STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 00-2666
)
ROBERT F. WARD, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on December 7 and 8, 2000, and on January 11, 2001, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
For Respondent: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire
400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue presented is whether Respondent's employment by the School Board should be terminated.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By letter dated June 22, 2000, the School Board advised Respondent that he was being suspended from his employment as a teacher and that dismissal proceedings were being initiated against him. Respondent timely requested an evidentiary hearing regarding the allegations against him, and this cause was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the evidentiary proceeding.
The School Board presented the testimony of Willie J. Harris, Sr.; William F. Rose; Denise Franz; Marilyn Morning; Courtney Daniels; Alfred Williams; Madrice Thomas; Maria T. Kerrick; Stephen P. Kerrick; Christina Thomas; Dominique Lee; Thomasina O'Donnell; Laurice Edwards; Mamie Love;
Neville Francis; Liliane Delbor; Carla Rivas; and Mona Bethel Jackson. The Respondent Robert F. Ward testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Richard Ward,
Mike Roseman, Carrie B. Harris Johnson, Peter Faulkingham, and Georgina Ruiz. Additionally, the School Board's Exhibits numbered 1-19, 21-26, 28-56; Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1,
3, 4, 6-9, 11-14; and Joint Exhibit numbered 1 were admitted in evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material hereto, Respondent Robert F. Ward was employed by the School Board as a teacher and was assigned
to Richmond Heights Middle School, pursuant to a professional service contract.
Willie Harris was the principal of Richmond Heights from 1988 to 1995. During those years, Harris gave Respondent verbal directives to follow School Board rules concerning the discipline of students. As punishment, Respondent inappropriately used excessive writing and standing and inappropriately placed students outside the classroom. Each time Respondent was warned that he was violating School Board rules in his methods of disciplining students, he would stop using those methods for a while but would then return to those methods and be warned again. Harris found it necessary to counsel Respondent every year.
Principal Harris learned that Respondent responded better to male authority figures than to female authority figures. He, therefore, gave Respondent directives himself or through male administrators.
Mona Bethel Jackson became the principal of Richmond Heights in July 1997.
On October 2, 1998, Denise Franze, a parent, submitted a written complaint to Principal Jackson concerning Respondent's behavior at the school's Open House because Respondent appeared to be a very angry person. He spent the entire time that he met with her and other parents complaining about the school. She
requested that her child be transferred out of Respondent's class. Respondent wrote her a very insulting, unprofessional response letter. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system.
On November 17, 1998, Respondent left his class unsupervised, and two students became involved in a fight. Respondent was directed to properly supervise his class and was directed not to place any students outside his class unsupervised.
At a faculty meeting on January 13, 1999, Principal Jackson reviewed School Board policies prohibiting inappropriate language/teacher conduct. At a faculty meeting on February 16, 1999, Jackson reviewed School Board procedures regarding the supervision of students.
On March 26, 1999, student D. L. was being disruptive.
Respondent told her to go outside the classroom. Because it was raining, D. L. refused to leave. Respondent again ordered her to go outside and called her "dumb." He then left his class unsupervised to deliver a memorandum regarding D. L.'s behavior to the school administrators. An assistant principal directed Respondent not to leave his class unsupervised.
On March 30, 1999, Respondent was inside his newly- assigned portable classroom, by himself, writing on the board. An assistant principal asked Respondent where his students were,
and Respondent answered that he did not know. Some of Respondent's students were found outside the portable classroom unsupervised, and others were found in the auditorium also unsupervised.
Also on March 30, Respondent used the words "hell" and "damn" while aggressively reprimanding D. L., shouting at her, and shaking his fingers in her face. Respondent was reminded that School Board rules prohibit unseemly conduct and the use of abusive and/or profane language in the presence of students.
On April 1, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was conducted with Respondent to address his failure to supervise his class, his inappropriate reprimand of a student, his lack of emergency lesson plans, and related matters. As a result of the conference, Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in professional responsibilities and was provided with a prescription to address his deficiencies. The prescription was to be completed by
June 16, 1999. If done properly, the prescription should have taken no more than three weeks to complete.
At the conference, Respondent was also directed to follow school procedures for the removal of disruptive students from class, to not leave students unsupervised at any time, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, to prepare lesson plans each day, to replenish emergency lesson plans, and to exercise the best professional
judgment and integrity. He was warned that failure to comply with these directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. Respondent was given a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule and the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida.
On April 22, 1999, Respondent failed to report to the media center at the conclusion of a teacher workshop as directed in writing prior to the workshop and, again, at the beginning of the workshop.
Respondent's annual evaluation for the 1998/99 school year was unsatisfactory due to Respondent's deficiencies in the area of professional responsibility.
