984-85 School Year
At the beginning of the 1984-85 school year, Luke Thornton asked Respondent what assistance he could offer Respondent that had not yet been provided. Respondents refused the principal's offer of assistance.
Based on testimony of students who had him as a teacher for the 1984-
85 school year, Respondent's teaching methods did not vary. Students again confirmed that Respondent told them he hated 9th graders and felt they were immature.
Students also confirmed that when given worksheet assignments, some students would cheat while Respondent read the newspaper, listened to the radio or looked out the window.
Respondent continued to refer to his lawsuit against the school board and school officials during class time. He also discussed with his students the qualifications of another teacher in the social studies department.
Respondent's general reputation among his students was that he was boring and no one liked or respected him. Instead of paying attention to Respondent, some students would sleep or "horse around." Students indicated they did not learn anything or learned very little because Respondent did not teach. Also, these students had not encountered any other teachers at the school with teaching problems like those of Respondent.
Complaints by students regarding Respondent's refusal to open windows and doors for air continued. On one occasion, Respondent told the class the air conditioner was not working, but refused to open windows because the students were too loud.
Respondent refused to give credit for assignments given by the substitute teacher. He refused to issue progress reports. He refused to change a student grade after being directed to do so by Luke Thornton, although such change was appropriate.
Guidance counselors continued to receive requests from students seeking transfers from Respondent's class. A new guidance counselor for the
1984-85 school year, Pat Martin, received reports that Respondent constantly talked about his lawsuit during class time. Another guidance counselor also received numerous self-referrals from Respondent's students who were concerned that they were not learning American government, the course subject matter, and that Respondent was talking about his court case.
Martin, who had formerly served as a social studies teacher at the school with Respondent, was unable to discuss complaints she received with Respondent. He would not communicate with her and requested she not be allowed to sit in parent conferences with him. As a result, Martin was forced to communicate with Respondent in writing. She handled several complaints of students and parents in this manner.
Guidance counselor Elizabeth Konen informed Respondent of complaints from students and parents. Usually, Respondent advised Konen he had no time to participate in conferences with the parents and students.
In some instances, Respondent would not respond to parents requests that he contact them. At other times in parent conferences, Respondent would discuss his personal problems with the administration rather than the student's problems.
Respondent improved in this school year slightly on textbook accountability, but books and desks continued to be defaced. He also continued to disregard his defined duty hours.
Respondent did not turn in any lesson plans during the entire school year. At the conclusion of the year, he turned in a complete set of plans. Those plans did not meet requirements of indicating what part of the unified curriculum objectives had been met.
In addition to David Culp, who continued to receive a large number of student discipline referrals from Respondent, Sandra Cowne was assigned to be a dean. Ms. Cowne's testimony is that 35 to 45 percent of her time was spent dealing with referrals by Respondent. Cowne noted 75 per cent of those referrals could and should have been handled by Respondent.
Cowne requested students who were referred by Respondent to write out the details of the incident where the student's version differed with that of Respondent. Usually, Respondent did not indicate on the referral form that any action had been taken by him, or whether he had provided instruction to his students about expected and acceptable behavior.
Students admitted to administrators that they deliberately "egged" Respondent on, particularly when he made personal comments about them. They also complained that Respondent would shut the windows and make them sit in the heat for discipline, or that he would turn off the air conditioner. They complained that Respondent made them write sentences as punishment, an inappropriate method of discipline.
Cowne dealt with several problems when it became apparent Respondent did not have control of his classes. She assisted Respondent in calming classes down and restoring order.
The disruption caused by discipline problems adversely affected the amount of learning that took place in Respondent's classroom.
Luke Thornton decided to extend the NEAT Procedure to the cover the entire 1984-85 school year. During this time, numerous conferences were held and memos provided to Respondent concerning a multitude of problems.
Respondent was observed in class by three administrators. The first observation was conducted on September 19, 1984, by H. W. Berryman, an assistant superintendent and area administrator. An employee of the Palm Beach County School District for 24 years, Berryman has evaluated the performance of principals, teachers, department heads and directors. In his memo to Luke Thornton following the observation, Berryman noted that too much time was taken with roll call and students were not attentive to Respondent's lecture.
Berryman was concerned that students in the class were not involved in the total learning process. Berryman stated that he foresaw Respondent "in serious difficulty in managing conduct of students and considered this his most urgent need for growth."
On October 4, 1984, Respondent was observed by Dr. Mona Jensen. Jensen is a consultant, certified by the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS). The FPMS was designed to determine effective teaching behaviors. Jensen also trains other administrators in the use of FPMS, both locally and statewide.
