STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRANK T. BROGAN, as )

Commissioner of Education, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-2937

)

CLEMENTINE GOD, a/k/a )

Clementine Johnson, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Following notice to all parties, Don W. Davis, a Hearing Officer for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a final hearing in the above-styled case on October 11, 1995, in Jacksonville, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire

Office of the General Counsel Department of Education

Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

For Respondent: Clementine God

a/k/a Clementine Johnson, Pro Se 3104 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be disciplined for alleged violation of various provisions of Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated May 15, 1995, Petitioner informed Respondent of the filing of Petitioner's Administrative Complaint which charges Respondent with misconduct constituting violations of Sections 231.28(1)(b), 231.28(1)(f), 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing on the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. The matter was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

Charges of the Administrative Complaint, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, constitute grounds for imposition of discipline against Respondent's professional certification pursuant to Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of six witnesses and 31 exhibits. Respondent testified in her own behalf and presented six exhibits.

The transcript of the final hearing was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 3, 1995. Leave was granted to file post hearing submissions more than 10 days after the filing of the transcript, and in accordance with Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, the parties are deemed to have waived provisions of Rule 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code.

Proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. A graduate of Bethune-Cookman College in 1972, Respondent Clementine God received a master's degree in Education (vocational/technical education) from the University of North Florida in 1977.

   
   

2. Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 318649, valid through June 30, 1997. Certified in the areas of business and vocational education, including vocational education director, she has been employed in the public school system for 22 years.

   
   

3. Ronnel Poppell was the school principal at Ed White High School during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 school years when Respondent was employed there.

   
   

4. During the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent was an inside school suspension teacher. In this position, she was not responsible for delivery of instruction to students, but instead insured that students completed work assigned by other teachers.

   
   

5. To avoid reassignment to another high school in the face of staff reductions, Respondent voluntarily changed teaching assignments for the 1992- 1993 school year when she became responsible for teaching business education and peer counseling classes.

   
   

6. Principal Poppell observed Respondent's classroom performance on approximately 13 occasions during the 1992-1993 school year.

   
   

7. Poppell found deficiencies in Respondent's teaching performance during each of his observations. The most serious problems always involved Respondent's classroom management and discipline. Students argued with Respondent and each other. Some students were not on task, engaged in nonproductive movement within the classroom, and were permitted by Respondent to leave the classroom in excessive numbers. Poppell once observed a student throw a book across the room.

   
   

8. In addition to Respondent's failure to maintain a classroom environment conducive to learning, as a result of the movement of the students and the chaotic classroom environment, Poppell also observed Respondent's inability to control student behavior and appropriately handle discipline problems.

9. As observed by Poppell, Respondent also engaged in inappropriate and inconsistent instruction. Respondent repeatedly ignored or failed to respond to student questions and taught the same lesson material over a period of weeks as opposed to introducing new material on a successive basis.

   
   

10. Significant destruction to school property, especially typewriters, occurred in Respondent's classroom and Respondent failed to assist Poppell in determining the students responsible for the damage by not providing Poppell with student seating charts. Respondent had failed to assign seats to students of her various classes and did not check the equipment at the end of each class as ordered.

    
    

11. Poppell requested Jane Friedlin, the school board supervisor of business administration, to observe Respondent's classes. She performed the observation on November 17, 1992, and concluded that Respondent was not in control of her class with all the students on task at any time. Friedlin observed that the students displayed a total lack of respect for Respondent. Further she noted that instruction by Respondent was scanty, hard to follow, and sometimes incorrect or incomplete. During Friedlin's observation of Respondent's class, several students threw paper, one student made chicken sounds without being reprimanded, and students talked during the entire period.

    
    

12. Poppell discussed the observations with Respondent on three separate occasions: October 7, 1992; November 18, 1992; and January 6, 1993.

    
    

13. Despite the conferences with Poppell, Respondent's teaching performance did not improve. Poppell then made arrangements to assist Respondent's improvement by having her observe peer counseling classes taught by other teachers at the high school and visit similar classes at three other high schools. Respondent complied and completed these observations.