On June 16, 1999, Respondent's prescriptive activities were deemed unacceptable because they were careless, sarcastic, and unprofessional. Respondent admits that the prescriptive work he turned in to Principal Jackson was inappropriate. Respondent did not take his prescriptive activities seriously and did not attempt to benefit from them. On June 18, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to re-do his prescriptive activities and turn them in by October 1, 1999.
Because Respondent ended the school year in an unacceptable status, his salary was frozen and he was precluded from summer school employment.
Respondent assigned two students to detentions to be served before school on September 15 and 16, 1999. The students arrived at approximately 7:15 a.m. both days. At 8:00 a.m., Respondent had not yet arrived to supervise them on either day. When the bell rang at 9:00 a.m. to begin the school day, Respondent was still not there. One child's grandmother, who was concerned about the children not being supervised, complained to the school administrators.
September 20, 1999, was a teacher planning day.
Respondent was not present during his assigned work hours,
8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. An "all call" for him was made over the public address system at 9:28 a.m., which went throughout the school. Respondent did not respond. An assistant principal checked his classroom, but Respondent was not there. She was unable to locate his car in the parking lot, and he had not signed the attendance roster. When Respondent arrived at approximately 10:00 a.m., he told Principal Jackson that he was not in the building because he had stopped at Publix. At the final hearing, Respondent testified that he was probably in the wood shop working on a personal project during his work hours when the "all call" announcement was made for him.
Respondent failed to complete his prescription by the October 1, 1999, deadline.
A conference-for-the-record was held on that date to address parental complaints about Respondent. The complaints involved the unsupervised detentions, Respondent's requiring students to stand for almost two hours as punishment, and Respondent's requiring students to write essays as punishment. Parents also complained that Respondent punished the entire class when only one student misbehaved. Respondent admitted that he administered those punishments.
Respondent was directed to refrain from having students write essays for punishment, to refrain from having students stand for punishment, to refrain from assigning detentions when students would not be supervised by Respondent, to not expose students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement, and to follow all directives previously given to him.
Since Respondent was already on prescription and had failed to complete the prescriptive activities by the October 1 deadline, Principal Jackson directed Respondent to complete his prescription by January 26, 2000. Respondent was warned that failure to comply with the directives would be considered insubordination and could lead to further disciplinary action. He was again provided with a copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule.
On October 13, 1999, a conference was held with Respondent to discuss complaints from three parents. The complaints were that Respondent did not give clear directions to the students, that he had humiliated a student, that he required students to write essays as punishment, and that he was assigning math as punishment to his social studies students.
The parents complained that Respondent was using academics as punishment. Principal Jackson directed him to stop humiliating students, to stop intimidating students, and to provide in-class assistance. She also directed Respondent to stop assigning math and requiring students to write repetitive "lines" as punishment. She directed Respondent to correct his grading practices and to not retaliate against any students. Respondent was given copies of the letters from the parents. The math that was assigned by Respondent was not an appropriate assignment for a sixth-grade geography class. The interim progress reports Respondent gave to his students corroborate that Respondent was using essays as punishment.
After the conference, Respondent informed secretarial staff that he would be absent the next day, which was the day of the school's open house. Teachers have a contractual requirement to attend the school's open house. Respondent was not absent as a result of an illness or an emergency; rather, he simply decided to take a personal holiday on that day.
On October 19, 1999, Respondent responded to a parental complaint with a letter that was unprofessional, demeaning, and insulting. His letter did not reflect credit upon himself or the school system.
On October 29, 1999, Respondent was directed to report for a conference-for-the-record in the School Board's Office of Professional Standards on November 4, 1999.
On November 2, 1999, Respondent attended a round-table discussion with a counselor, the parents of a student, the student, and all of that student's teachers. Respondent was abrasive to the student, loud, and intimidating. The student, who was communicative and comfortable before Respondent arrived at the meeting, was uncomfortable and would not speak while Respondent was present. After Respondent arrived, the student "clammed up," and his eyes "teared up."
The next day, the student's father brought a letter to school reciting what had happened at the meeting and requesting that the student be transferred out of Respondent's class. The father and Respondent encountered each other in the school office, and Respondent invited the father to his classroom. While there, Respondent asked the father which grade the father wanted him to change. The father was surprised at Respondent's offer and explained to Respondent that he only wanted his son to get the grades his son deserved.
On November 4, 1999, Respondent requested to leave school for a dental emergency. Since his conference-for-the- record was scheduled for that day, an assistant principal directed Respondent to submit documentation from his dentist to her or to the principal's secretary. Respondent failed to follow this directive in a timely fashion. Respondent was subsequently directed to comply with all directives given by his immediate supervisors.
At Respondent's request, the conference-for-the-record was re-scheduled for November 9, and Respondent was directed to attend.
