STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
LEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
BARRY NEVINS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 05-2190
)
)
)
)
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on November 15, 16, 30, and December 1, 2005, in Fort Myers, Florida, before Lawrence P. Stevenson, the designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire
School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916
For Respondent: Robert J. Coleman, Esquire
Coleman & Coleman Post Office Box 2089
Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether Petitioner, the Lee County School Board, may terminate Respondent's employment as an instructional
employee based upon the conduct alleged in the Petition for Termination of Employment.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On May 5, 2005, the Lee County School Board (the "School Board") filed a Petition for Termination of Employment (the "Petition") of Respondent, setting forth the allegations justifying the termination of Respondent's employment as an instructional employee. The Petition specifically alleged that Respondent is incompetent to perform his duties as a teacher and that incompetence constitutes "just cause" for termination pursuant to Section 1012.33, Florida Statutes (2005)1 and/or Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009.
On May 4, 2005, in anticipation of the Petition, Respondent's counsel filed a letter contesting the charges and requesting a formal hearing. At a meeting on June 14, 2005, the School Board voted to suspend Respondent without pay and benefits pending termination of his employment. On June 20, 2005, the School Board referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") for the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and the conduct of a formal hearing.
This matter was originally scheduled for final hearing on September 8 and 9, 2005. The hearing was continued once before commencing on November 15 and 16, 2005. The two days scheduled
for the hearing proved insufficient, and the hearing was continued on November 30 and December 1, 2005.
At the hearing, the School Board presented the testimony of Georgianna McDaniel, its director of personnel services; Ronald Pentiuk, who during the time period relevant to this proceeding was the director of the Lee County High Tech Center Central ("High Tech Central"), the school at which Respondent taught; Susan Cooley, assistant director for curriculum at High Tech Central; William McCormick, assistant director for finance at High Tech Central; and Suzanne Roshon, coordinator for technical and career education for the School Board. The School Board's Exhibits 1 through 22 were admitted into evidence at the final hearing.
Respondent testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of Dennette Foy, district coordinator for business and technology programs at Edison College, where Respondent also works; Donna Mutzenard, president of the Teachers Association of Lee County; Rae Nicely, former financial aid administrator at High Tech Central and currently a teacher at Alternative Learning Center West, a public school in North Fort Myers; Richard Kennedy, at relevant times the administrator of a special needs program for at-risk middle school students in which Respondent participated; Greg Meisel, Respondent's assistant in a computer lab at Edison College; Marie Snow, a
career specialist at High Tech Central; and Richard Oglesby and Keith McNeil, students in Respondent's computer electronics technology ("CET") class at High Tech Central. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 32 were admitted into evidence.
The final corrected volume of the four-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed at DOAH on January 13, 2006. On
January 4, 2006, the School Board filed an unopposed request for an extension of the time for filing proposed recommended orders, which was granted by Order dated January 5, 2006. In accord with the Order granting extension, both parties filed their Proposed Recommended Orders on January 20, 2006.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent has been employed by the School Board as an instructional employee since August 21, 1998. He is a member of the Teachers Association of Lee County ("TALC"), the collective bargaining unit for instructional personnel, is covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board and TALC, and holds a professional service contract with the School Board
At the time of his hiring, Respondent was assigned to the dropout prevention program at Academy High School, where he taught for one year. On August 17, 1999, Respondent began teaching at High Tech Central, a vocational/technical school. High Tech Central's student body includes both high school
students and adults seeking to obtain job skills. A large percentage of the adults attending High Tech Central receive assistance from the Pell grant program, a need-based undergraduate financial aid program funded by the federal government.
During the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years, Respondent taught the second semester of the personal computer ("PC") support services class, sharing a large classroom with Beth Ames, the teacher who taught the first semester of the same class. During the 2001-2002 school year, Respondent taught a web design class. During the 2002-2003 school year, Respondent taught CET in a co-teaching arrangement with Jeff Ledger, who had taught the CET class for the previous six years. At the end of that school year, Mr. Ledger moved to Ohio. From the
2003-2004 school year until the time of his suspension, Respondent alone taught the CET class.
Throughout his period of employment with the School Board, Respondent also taught computer, business, and accounting courses as an adjunct professor at Edison College in Fort Myers.
Until the 2003-2004 school year, Respondent received nothing less than satisfactory performance assessments. For the 1998-1999 school year, his performance was graded as satisfactory in each of the twelve criteria listed on the performance assessment form.2 His assessor at Academy High
School wrote in the comment section of the assessment that
"Mr. Nevins is well versed in technology and vocational skills," and commented favorably on Respondent's flexibility and cooperativeness in meeting the needs of students.
