STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 00-1114
) PRISCILLA G. STEPHENS KRUIZE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case in Miami, Florida, on September 15, 2000, before Florence Snyder Rivas, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of
Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Leslie A. Meek, Esquire
United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Coral Way
Miami, Florida 33129 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Notice of Specific Charges dated March 20, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated February 28, 2000, Miami-Dade County Superintendent of Schools, Roger C. Cuevas, notified Respondent Priscilla G. Stephens Kruize, a teacher at Gulfstream Elementary (Gulfstream), that her employment contract was terminated effective March 15, 2000.
Respondent timely asserted her statutory and contractual rights to contest the termination, requesting a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings ("the Division").
The School Board's Notice of Specific Charges was filed with the Division on March 22, 2000.
At final hearing, the parties invoked the Rule.
Thereafter, the School Board presented the testimony of Roxanne Barr, Gulfstream's principal; Cheryl Oglesby and Helene Chait, both assistant principals at Gulfstream in the 1999-2000 school year; Johnnie Farrington, Gulfstream's reading specialist; and Thomasina O'Donnell, district director in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Professional Standards. The School Board's Exhibits 1-13 were received into evidence without objection.
Respondent presented the testimony of her sister, Patricia Stephens Due; Linda Scheinhoft, a kindergarten teacher at Gulfstream; Sheila Bettencourt, whose child was a pupil of Respondent in 1989-90 and who served as a teacher's aide for
part of that year; and Pedro Melendez, whose son was in Respondent's second grade class in 1996-97. Respondent also testified in her own behalf.
Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 6 were admitted over a hearsay objection; (composite) Exhibit 7 was admitted into evidence without objection, except as to a letter dated February 23, 2000, which was admitted over a foundation objection.
Respondent's composite Exhibit 1 and Exhibits 4 and 9 were admitted without objection.
The Transcript of the formal hearing was filed with the Division on October 25, 2000. A timely unopposed motion to enlarge the time for the filing of proposed recommended orders was filed, and an enlargement of time granted through November 22, 2000. The parties' proposed recommended orders were submitted on that date, and have been carefully considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Since 1988, Respondent Priscilla Stephens Kruize ("Kruize") has been employed by the Miami-Dade County School Board teaching various grade levels at Gulfstream.
At all times during which Kruize has been so employed, teachers in the Miami-Dade County school system were evaluated annually pursuant to the Teacher Assessment and Development System ("TADS").
TADS was approved by the Florida Department of Education and is incorporated into the labor contract ("the contract") between the School Board and the United Teachers of Dade ("UTD").
The same TADS documents are used for all grade levels, subject areas, and teachers.
TADS purports to objectively measure 67 minimal behaviors necessary for teaching. TADS includes in its assessment criteria: preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques.
TADS observations and ratings are performed by school supervisory personnel. TADS observers are trained and certified.
The observer records deficiencies noted during the observation period, if any. In addition, the observer provides a so-called "prescription," or plan, for performance improvement in each of the areas in which deficiencies are noted. A post- observation conference is held with the teacher to discuss the prescription. The teacher has the right to provide a written response.
Under the School Board's contract with the UTD, the teacher is required to comply with the prescription plan,
performing all activities specified in the prescription and meeting the deadlines set forth.
Miami-Dade County's TADS assessment system was implemented to fulfill the legislative mandate of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes. The statute requires the superintendent of each of Florida's school districts to establish procedures for assessing, on an annual basis, the performance of all instructional personnel employed by the district.
At all times material hereto, TADS was used to evaluate Kruize's performance.
Miami-Dade County's TADS procedures include all of the statutorily required elements, and Kruize received the benefit of each of the statutory requirements, including notice in writing of each deficiency observed; assistance and recommendations designed to help correct those deficiencies; and a reasonable period of time in which to correct deficiencies.
As a result of certain amendments to Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, the School Board and UTD executed a Memorandum of Understanding on December 4, 1997, for the purpose of amending the TADS procedure to comply with new statutory requirements. Under the amended procedures, a meeting known as a conference for the record ("CFR") initiates a 90 calendar-day performance probation period.