Respondent did not attend the November 9 conference, which was scheduled to discuss his non-compliance with site directives, his performance assessment, parental complaints, and student complaints. As a result of the conference-for-the- record, which consisted of a review of Respondent's file, Respondent was directed to comply with the Code of Ethics and the Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida, to provide an educational environment free from harassment and intimidation for all students, to not intimidate staff and faculty members, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to use specific grading practices.
He was warned that non-compliance with these directives could lead to further disciplinary measures. Respondent was provided
with another copy of the School Board's employee conduct rule, the Code of Ethics, and the School Board's violence in the workplace rule.
On December 15, 1999, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to review his performance assessments and future employment status. Respondent was reminded that he was in his second year of unacceptable performance status, which if not remedied, could lead to termination of his employment. He was also directed to comply with the directives previously given to him by the Office of Professional Standards. He was warned that non-compliance with the directives could result in disciplinary measures.
Respondent failed to comply with his prescriptive activities by January 26, 2000.
On February 7, 2000, at 3:39 p.m., Principal Jackson directed Respondent to submit his prescriptive activities directly to her within 24 hours. This directive was reasonable since the Principal had repeatedly directed Respondent to complete his prescriptive activities since April 1999. Respondent refused to sign that he had received a copy of the memorandum memorializing this directive even after being directed to sign it.
On February 8 Respondent did not come to work.
Another teacher gave Respondent's prescriptive activities to the
principal's secretary after 5:00 p.m. The principal did not accept the activities because neither of her directives had been followed: the prescriptive activities were not given directly to her, and they were turned in late.
On February 17, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with prescriptive deadlines and to review his record and his future employment status. Respondent was reminded that if his deficiencies were not remedied, he could lose his job. Respondent was told that his failure to comply with the directives concerning his prescription was considered gross insubordination. Respondent was directed to place his prescriptive activities in the principal's hand by 12:30 p.m. the next day, February 18. He was warned that non-compliance would result in further disciplinary action.
Respondent was absent from work on February 18, 2000, and did not attempt to give the documents to his principal until February 24 at 3:30 p.m. His principal refused to accept the package because it was so overdue.
On February 28, 2000, Respondent was directed to report to a conference-for-the-record at the Office of Professional Standards at 9:00 a.m. on March 14, 2000.
On March 13, 2000, Respondent was accused of battery and administering physically-demanding punishments to students.
The investigation revealed that Respondent was still using inappropriate punishment and profanity with his students. The incidents described in paragraphs numbered 40-48 below were discovered.
On March 2, 2000, Respondent called A. W. a "dummy," told him to "shut up," and ordered him to pull a heavy cylinder across the physical education field. The cylinder is a piece of equipment that is pulled by a tractor and used to flatten pavement. A. W. tried but could not comply. He was crying when he went to the school office, complaining that his hands hurt.
Respondent ordered other students to pull or push the cylinder as punishment.
Respondent also ordered students to push volleyball poles, or standards, which have tires filled with cement at the bottom. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to administering this punishment one time.
Respondent also ordered students to walk or run on the physical education field. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted to ordering students to walk to the far fence.
Respondent ordered students to do "push-ups." At the final hearing, Respondent admitted he used "push-ups" as punishment at the election of the student in lieu of other discipline.
Respondent ordered his students to move rocks located around his portable classroom.
Respondent called the students derogatory names, such as "stupid," "dumb, dumber, and dumbest," and "imbecile." He told them to "shut up." In speaking with a security monitor, Respondent referred to one of his students as "a piece of shit."
Respondent required his students to write essays and repetitive "lines" as punishment, which he admitted at the final hearing.
He made his students stand for lengthy periods of time as punishment. At the final hearing, Respondent asserted that he only made them stand for 30-45 minutes.
Respondent claims he was sending his students to "time-out" on the physical education field. Even if true, sending the students to the physical education field is not an appropriate time-out. It is humiliating and demeaning to the students, the students were not properly supervised, the students were not being educated, and the students were at risk of injury.
The procedure for disciplining students at Richmond Heights was to counsel the student after the first violation, make contact with the parents after the second violation, and write a referral to the administrators after the third time.
The School Board does not permit the physical punishment of students.
On March 14, 2000, Respondent was two hours late for the scheduled conference-for-the-record. By the time he arrived, the other participants had left. He was directed to report for a re-scheduled conference at the Office of Professional Standards on March 27, 2000.
On March 27, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address his non-compliance with site directives regarding prescription deadlines, student discipline, violation of the Code of Ethics and of professional responsibilities, violation of School Board rules, and his future employment status. Respondent was directed to comply with all previously-issued directives, to refrain from retaliating against students and staff, to use sound professional judgment at all times, and to comply with all School Board rules, the Code of Ethics, and the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida.