    
    

14. On March 15, 1993, Poppell completed Respondent's professional growth evaluation for the 1992-1993 school year, taking into consideration Friedlin's report to him of her observations. Poppell rated Respondent unsatisfactory in five of the eight competencies on the evaluation and rated Respondent unsatisfactorily overall.

    
    

15. Respondent signed the evaluation and the Classroom Observation Instrument (COI) upon which the evaluation was based.

    
    

16. Dr. Larry Zenke, Duval County School Superintendent, notified Respondent on or about May 10, 1993, that her 1992-1993 school year performance was unsatisfactory and that her performance must be improved to avoid dismissal. She was also offered an opportunity to transfer to another school.

    
    

17. Following the conclusion of the school year, Respondent transferred to Arlington Middle School for the 1993-1994 school year where Dr. Jordan Baker, Sr., was the school principal.

    
    

18. Respondent met with Baker on August 18 and 27, 1993, pursuant to school board policy and formulated a plan which would afford Respondent an opportunity for specific in-service training to correct alleged deficiencies in her past teaching performance. During the meetings, Baker detected no recognition by Respondent that she felt her performance was deficient or that she needed assistance to improve it.

19. Without prior announcement, Baker informally observed Respondent's classes on several occasions between September 24 and October 18, 1993, memorializing his observations in note form. He found fundamental problems with Respondent's classroom management. Students were disruptive during each observation and furniture and equipment were destroyed. Baker was concerned for the safety of Respondent and the students when some students turned off the lights and threw textbooks and other objects.

    
    

20. On October 26 and 27, 1993, Baker conducted formal observations of Respondent's performance. Conducted at different times of day with differing classes of students, Baker again noted Respondent's problems with classroom management and the students' disrespect for Respondent. Students were confused about what was expected of them and appeared unable to understand Respondent's directions. Baker memorialized these observations on two COI forms.

    
    

21. On October 29, 1993, Baker met with Respondent. He discussed Respondent's progress with regard to the plan devised by them prior to the beginning of the school year. He also suggested that they revise the plan, that Respondent visit other schools to observe teacher performances, and that Respondent attend workshops.

    
    

22. Respondent refused to sign the COI forms and teacher growth evaluation prepared by Baker. She also refused to visit other schools or attend workshops. Respondent informed Baker that she felt no need to do these things. As a result, Baker did not make arrangements for such assistance, but he noted Respondent's lack of recognition of the existence of a problem.

    
    

23. On November 4, 1993, Baker went to the music suite, the part of the school facility where Respondent's class was located, in response to a fire set by two of Respondent's students. Respondent provided Baker with little information regarding what had happened or who was responsible.

    
    

24. Upon investigation, Baker learned that two students had been referred by Respondent to the school office for discipline. The students forged a punishment assignment on the teacher copy of the referral form and set fire to the original form outside the classroom. The students then re-entered the classroom and later started another fire in the back of the classroom.

    
    

25. More concerned than ever about the safety of Respondent and students in her classes, Baker wrote a memorandum, dated November 10, 1993, to Dr. Alvin White, the school board assistant superintendent for human resources. Baker requested the removal of Respondent from the classroom for her safety and that of students assigned to her classes, as well as students in other classrooms in the building.

    
    

26. Baker's request to Alvin White was denied. Instead of removing Respondent from the classroom, a full time substitute was assigned to assist Respondent in her responsibilities.

    
    

27. During the course of the 1993-1994 school year, Baker received numerous student accident reports and incident investigation forms concerning students injured by thrown books, fights, and other disorderly conduct in Respondent's classroom.

    
    

28. Shirley Rodriguez, a vice principal at the school, first became aware of Respondent's problems due to the accident and injury reports she received, as

    well as other reports from teachers in rooms near Respondent's classroom regarding the noise, confusion and lack of safety in Respondent's classroom.

    
    

29. Rodriguez also became aware of the condition of typewriters and textbooks in Respondent's classroom in October of 1993. She later went to the classroom to examine equipment and found typewriter parts and chair parts on the floor and in trash cans. Equipment was in such disrepair that those machines were not functional again until the fall of 1994.

    
    

30. On October 21, 1993, Rodriguez conducted an observation of Respondent's class for approximately 33 minutes. She found an atmosphere not conducive to learning. Students were talking while Respondent was talking and were generally off task. One student was playing with a chair part that he had removed from his chair. Rodriguez memorialized her observations on a COI form which Respondent refused to sign.