From the beginning of her employment at Gulfstream through and including the 1998-99 school year, Kruize's TADS evaluations were satisfactory.
In the 1999-2000 school year, Kruize was assigned to second grade.
On October 11, 1999, Kruize was formally observed by Assistant Principal Cheryl Oglesby ("Oglesby").
This observation, along with one conducted on January 14, 2000, was identified in the March 20, 2000, Notice of Specific Charges ("Notice").
A November 22, 1999, observation was also conducted, but not specified in the March 20 Notice.
At the October 11, 1999, observation, Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning; knowledge of subject matter; classroom management; techniques of instruction; and teacher-student relationships. 1/
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she did not have a lesson plan that included objectives, activities, homework, and a way of monitoring pupil progress. Additionally, she failed to follow the lesson plan she did have.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she made a substantial factual error,
incorrectly explaining the concept of "blends." She also failed to be organized in her presentation.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she did not use appropriate verbal or non- verbal techniques to redirect the large number of students who were off-task or behaving inappropriately.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because her instruction was not appropriate to the needs and abilities of her students. She seemed unaware that
90 percent of the students were not following the lesson, the content of which was not age appropriate.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because she failed to encourage participation from students who were reluctant to participate; she was impatient with students who did not answer questions with the answer she wanted, and did nothing to deal with a student who was being rude to a classmate.
A timely post-observation conference for the record ("CFR") was held on October 19, 1999.
At that time, Kruize was advised that her performance was unacceptable.
In accordance with Section 231.29(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and with the TADS procedures approved by the Department of Education and embraced within the School Board's
contract with the UTD, Kruize was placed on a performance probation.
Kruize was provided with assistance in the form of a written prescription 2/ to aid her in improving her unsatisfactory performance.
The deadline for completing the prescriptive activities was November 17, 1999.
The prescription contained, as it must, specific recommendations with respect to each area of unsatisfactory performance and identified individuals and written materials available to Kruize to help her to comply with the prescription plan.
The assistance provided included a sample lesson plan format, the opportunity to consult with and/or observe a successful teacher, and the opportunity to consult with administrators and subject matter specialists for the purpose of obtaining help in addressing the cited weaknesses.
The prescription also included directions to submit written summaries of her observations of the methods used by a successful teacher in encouraging students to improve their behavior; directions to read specific pages from the TADS Prescription Manual and to complete certain activities in that Manual; and to otherwise submit written work done in accordance with the prescription to administrators for review and feedback.
Kruize was generally well liked by her colleagues, most, if not all, of whom stood ready to assist her.
The TADS observation/prescription form provides space in which a teacher may respond to alleged deficiencies. Kruize made no written response on this prescription, nor on the ones which would follow.
Kruize did observe the teacher designated to assist her in dealing with classroom discipline, but failed to perform any of the required reading and writing assignments prior to the November 17 deadline.
In accordance with "standard operating procedure" the deadline was extended by one day, and Kruize again did not comply.
Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the School Board and the UTD dated September 26, 1997, it was necessary for Gulfstream's administration to conduct an additional two TADS observations after the compliance deadline but before the 90-day probation period ended.
The required observations were conducted on November 22, 1999, and January 14, 2000.
On November 22, 1999, a second CFR was held. At this time, Kruize was placed on prescription relative to professional responsibilities, due to her failure to comply with the deadline contained in the October prescription.
In addition, Kruize was instructed to complete all prescriptive activities by January 22, 2000.
Also on November 22, 1999, the first of the two required follow-up TADS observations was conducted by Assistant Principal Helene Chait ("Chait"). A new prescription was issued for deficiencies in classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and assessment techniques.
Kruize was rated deficient as to classroom management because she did not have a schedule for the children; she was unable to control inattentive children; and was otherwise unable to use instructional time for instruction.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not appropriately lead-in, sequence, and close her lessons, and otherwise failed to provide context for lessons, and because she ignored, and in one case shunted off to the back of the room, a child who was isolated from the classroom activities.