On May 15, 2000, Principal Jackson observed Respondent outside of his classroom, with his back to his class, talking on the telephone. The class was noisy. No one was supervising his students. He was again directed not to leave his classes unsupervised.
On May 22, 2000, a conference-for-the-record was held with Respondent to address the pending action by the School Board to take dismissal action at its meeting of June 21, 2000.
On June 21, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and initiated this dismissal proceeding against him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter hereof and the parties hereto. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Notice of Specific Charges filed in this cause contains five counts. Since Respondent held a professional service contract, he can only be terminated for just cause, pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Just cause, as defined by Section 231.36(1)(a), Florida Statutes, includes misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, and willful neglect of duty.
Count I alleges that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination and/or willful neglect of duties, as defined by Rule 6B-4.009(4), Florida Administrative Code. In that Rule, gross insubordination or willful neglect of duties are defined as ". . . a constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct order, reasonable in nature, and given by and with proper authority." The record in this cause reveals that Respondent is guilty of gross insubordination and willful neglect of duties by
his continuing and intentional refusal to comply with reasonable directives to submit his prescriptive activities, to supervise his students at all times, to follow School Board rules on discipline, and to refrain from using inappropriate forms of punishment. It is indisputable that Respondent's refusal to comply with directives was intentional and that the directives were reasonable.
Count II alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office in that his violations of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida were so serious as to impair Respondent's effectiveness in the school system. Respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida by failing to treat his students with dignity, by failing to use his best professional judgment, and by failing to maintain the respect of his students and their parents, in violation of Rule 6B-1.001(1), (2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Parents complained of Respondent's abusive and unfair treatment of their children, and students complained about Respondent's use of physical punishment and about Respondent calling them derogatory names.
Further, Respondent is guilty of violating the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession
in Florida by failing to protect students from conditions harmful to them, by unnecessarily embarrassing and disparaging his students, and by violating the students' right to be free from corporal punishment as mandated by School Board rule. Rule 6B-1.006(a), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code. There is no evidence that Respondent violated Rule 6B-1.006(g), which is an anti-discrimination provision.
Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, defines misconduct in office as a violation of the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida or the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida which is serious enough to impair a teacher's effectiveness in the school system. The School Board has proven that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in office, as alleged in Count II.
Count III alleges that Respondent is guilty of incompetency by his repeated failure to perform duties required of him. By his failure to complete his prescriptive activities, by his failure to refrain from inappropriate punishment of his students, by his failure to comply with contractual obligations, and by his failure to comply with directives given to him by school administrators and the Office of Professional Standards, Respondent has violated Rule 6B-4.009(1)(a)(1), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Notice of Specific Charges.
Count IV alleges that Respondent is guilty of conduct unbecoming a School Board employee, in violation of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21. Respondent's offer to change a student's grades for no reason, his insulting letters to parents, and his use of abusive and/or profane language to and about his students do not reflect credit upon Respondent and the school system.
The School Board has proven Respondent guilty of conduct unbecoming a School Board employee.
Count V of the Notice of Specific Charges alleges that Respondent has violated the School Board's rule prohibiting corporal punishment. School Board Rule 6Gx13-5D-1.07 provides that the use of corporal punishment is strictly prohibited. By requiring students to stand excessively, to run, to push heavy objects, and to do push-ups, despite repeated directives to stop those forms of punishment, Respondent has repeatedly and intentionally violated the School Board rule prohibiting the use of corporal punishment.
Respondent's argument that he should not have been suspended and should not be dismissed from his employment because the contractual steps for progressive discipline have not been followed by the School Board is without merit. The School Board's intended action follows many months of Respondent's refusal to comply with directives given to him by his principal and by the Office of Professional Standards. No
evidence was offered that there are any training courses or remedial courses for someone who simply refuses to carry out the instructions of his superiors or who refuses to comply with School Board rules, contractual obligations, and school site procedures.
Similarly, Respondent's assertion that he and Principal Jackson had a "personality conflict" is not supported by the evidence. Rather, the record reflects that Respondent simply wanted to do things his way and that School Board rules, administrative directives, and contractual obligations conflicted with Respondent's preferred methods of doing things. Therefore, he ignored them.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Notice of Specific Charges, affirming Respondent's suspension without pay, and dismissing Respondent from his employment with the School Board effective June 21, 2000.
DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LINDA M. RIGOT
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 18th day of May, 2001.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire
400 Southeast Eighth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire
School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Roger C. Cuevas, Superintendent School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 912
Miami, Florida 33132
Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
James A. Robinson, General Counsel Department of Education
The Capitol, Suite 1701 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 20, 2001 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 18, 2001 | Recommended Order | Dismissal appropriate for teacher who repeatedly failed to comply with directives and who, despite warnings, continued to punish his students by utilizing forms of corporal punishment. |