    
    

31. On October 27, 1993, Rodriguez and Michael Kemp, an assistant principal for student services at the school, were called to Respondent's classroom by students needing assistance. Upon arrival, Rodriguez and Kemp observed students running around the room, crawling under desks to avoid flying objects, and books flying across the room. Respondent was taking no action to stop these activities. Rodriguez and Kemp immediately brought matters under control. Students reported their injuries to Rodriguez and Kemp. Both administrators memorialized the incident in separate memoranda.

    
    

32. Jane Friedlin, who had observed Respondent at Ed White High School, returned to observe Respondent again at the middle school on November 9, 1993, at the request of Principal Baker. Friedlin again observed Respondent's lack of classroom control and poor rapport with students. Friedlin also noted misspelled words on posters in the classroom, as well as Respondent's grammatical errors and mispronunciation of a number of words.

    
    

33. Friedlin observed at the final hearing that Respondent's problem areas at the middle school were consistent with those observed previously at the high school and that Respondent's overall performance had further declined.

    
    

34. During the early part of 1994, Baker continued to observe Respondent informally and discuss problems of her performance with her. Respondent continued to deny performance deficiencies or the need for improvement.

    
    

35. On January 7, 1994, Rodriguez and Kemp were called again to Respondent's room. A student had turned the lights off twice during the class. Books were again being thrown. At least one student had been struck in the head by a book.

    
    

36. Rodriguez was called to Respondent's classroom again on January 11, 1994, by a security officer. The classroom was littered with paper. Respondent reported that her home room class had started throwing paper and that the behavior had carried over into subsequent classes.

    
    

37. By letter on January 11, 1994, Baker again expressed his concerns to Respondent about her performance and informed her that he would be conducting a formal observation prior to March 1, 1994.

    
    

38. On February 23, 1994, Rodriguez again observed Respondent's teaching performance. Rodriguez felt that Respondent's performance had declined since Rodriguez's October 21, 1993 observation. Students were again observed talking

    without regard to Respondent's attempts to explain the lesson of the day. Respondent's instructions were unclear. Respondent refused to sign the COI prepared by Rodriguez.

    
    

39. Bennie Floyd-Peoples, an assistant principal for student services at the school, went to Respondent's classroom on 15 or 16 occasions during the 1993-1994 school year to respond to discipline problems. Floyd-Peoples was

    sometimes assisted by security personnel. Floyd-Peoples consistently observed a pattern of classroom disruption in Respondent's classroom. Observations included students exhibiting defiance to Respondent, pouring soda down the Respondent's back, pulling off her hair piece, throwing paper, and students fighting with one another.

    
    

40. Floyd-Peoples noted that Respondent took no action to stop disruptive activities and did not appear to comprehend what was happening in the classroom. Over time, the conduct of students in Respondent's classroom appeared to worsen in the view of Floyd-Peoples.

    
    

41. On February 24, 1994, Baker informed Respondent that he would conduct his formal observation on February 25, 1994.

    
    

42. During the course of his February 25, 1994 observation, Baker documented Respondent's continued unsatisfactory performance. He noted a slight increase in the area of Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, but a decline in her willingness to assume non-instructional responsibilities such as care of equipment entrusted to her. Baker completed the professional growth evaluation of Respondent on March 7, 1994. Respondent refused to sign the evaluation form.

    
    

43. By memorandum dated March 23, 1994, Baker again expressed his concern for safety of Respondent and her students to Alvin White. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was removed from the classroom on Baker's recommendation.

    
    

44. On or about April 25, 1994, Respondent was notified by Superintendent Zenke that she would be dismissed as an employee on the basis of professional incompetency. A subsequent formal administrative hearing resulted in a recommendation to the school board that Respondent be terminated from employment on the basis of incompetency as a teacher. A final order entered on March 7, 1995, adopted the recommendation.

    
    

45. Respondent was offered frequent opportunities to take advantage of specific in-service training to correct deficiencies in her performance but refused most of those opportunities.

    
    

46. Respondent's classes represented a fair and accurate cross section of the students at each school. Her students were no more disposed to miscreant behavior than others in their age group.