Kruize was found defiencent in teacher-student relationships because she failed to address inappropriate behavior and failed to be cognizant of the individual needs of her students.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she failed to maintain a grade book which
documented student performance in the form of two grades per week, the minimum required.
Based upon the November 22, 1999, observation, a new prescription dated December 1, 1999, was issued directed to the specific deficiencies observed by Chait.
The prescription included specific directions, such as observing a designated teacher and noting at least one method used by the teacher to adjust a lesson to the needs of students.
Kruize was required to demonstrate that she understood what she had observed by writing a paragraph describing the method and submitting same to an assistant principal.
Various other reading, writing, and in-service assignments were prescribed, all in accordance with the TADS prescription manual and all appropriate to help Kruize to improve her classroom performance.
Kruize was given until January 4, 2000, to comply with the assignments contained in the prescription. Subsequently, the deadline for compliance was extended to January 5, 2000.
Kruize did not complete any of the tasks and requirements set forth in the December 1, 1999, prescription.
On January 7, 2000, a CFR was held at which time Kruize was informed that she had again failed to fulfill the prescription requirements.
In accordance with procedure, Kruize was given an extension, until February 9, 2000, to comply with her professional responsibilities prescription, i.e. to complete all prescriptive activities assigned in the original, October 21, 1999, prescription.
That deadline was subsequently extended to
February 10, 2000, which deadline was characterized by Barr as an "absolute final deadline."
Prior to setting the February 9 deadline, Barr inquired of Kruize how much additional time she would require to complete the prescription. Kruize told Barr the requirements were overwhelming and she couldn't do any of it.
A third and final required TADS observation was conducted by Barr on January 14, 2000.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because she was not in substantial compliance in following approved Miami-Dade County curriculum. For example, Kruize's lesson plans identified activities, not objectives as is required. As with her prior prescriptions, she refused to submit lesson plans for review each Friday, even though doing so
would have assisted her in identifying deficiencies while there was time to correct them.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in classroom management because she failed to control off-task behaviors.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she did not use methods appropriate to the needs and abilities of the students. For example, it was evident that she continued not to grasp the concept of sequencing lessons. Instead, she moved from one activity to another without employing standard techniques for ensuring at the beginning of a lesson that students understood what was expected of them, and at the end of the lesson reviewing the material so that she could be certain as to whether students had in fact mastered it.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in assessment techniques because she failed to maintain folders for each child, as was required. An examination of her grade book or her students' "cubbies" failed to reveal the child's progress because it was impossible to match the worksheets in the cubbies with the grades in her gradebook.
Kruize's failure to comply with prior prescription directives to provide to an assistant principal, for advance review, weekly written lesson plans which would include an assessment activity, made it impossible for Kruize to have the
feedback necessary to correct her deficiency in this and other documented areas.
As in previous prescriptions, Kruize was once again directed to develop and enforce a seating chart. She refused to take even this simple step to facilitate an organized classroom in which learning could take place.
Once again, Kruize was offered help in the form of specific resources, recommendations, and prescribed activities, all from the TADS Prescription Manual, and all intended to assist her in improving her classroom performance.
She was directed to read certain pages of the TADS manual; prepare and submit lesson plans which complied with approved formats and which would include assessment activities; outline introductions and closures for each lesson and attach same to her lesson plans; observe a designated teacher for purposes of recording proper methods of providing students with concrete examples and other methods of providing clarification to students.
Kruize was required to create student work folders which a third party could correlate not only to the lessons taught, but also to the grades reflected in her gradebook.
The time line in this prescription required that all prescribed activities be completed by February 9, 2000.
That deadline was also extended by one day, to February 10, 2000.
Kruize failed to comply with the third prescription in any way.
In addition to the prescriptive activities specified in each of the above-described prescriptions, Kruize was afforded additional assistance by Barr in order to help her correct her deficiencies.