The FPMS utilizes a written instrument called a Summative Observation Form. This form is used to evaluate teacher performance by recording the types of effective and ineffective behaviors observed in four domains: management of student conduct, instructional organization, presentation of subject matter and communication skills.
Jensen has previously observed teachers with performance problems on the NEAT procedure. The report provided by Jensen to Respondent and Luke Thornton was based on actual behaviors of Respondent which she observed. Jensen noted in the report that students were talking to one another and not participating in the activity at hand. Jensen provided specific recommendations for improvement in all the areas addressed by the Summative Observation Form.
According to Jensen, the main problem with Respondent's teaching technique was the lack of several positive teaching behaviors. She offered Respondent a conference and assistance, but he rejected her offer.
Respondent was also observed by Lois Biddix on October 29, 1984. She is a FPMS certified state trainer and is authorized to train administrators to observe teachers. Biddix used the Summative Observation Form in her observation of Respondent. Biddix provided a written summary to Respondent and to Luke Thornton. She observed students talking and engaging in activities unrelated to the lesson. The atmosphere in the classroom, she observed, was sedentary and lethargic. Students suffered from boredom and frustration caused by Respondent's lack of enthusiasm and failure to introduce new content into the lesson. Biddix's observation of students talking, putting on makeup and sleeping are consistent with those of Berryman and Jensen. Biddix's concern was that students were not involved in the learning process. Her recommendations for improvement were consistent with those noted by Jensen.
Dr. Jensen completed a second observation of Respondent on January 31, 1985. Again, she provided a written summary of her observations to Respondent and Luke Thornton. On this occasion, Respondent was presenting a lesson and students were not paying attention or participating in the class discussion. Respondent became frustrated with a student who made a personal remark to him.
Jensen's recommendations for improvement were basically the same as those proposed by her in October, 1984. She again offered to arrange a conference with Respondent to discuss recommendations and he again spurned her offer.
In response to a recommendation by Earl Higgs that Respondent observe successful teachers in their classrooms, Respondent advised that he wanted to observe Catherine Thornton and Mike Lott. Respondent did not associate with these teachers professionally or otherwise. Both Lott and Catherine Thornton requested that Respondent not be allowed to observe their classes. This request was honored by Luke Thornton because he was aware that Respondent disliked these two teachers.
Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated the atmosphere in his class was not conducive to learning. He was criticized again concerning the discipline of his class. It was also noted that he continued to make unprofessional comments to his students despite warnings not to do so. Luke Thornton had reviewed specific incidents of such conduct with Respondent during the school year. The evaluation also noted Respondent's failure to adhere to defined duty days after warnings, other poor work habits (i.e., lesson plans) , and his inability to get along with his peers.
The 1985-86 School Year
Luke Thornton extended the NEAT procedure for Respondent through November 1985, with the hope that Respondent's performance would improve. In the August 19, 1985 letter, Thornton stated:
In order to assure that you are given every opportunity to be successful, I am extending the NEAT procedure to November 1, 1985. If at that time, the deficiencies consistently noted . . . continue to exist, I will make my recommendation to the superintendent concerning your employment status with the Palm Beach County School Board.
The testimony of Respondent's students for the first semester of the 1985-86 school year confirm that Respondent did not change his teaching techniques despite suggestions given to him for improvement.
9l. One student testified that on the first day of class Respondent told the students they were immature. Other students testified to Respondent's repeated statements that they were immature, childish and that he did not like them. Further, Respondent continued to discuss his problems with the administration during class time.
Classroom temperature remained uncomfortable. Respondent advised students to complain to the administration. In one instance, a student vomited in the classroom, creating a foul odor. Although students complained about the smell and administrators located another available classroom, Respondent refused to move his classes.
Students testified that Respondent's reputation among them was that he was a "jerk" and a bad teacher who was not liked or respected. Several students stated that they would not want Respondent as their teacher again. He had a bad attitude and they either did not learn anything or they did not learn as much as they felt they should.
Respondent did display improvement in taking roll call issuing progress reports, adhering to defined duty days and reducing the number of failures in his classes. He continued to fail to attend open house and to provide adequate lesson plans.
In addition to Ms. Cowne and Mr. Culp, Linda Chubbuck was assigned as dean at John I. Leonard High School for the 1985-86 school year. Chubbuck received referrals of students from Respondent which were usually for such minor infractions as talking in class, refusing to be quiet, or not writing "punishment sentences".
Student and parent complaints were received by the deans as a result of Respondent continued making students write repetitious sentences.