    
    

47. Discipline problems experienced by Respondent at both schools were unique and differed from the discipline exhibited by the same students in other classes with other teachers.

    
    

48. At final hearing, Respondent minimized her personal responsibility for the disruptive behavior of students in her care, arguing that the incidents were not "the fault of my hands." In addition to her disavowal of responsibility for the care of students entrusted to her care, Respondent also testified that her recent change of name from Clementine Johnson to Clementine God legalized the award of the new name made by the deity to her in 1988. The new name was a

    reward for scoring well on a divine test administered to her through her left eye. Such testimony in an administrative hearing is unique and creates concern regarding the eccentric nature of Respondent, as well as concern for students who might be subjected to her care and tutelage.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

49. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

50. Petitioner has the burden of proving the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

51. The Administrative Complaint in this case alleges Respondent's violation of Section 231.28(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as a result of her proven incompetence to teach or perform her duties; violation of Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as a result of personal conduct reducing her effectiveness as a school board employee; and violation of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as a result of her violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requiring teachers to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning or health and safety.

    
    

52. Section 231.28(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. The Education Practice Commission shall have authority to suspend the teaching certificate of any person as defined in s. 228.041(9) or (10) for a period of time not to exceed 3 years, thereby denying that person the right to teach for that period of time, after which the holder may return to teaching as provided in subsection (4); to

       revoke the teaching certificate of any person, thereby denying that person the right to teach for a period of time not to exceed 10 years, with reinstatement subject to the provisions of subsection (4); to revoke permanently the teaching certificate of any person; . . . or to impose any other penalty provided by law, provided it can be shown that such person:

       * * *

       (b) Has been proved to be incompetent to teach or to perform duties as an employee of the public school system or teach or operate a private school;

       * * *

       (f) Upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces that person's effectiveness as an employee of the school board;

       * * *

       (i) Has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules; . . .

53. Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, listing certain principles of professional conduct for individuals in the education profession in Florida, reads as follows:

    
    

    1. Obligation to the student requires that the individual:

       1. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety.

    
    

54. With regard to Petitioner's allegation that Respondent has proven to be incompetent to teach or perform duties as an employee of the public school system or to teach or to operate a private school, it is determined that the proof establishes the veracity of this allegation. In spite of assistance, Respondent has repeatedly shown her incompetence and inability to provide the expected level of education and instruction to students or to perform her duties as required.

    
    

55. Considering Respondent's personal conduct in the classroom, it is determined that Respondent has also seriously reduced or destroyed any possible effectiveness she may have as a teacher in the school system for Duval County.

    
    

56. Respondent's violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in contravention of Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, is also established. Through her inaction, Respondent permitted chaotic and dangerous activities to occur in her classroom which endangered the health and welfare of her students. Respondent's actions were inappropriate to the educational environment that Respondent was duty bound to foster.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 231.28(1)(b), Section 231.28(1)(f), and Section 231.28(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as a result of her violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and permanently revoking her teaching license.

DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 11th day of December, 1995.

DON W. DAVIS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1995.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-2937

In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties.

Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted.

3. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary.

4.-13. Accepted, but not verbatim.

14. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 15.-22. Accepted, not verbatim.

23. Accepted, as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 24.-34. Accepted, not verbatim.

35. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 36.-39. Accepted, not verbatim.

40. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 41.-50. Accepted, not verbatim.

51. Accepted as to first sentence, remainder unnecessary. 52.-57. Accepted, not verbatim.

58.-63. Incorporated by reference. 64.-72. Adopted, not verbatim.

Respondent's Proposed Findings

Respondent submitted a document consisting of 10 numbered pages. The contents of the document consisted of unnumbered paragraphs full of rambling and sometimes nonsensical statements. Respondent's proposed findings are rejected as violative of procedural requirements for submittal of proposed findings and not relevant to this proceeding.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Education

Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

Clementine God

a/k/a Clementine Johnson 3104 West 12th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205

Dr. Larry Zenke Superintendent

Duval County School Board 1701 Prudential Drive

Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8154

Frank T. Brogan Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 95-002937

Orders for Case No: 95-002937