For example, Kruize was afforded the opportunity to attend a best practices workshop for Miami-Dade County second grade teachers. The workshop was not limited to teachers who were on prescription. Instead, principals had discretion to pick which of their second grade teachers could attend. The purpose of the workshop was to enable teachers to share best practices and strategies in reading and planning.
Barr selected Kruize to attend because Barr felt it would be a very positive form of assistance.
The workshop sessions took place over a period of four days from October 1999 to January 2000.
With respect to the workshop session held on January 22, 2000, Kruize went to Chait's office in the morning to advise that she had forgotten that she was to attend that
day. Chait scrambled to cover Kruize's class so that she could attend.
Other specialized assistance was provided by Gulfstream's reading specialist, Johnnie Farrington ("Farrington").
Farrington's job is to assist all of Gulfstream's teachers in implementing a district-wide comprehensive reading curriculum. She provides basic training to all teachers in the comprehensive reading program and is also responsible for knowing which teachers require what types of additional assistance.
Kruize required more assistance than was needed by most other teachers. In addition, Kruize's students were not being provided at all times with each component of the comprehensive reading program.
Kruize was the only teacher for whom Farrington performed a full two-hour reading block classroom demonstration. Demonstrations are performed only in classrooms where the teacher is having difficulty with one or more components of the reading program; Kruize was the only teacher having difficulty with each component.
The assistance provided to Kruize through the various prescriptions and additional assistance offered were reasonable and appropriate to assist her to remedy her cited deficiencies.
By February 10, 2000, the 90-day performance probation period was over. In accordance with state law and the UTD
contract, a final "confirmatory" observation was required before action to terminate Kruize's contract could be commenced.
The purpose of the final observation was to document whether the deficiencies had or had not been corrected.
Kruize's confirmatory observation was conducted by Barr on February 11, 2000.
The observation revealed that by this time Kruize had essentially given up on her teaching. At the commencement of the observation, very little of substance was occurring in the classroom. Eight of the 22 pupils were doing nothing.
One of the non-participating students slept for 20 minutes until Kruize asked another student to wake him.
Kruize was rated unsatisfactory in every TADS category.
At some point following the completion of the TADS assessment process, Barr, acting on orders from a Ms. Waddell, the director of personnel for Region 6, offered Kruize a transfer to another school. Kruize refused the transfer.
The transfer offer was unusual, and perhaps unique.
Kruize claimed that Barr offered to wipe out all the prescriptions if Kruize accepted the transfer. Barr denies making such an offer. Neither side attempted to corroborate its version of the conversation in which the transfer was offered.
On February 14, 2000, Barr timely forwarded to the Superintendent of Schools her recommendation that Kruize's employment be terminated. Kruize was provided a copy of Barr's recommendation.
On February 28, 2000, the Superintendent timely notified Respondent that he was recommending to the School Board that her employment contract be terminated because she had failed to correct her performance deficiencies during her 90 calendar-day performance probationary period and because of gross insubordination.
Throughout this long and unpleasant process, Kruize suspected that, as an African-American woman, she was being victimized by a racist white principal. At a minimum, Kruize felt she was being set-up by a principal who disliked her for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of her teaching.
Kruize received satisfactory TADS assessments from 1988 when she was first employed at Gulfstream through Barr's first three years as Gulfstream's principal, 1996-97; 1997-98; and 1998-99.
Although the TADS evaluators gave Kruize passing scores during those three evaluation periods, Barr and other Gulfstream administrators personally observed significant deficiencies in Kruize's classroom performance.
Some parents asked that their children be assigned to other teachers. Two of the parents who complained about Kruize expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of African-American history she taught. 3/
Despite her concerns, Barr viewed a prescription as a drastic remedy which she declined to take before exhausting other avenues. Nevertheless, in 1999-2000, Barr placed three teachers besides Kruize on prescription. 4/
Relations between Barr and Kruize began to deteriorate at the end of the 1996-97 school year when Barr assigned Kruize to teach kindergarten in 1997-98. Barr hoped that Kruize's teaching would be more effective in a less demanding academic setting.