Groups of students were still referred by Respondent. On two occasions, Chubbuck was referred nine to ten students at one time. Cowne was referred six students at one time. The groups were usually referred by Respondent because the students were not being quiet, would not settle down or were otherwise causing disruption.
The students who were referred to the deans described Respondent's classes as chaotic. They described Respondent as "caustic and cutting with them." Further, Respondent did not take action to control his classes and rarely instructed students concerning behavior.
The deans continued to answer Respondent's requests to come to his class to settle the class down.
David Culp saw no improvement in Respondent's ability to control his classes over a three year period. Respondent continued to have more referrals than other teachers, and it was difficult to support Respondent's actions. Due to the constant chaos in Respondent's classes, the deans concluded that very little learning could be taking place. The number of referrals from those classes decreased sharply after Respondent was later suspended from the school.
Guidance counselors continued, during this school year, to receive the same type of complaints about Respondent as they had in the past. The only difference was the names of the students making the complaints. The guidance counselors concluded that Respondent was not benefiting students emotionally or academically.
Dr. Mona Jensen conducted her third and final observation of Respondent on December 2, 1985. She observed that Respondent's pattern of instruction had not changed. She determined his lesson plan to be insufficient. Respondent had not added any of Jensen's prior recommended positive behaviors to his technique. Respondent continued to fail to provide motivational or positive reinforcement to his students. Jensen concluded that Respondent's "teaching behaviors" were ineffective, ranking Respondent below average as a teacher. Jensen testified that a teacher's behavior should not change based upon the quality of the students. Further, a professional should not allow personal problems with the administration to interfere with providing successful opportunities to students.
H.W. Berryman conducted a second observation of Respondent in December, 1985. Berryman was more complimentary of Respondent than was Jensen. Berryman noted Respondent had improved in getting instruction started in the
class. He also commended Respondent's knowledge of the subject matter, but noted Respondent seemed to be writing off a majority of the students in the class by allowing them to be inactive and uninvolved in the learning process.
Respondent did not communicate well with other social studies teachers at any time at issue in this cause. No improvement of Respondent's behavior in this area was noted during the first semester of the 1985-86 school year. He had heated words for Catherine Thornton, the department chairperson, and expressed his disdain for her. He accused another teacher of theft of a map from his classroom. The atmosphere of the workroom for social studies teachers at the school was hostile and uncomfortable when Respondent was there.
Respondent continued to perceive his assignment to teach 9th graders to be a demotion. His peers did not agree. Testimony of teachers indicates that each level of teaching has unique problems. Some teachers volunteered to teach 9th grade.
Respondent had difficulty with the administration over reserved parking spaces for the deans, refusing to refrain from parking in the places reserved for them until ordered by Luke Thornton to park elsewhere.
The school's security officer was asked by Respondent to investigate the theft of pens and pencils from his desk, as well the source of a stick figure drawing of Respondent. The security officer had not received similar requests from other teachers.
An evaluation of Respondent on November 18, 1983, noted he did not have an up to date plan book; that parent complaints about Respondent's unwillingness to work to resolve student problems had been received; and that Respondent remained unable to have a positive relationship with coworkers.
Respondent was on the NEAT procedure for a total of 16 academic months. During that time, Respondent's teaching style did not change. He continued to make disparaging remarks to students, failed to provide classroom management and failed to improve his peer relationships. He did not attend open house functions, and failed to maintain adequate lesson plans. Parent and student complaints about him did not diminish.
District administrators and school personnel were unable to influence Respondent to change his behavior. Due to Respondent's inability to change and the finding that Respondent was damaging students, Luke Thornton recommended Respondent be terminated from employment. Respondent was suspended in February of 1986, and subsequently terminated from employment by the school board.
In Luke Thornton's professional opinion, which is credited, Respondent performed incompetently as an educator from the fall of 1981 until his termination. Further, Respondent's personal conduct during that time seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the district school board.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding, and the parties thereto, pursuant to subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 231.28(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides the teaching certificate of an individual may be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined
if the individual has proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform his duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach in or to operate a private school.
The evidence presented in this cause is clear and convincing that Respondent performed incompetently as a classroom teacher during the period of time at issue. Respondent failed to utilize verbal and nonverbal behavior to show interest and enthusiasm in the classroom; he failed to foster interest and enthusiasm for learning and teaching he failed to maintain required paper work documenting student progress; he failed to control student behavior in the classroom; he failed to make efficient use of time in the classroom; he failed to demonstrate patience and understanding with students; he failed to maintain a positive attitude and appropriate professional conduct and demeanor in the classroom; he failed to command respect of his students; he failed to prepare lesson plans or prepared inadequate lesson plans; he failed to provide adequate supervision of students in the classroom; he failed to maintain an environment in the classroom conducive to learning; he failed to obey supervisor directions given under proper authority; he failed to provide prompt and proper feedback on student assignments; and he used inappropriate methods of discipline.
Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides for suspension, revocation or other discipline of the teaching certificate of an individual found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces effectiveness as an employee of the school board. The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent's personal conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Included within that evidence is Luke Thornton's testimony as an expert witness, an additional record foundation for concluding Respondent's personal conduct seriously reduced his effectiveness as an employee.
Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. That rule section provides that violation of any of the principles set forth shall subject the individual to revocation or suspension of the individual's teaching certificate or other penalties provided by law. One of those principles is contained in Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and provides that an educator shall make reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning, health or safety.
The evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, through his unwillingness or inability to provide his students with proper instruction; his poor attitude in
the classroom; his disrespect for students; his failure to maintain order in the classroom and control student conduct; his unwillingness or inability to maintain proper communications with students, other staff members and administrators; his use of class time for non related discussions such as his pending lawsuit; his repeated conduct in making the temperature in the classroom uncomfortable for students; and his failure to maintain an environment in the classroom conducive to learning.
Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, contains another principle of educator conduct and provides an educator shall not intentionally expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Respondent's repeated actions of subjecting his students to embarrassing name calling and derogatory comments clearly and convincingly establishes his violation of this rule.
Section 231.28(1)(h), Florida Statutes, provides for suspension, revocation or other discipline of the teaching certificate of an individual who has otherwise violated provisions of law or rules of the State Board of Education, the penalty for which is revocation of the teaching certificate.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's teaching
certificate.
DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DON W. DAVIS
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1988.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.
PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS
Petitioner submitted 128 proposed findings of fact. Those findings are treated as follows:
1. Included in finding
2.-3. Included in part in findings 1-3, remainder rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached.
4.-5. Included in findings 4-5.
6. Included in findings 6-7. 7.-8. Included in findings 9-10.
Included in finding 12.
Included in finding 11.
Included in part in finding 6, remainder rejected.
Included in finding 7.
Addressed in findings 13-14. 14.-15. Addressed in finding 14.
16. Included in finding 15.
17.-18. Addressed in findings 16 and 14.
Included in finding 17.
Included in finding 18.
21.-22. Included in findings 18-19.
23.-24. Included in findings 20-21.
Included in finding 23.
Included in finding 24.
Included in finding 25.
28.-30. Included in findings 26-28.
Included in finding 29.
Included in finding 30.
Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion. 34.-35. Included in finding 32.
36.-37. Included in findings 33-34.
Included in finding 31.
Included in finding 36.
40.-41. Included in findings 37-39.
42.-43. Included in findings 41-42.
44. Addressed in part in finding 43. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
45.-55. Included in findings 44-54.
56.-57. Addressed in finding 55.
Included in finding 56.
Included in finding 48.
60.-61. Included in findings 56-57.
62. Included in findings 58-59. 63.-64. Included in findings 60-61. 65.-66 Included in finding 62.
67.-70. Included in findings 63-66.
71.-75. Included in findings 67-70.
76.-83. Included in findings 72-77.
84.-85. Included in finding 76.
86. Included in finding 71.
87.-94. Included in findings 77-83.
95.-128. Included in findings 85-111, except for a portion of proposed finding 122 which is rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached.
RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS
Respondent submitted 145 proposed findings of fact. They were encompassed in 52 pages and are treated as follows:
1.-19. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached and cumulative.
20.-24. Included in part in findings 13-14, and 21; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
25. Addressed in part in finding 15. Remainder unnecessary for conclusion.
26.-28. Rejected as unnecessary for conclusion reached.
29.-31. Addressed in part in finding 20. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
32.-33. Included in findings 37-38.
34. Included in finding 60.
35.-36. Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
37.-38. Included in part in finding 108, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
39.-40. Included in part in findings 3133, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
41.-52. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
Included in part in findings 20-22, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
Included in part in finding 40, remainder unnecessary to conclusion.
Included in finding 23 in part, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
57.-63. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
64.-65. Included in part in finding 93, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
66.-73. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
74. Included in part in finding 113-114, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
75.-80. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
Addressed in finding 45.
Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
83.-84. Included in part in finding 46, remainder unnecessary to conclusion reached.
85. Rejected, unnecessary.
86.-87. Addressed in part in findings 46 and 57, respectively; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
88. Included in part in finding 88. Remainder unnecessary. 89.-90. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
91.-96. Included in part in findings 34-35, remainder rejected as unnecessary.