Kruize vehemently protested the transfer in the form of letters and phone calls to Barr's supervisors.
In the winter of 1999, Kruize and Barr again came into conflict when Barr questioned Kruize about a conversation she had with the PTA president regarding a contribution to an African heritage museum which Kruize operated on Gulfstream's campus.
Barr and Kruize's perceptions of how the conversation was received by the PTA president are diametrically opposed.
Kruize viewed Barr's inquiry as a racially motivated reprimand which she protested in at least two letters
distributed to Barr's supervisors. Kruize also insists that Barr was rude and angry and told her to "stop making white people feel guilty." Kruize took umbrage that Barr would question her at all about what she regarded as a private conversation between herself and the PTA president.
Barr denies being confrontational. She maintains that she was merely inquiring as to Kruize's version of what happened after the PTA president brought the conversation to Barr's attention.
Kruize's evidence fails to demonstrate any impropriety in Barr's inquiry regarding the communication between Kruize and the PTA president.
In the summer of 1999 Kruize vacationed in Ghana.
Although she was aware that air service between Ghana and the United States was offered only twice weekly, she had booked her return flight so close to the start of the new school year that if the flight were cancelled--as it was--it would be impossible for her to be back in time for the opening of school.
As a result of the flight cancellation, Kruize missed two teacher planning days. On those days, teacher training for a "Sing, Spell, Read and Write" program was conducted. Kruize had not prepared her classroom for the new children in advance of her departure for Ghana, and her students spent the first three days of the new school year without her.
Barr docked Kruize's pay for the days she was absent.
Kruize initiated a letter-writing campaign to protest that decision, and ultimately was reimbursed for that week's pay.
Throughout the 90-day probation period, Kruize clung to the belief, as she described it, that Barr was out to get her. Kruize sought solace from family, as well as letters of support from friends, parents of former students, and colleagues in the system.
None of the individuals who wrote letters or testified on her behalf had any personal knowledge of her teaching in 1999-2000, and none was qualified in the TADS methodology. 5/
Kruize's attitude toward the 90-day probation period was one of denial. She refused on several occasions to sign for receipt of various documents provided to her as part of the TADS process. She believed herself to be a good teacher and refused to take any of the prescribed corrective actions because she did not believe in the legitimacy of the TADS process, as applied to her by Barr.
The School Board, through its duly-designated representatives at Gulfstream, appropriately applied the TADS procedures to Kruize, and has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kruize's performance in the 1999-2000 school year was unsatisfactory.
The School Board has failed to prove gross insubordination by a preponderance of the evidence.
There is no evidence that racial animus or personal hostility on Barr's part played any role in the application of the TADS process to Kruize.
The School Board has met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Kruize failed to perform in a satisfactory manner and failed to correct her deficiencies by the close of her 90-day performance probationary period.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 231.29, Florida Statutes.
Section 231.29, Florida Statutes, establishes a process for the evaluation of instructional personnel and requires that an employee who is performing unsatisfactorily be placed on a 90-day probation. If the employee fails to correct deficiencies within that probationary period, termination of employment is appropriate.
Because the School Board seeks to dismiss Kruize from her employment, it has the burden of proving its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Kruize offered no evidence which would cast doubt upon the bona fides of the process by which she was terminated. She did not challenge the credentials of the TADS-certified personnel who conducted the observations. She did not assert that the assistance proffered to her was a sham.
Kruize admitted that she made no effort to follow the prescriptions because "it was overwhelming" and "too much."
To the contrary, as a matter of law, the prescribed activities were reasonable and entirely appropriate to Kruize's documented deficiencies. The governing statute and the UTD contract authorize, indeed, require, the School Board, through TADS-certified administrators at the school level, to offer a deficient teacher a menu of specific self-improvement tasks and assignments of precisely the types and quantities contained in Kruize's prescriptions.
In her proposed recommended order, Kruize for the first time asserts that the School Board may not terminate her because the Notice of Specific Charges did not refer to the November 22, 1999, classroom observation.
Kruize relies upon cases 6/ which stand for the well-settled proposition that a state agency may not impose penalties or discipline upon an individual who was not afforded reasonable notice of the charges against her.
It is, of course, not enough to afford the teacher threatened with termination a hearing. It is a basic element of due process that the teacher be provided, in advance of the hearing, a written notice of the alleged grounds for dismissal. Although the notice "need not be set forth with the technical nicety or formal exactness required of pleadings in court," it should "specify the [statute,] rule, [regulation, policy, or collective bargaining provision] the [district school board] alleges has been violated and the conduct which occasioned [said] violation." Jacker v. School Board of Dade County,
426 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)(Jorgenson, J.
concurring).
Further, the teacher's dismissal may be based only upon the grounds specifically alleged in the written notice. See Lusskin v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 731 So. 2d
67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Klein v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 625 So. 2d 1237,(Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The record in this case amply demonstrates that the School Board is well within the bounds of due process.
Kruize does not claim, nor could she, that she was surprised or prejudiced in any way by evidence of the November 22, 1999, observation.
Petitioner's Exhibit 4, the exhibit documenting the November 22 observation, was received into evidence without objection by counsel for Kruize. School Board witnesses testified extensively about the November 22 observation. Kruize's counsel did not object to that line of questioning in general. Neither did she object to specific questions on the grounds that the observation had not been cited in the Notice.
Kruize was afforded a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the School Board's witnesses with regard to their testimony about that observation, as well as the ones set forth in the Notice. Again, counsel made no protest or claim of surprise or prejudice. In fact, she elected not to challenge in any meaningful way the veracity of the observations recorded by each of the TADS observers, either through cross-examination of School Board witnesses, or in her own testimony.
A timely objection to the use of the November 22 observation would have yielded Kruize, at most, the granting of a motion to dismiss without prejudice to the School Board to amend the Notice.
But Kruize made no objection. Instead, she tried the November 22 observation by consent, and cannot now demand "formal exactness."
The record demonstrates that Kruize was not surprised nor prejudiced in any way by the School Board's failure to cite the November 22 observation in the Notice.
The School Board proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, compliance with all material elements of Section 231.29, Florida Statutes.
At final hearing, Kruize's primary legal argument was that after a decade of satisfactory performance reviews, the School Board had waived its right to terminate her.
Kruize has not cited, and the undersigned's research does not reveal, any case in which a School Board was prohibited from applying a state-approved annual review procedure to terminate a teacher on the grounds that the teacher has passed one or more prior annual reviews.
Inherent in the very union contract and statutory scheme which governs these proceedings is the notion that Florida's public school teachers do not enjoy tenure, or a lifetime appointment. Rather, each and every teacher must prove himself each and every year under the standards then lawfully in place.
In Miami-Dade County, those standards are set forth in the TADS evaluation system. In Miami-Dade, and in other Florida communities employing other state-approved evaluation
tools, teachers employed longer than Kruize have been terminated for performance deemed inadequate by the current administration.
Kruize is a woman of impressive bearing, with a considerable cadre of admirers and supporters. There is a terrible sadness to being told, after ten years in the same work environment, that one's services are no longer required.
But behind the statutory scheme is the strong public policy that teachers must keep up with the times. Kruize's opinion that she was a good teacher and that Barr's motives were improper does not give her the right to refuse to participate in the TADS process.
The demands made upon Kruize during the 90-day probation period were reasonable, and she was not free to ignore those demands simply because they had never been made of her before.
Nor does the School Board's proffered transfer to another school bar the Board from terminating her contract. The fact that a transfer was offered does not, standing alone, rebut or disprove the allegations of the administrative complaint.
Kruize's defense also focused on two theories relating to a "personality conflict" with Barr.