97.-100. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
101.-102. Included in part in finding 14, remainder unnecessary to conclusion.
103.-107. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
108.-113. Included in part in findings 58-59, and 79; remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
114.-118. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
119.-120. Included in part in finding 87, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
121.-123. Rejected as unnecessary to conclusion reached.
l24.-125. Included in part in finding 80. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
126.-129. Included in part in findings 81-84, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
Included in part in finding 67. Remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
Included in part in finding 86, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion and cumulative.
Included in part in finding 88, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
Included in part in finding 89, remainder rejected as unnecessary.
135.-136. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion reached. 137.-141. Included in part in findings 102-103, remainder
unnecessary to conclusion.
142.-143. Included in part in finding 85, remainder rejected as unnecessary to conclusion.
144.-145. Included in part in finding 110, remainder rejected as unnecessary.
COPIES FURNISHED:
J. David Holder, Esquire
325 John Knox Road Suite C-135
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire
208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Sydney H. McKenzie, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Martin B. Schapp, Administrator. Professional Practices Services Department of Education
319 W. Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Karen B. Wilde Executive Director
Education Practices Commission
125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
BEFORE THE EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
BETTY CASTOR, as
Commissioner of Education,
Petitioner,
vs. EPC CASE NO. 87-117-RT
DOAH CASE NO. 87-5133
LAWRENCE J. FERRARA,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, LAWRENCE J. FERRARA, holds Florida teaching certificate no.
150262. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking suspension, revocation, permanent revocation or other disciplinary action against the certificate.
Respondent requested a formal hearing and one was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order has been forwarded to the Commission pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.; it is attached to and made a part of this Order.
A panel of the Education Practices Commission met on September 22, 1988 in Tallahassee, Florida, to take final agency action. The Petitioner was represented by J. David Holder, Esquire. The Respondent was represented by Thomas W. Young, III, Esquire. The panel reviewed the entire record in the case.
Respondent posed five (5) exceptions to the hearing officer's findings of fact and 82 exceptions to the hearing officer having failed to find certain facts proposed by Respondent. The five exceptions to the findings of fact were considered individually. Exceptions two through five were rejected due to the findings having been based on competent substantial evidence. Exception one was adopted; paragraph two of the recommended order was amended to change 1966 to 1981.
The findings of fact of the Recommended Order were adopted amended. The conclusions of law of the Recommended Order were adopted.
With regard to the recommended penalty of revocation, the panel revokes Respondent's certificate for three (3) years retroactive to March 1, 1986. For recertification, Respondent must complete 30 hours of instruction to include classroom management, techniques of management of student conduct, and must successfully complete the statewide competency examination for entering teachers. Upon recertification and reentry into teaching, Respondent must complete two (2) years probation during which time quarterly reports concerning his teaching progress shall be submitted from his supervisor to the Education Practices Commission for review. This Order takes effect upon filing.
This Order may be appealed by filing notices of appeal and a filing fee, as set out in Section 120.68(2), F.S., and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) and (c), within 30 days of the date of filing.
DONE AND ORDERED, this 14th day of October, 1988.
ANN NEISWENDER, Presiding Officer
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Order in the matter of
BC vs. Lawrence Joseph Ferrara was mailed to Thomas W. Young, Esquire
208 W. Pensacola St., Tallahassee, Florida 32301 this 19th day of October, 1988 by U. S. Mail.
KAREN B. WILDE. Clerk
COPIES FURNISHED:
Martin Schapp Administrator Professional Practices Commission
Susan Tully Proctor, esquire Attorney General's Office
Sydney McKenzie, III General Counsel
Florida Admin. Law Reports
Thomas J. Mills, Superintendent Palm Beach County Schools
3323 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Dr. John M. Munroe, Asst. Supt. Division of Personnel Relations Palm Beach County Schools
3323 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
Ella Jane P. Davis
Division of Administrative Hearing The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
J. David Holder, Esquire 1408 North Piedmont Way Suite 200
Tallahassee, Florida 32312
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 23, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 14, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 23, 1988 | Recommended Order | Respondent teacher proved to be incompetent; recommended that teaching cerificate be revoked. |
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES COUNCIL vs. CHRISTINE E. COATES, 87-005133 (1987)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs BRIAN RONEY, 87-005133 (1987)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs BOBBY G. PALMORE, 87-005133 (1987)
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs CALVIN CHIN, 87-005133 (1987)
PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. PHILIP JAMES, 87-005133 (1987)