Kruize contends that the TADS process was initiated against her in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights, i.e. her letter-writing campaigns in which she
protested various personnel decisions made by Barr. She also maintains that Barr's decisions with which she disagreed were motivated at least in part by racial prejudice.
No authority was cited by Kruize for the proposition that Barr's personal animus toward Kruize, if any existed, would constitute a defense to termination when, as in this case, the substantive and procedural requirements have otherwise been fulfilled.
Four professionals other than Barr all testified to numerous specific examples of Kruize's deficient teaching, and her noncompliance with all of her reasonable TADS prescriptions.
Kruize had no legal justification for her failure to comply with her TADS prescriptions. The School Board has fully justified its termination of Kruize on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance specified in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges.
In Count II of the Notice, the School Board charged Kruize with gross insubordination. "Gross insubordination" is "defined by rule of the State Board of Education," specifically Rule 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code, as "a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority."
With respect to the requirement that the refusal be "intentional, the First District Court of Appeal, in Forehand v.
School Board of Gulf County, 600 So. 2d 1187, 1193 (Fla. 1st DCA
1992), has stated:
The word "intent" is used throughout the Restatement of Torts, 2nd, to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it. Sec. 8A. Black's Law Dictionary 727 (5th Ed. 1979). An "intentional" act has been defined as one "done deliberately." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 683 (New College ed. 1979).
Kruize's behavior does not fit this definition.
Kruize has an unshakeable faith that she was a good teacher. She rejected all objective evidence that this was not just some bad dream from which she would awaken. She was never abusive or rude to administrators; rather she believed that "nothing would come of" the TADS process.
The School Board's attempt to label Kruize as insubordinate cannot be reconciled with its willingness to employ her at a different school.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board issue a final order terminating Respondent's employment for unsatisfactory performance as set forth in Count I of the Notice of Specific Charges, and dismissing the charge of gross insubordination contained in Count II.
DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2000, in
Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2000.
ENDNOTES
1 Throughout this Recommended Order, an effort is made to note the reasons stated by the TADS observers for each unsatisfactory rating in sufficient detail to inform the reader of the nature of the problem. However, the undersigned did not attempt to transcribe each and every one of the observers' findings.
2 Again, the undersigned has not transcribed each type of aid proffered in the prescription(s), but has listed examples sufficient to inform the reader of the nature and quantity of assistance made available.
3 Other evidence suggested that these parents were concerned that Kruize was teaching African-American history at the expense of the alphabet and numbers, and that their children were falling behind. Neither side presented any evidence upon which findings could be made regarding how many children were transferred out of Kruize's class, or the reasons for the transfer(s). Therefore, testimony about alleged parental concerns about Kruize has been disregarded by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
4 Of the four teachers put on prescription, two , including Kruize, were African-American. There was no testimony as to the race or ethnicity of the other two. One of the four was able to fulfill the TADS prescription requirements and his or her
contract was renewed, but there was no testimony as to the race, or ethnicity of that individual.
5 In fact, Kruize offered not a single witness, other than herself, with personal knowledge of any fact relevant to the administrative complaint or the asserted defenses.
6 Actually, Kruize cited only one case, Texton v. Hancock, 359 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). However, numerous cases hold that an agency may not surprise the respondent at final hearing with proof of violations which were never alleged in the charging documents.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Leslie A. Meek, Esquire United Teachers of Dade 2929 Southwest Third Avenue Coral Way
Miami, Florida 33129
Pamela G. Kruize
15801 Southwest 102nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33157
Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132
Honorable Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education
The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education
The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 14, 2001 | Agency Final Order | |
| Dec. 05, 2000 | Recommended Order | Respondent`s termination for unsatisfactory performance upheld; School Board did not demonstrate gross insubordination. |
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs REINA N. OBREGON, 00-001114 (2000)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs CHARLIE L. BRADLEY, 00-001114 (2000)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs PAMELA KAY PORTILLO, 00-001114 (2000)
MONROE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs DONNA DEFORREST, 00-001114 (2000)
DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. JESSIE M. MITCHELL, 00-001114 (2000)