For the 1999-2000 school year, Respondent's performance in teaching the PC support services class at High Tech Central was graded as exceeding expectations in five of the twelve criteria listed in the performance assessment form and as meeting expectations in the remaining seven criteria. High Tech Central's assistant director Susan Cooley prepared the assessment and wrote that Respondent "has done an outstanding job with collaboration with teachers and staff here at [High Tech Central]. He is very creative and strives to produce projects and alternative techniques for student achievement."
For the 2000-2001 school year, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in five of the twelve criteria and as meeting expectations in the remaining seven criteria. Ronald Pentiuk, the director of High Tech Central, prepared the assessment and offered no written comments.
For the 2001-2002 school year, when Respondent moved from PC support services to web design, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in three of the twelve criteria, and as "meets expectations" in the remaining nine criteria. Mr. Pentiuk commented that "Mr. Nevins has performed
in an outstanding manner-- really super job in preparing the new CET lab."
For the 2002-2003 school year, when Respondent moved from web design to co-teaching the CET class with Mr. Ledger, Respondent's performance was graded as exceeding expectations in three of the twelve criteria and as meeting expectations in the remaining nine criteria. Mr. Pentiuk performed this assessment and offered no additional written comments.
For the 2003-2004 school year, when Respondent began to teach the CET class alone, Respondent received a grade of meeting expectations in eight criteria. In the criteria titled "Planning for Student Achievement" and "Subject Matter," Respondent received a grade of "exceeds expectations." In the criteria titled "Assessment of Student Achievement" and "State, School & District Requirements," Respondent received a grade of "below expectations," meaning that his performance was unsatisfactory. Mr. Pentiuk performed this assessment and offered no additional written comments.
The record established at the hearing shows that High Tech Central's administrators expressed concern about Respondent's teaching and record keeping practices as early as May 2002. Ms. Cooley testified that, at the conclusion of the 1999-2000 school year, Ms. Ames had approached her with a request that she be permitted to teach both sections of the PC
support services class alone, rather than splitting the course with Respondent. Ms. Ames stated that she was doing all the work anyway and felt it would be better for the students if she handled the class without Respondent. Ms. Cooley left matters as they were for the 2000-2001 school year, but then moved Respondent into the web design class for the 2001-2002 school year.
As the 2001-2002 school year progressed, Ms. Cooley became concerned that Respondent was not properly tracking the progress of his students. She recognized that this was the first time that High Tech Central had offered a web design course and there would be a "learning curve" for everyone involved, including the instructor. Thus, the school's administration gave Respondent time over the course of the school year to work out the problems.
In particular, Ms. Cooley was concerned that Respondent was not using lesson plans or a "career map" in his class. Each technical program at High Tech Central consists of a progression of competencies. To complete the program, or to pass from one phase of the program to the next, a student must demonstrate mastery of a certain set of competencies. An "occupational completion point" ("OCP") is a cluster of related competencies that a student is able to demonstrate and perform. A career map is a written chart completed by the instructor and
used by the student to track the student's progress through the OCPs of a given program.
Ms. Cooley testified that during the spring of 2002, three or four students in Respondent's class came to her to complain that there were no lectures or structured class work in the web design class and that the students in the class were left to do whatever they wanted.
In early May 2002, a substitute teacher in Respondent's class came to Ms. Cooley to complain that Respondent left no lesson plan, despite the fact that his absence had been scheduled. The substitute teacher
told Ms Cooley that the web design students appeared to be doing as they pleased in the class, including playing games on their computers.
On May 5, 2002, Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick had a meeting with Respondent to discuss the lack of structure, discipline, and record keeping in Respondent's class.
Ms. Cooley stated that every time she talked with him, Respondent would say he was going to do things better. Her concern was that she never saw any evidence of Respondent's performance matching his words.
When queried as to the positive performance assessment authored by Mr. Pentiuk for the 2001-2002 school year,
Ms. Cooley testified that she and Mr. Pentiuk had "agreed to
disagree" about Respondent. Mr. Pentiuk was a "very, very accommodating" and "very, very patient" administrator who believed that Respondent was trying to do things the right way.3 Ms. Cooley had many conversations with Mr. Pentiuk about Respondent, but Mr. Pentiuk's philosophy was to give Respondent time, talk to him, and let him try to turn things around.
Mr. Pentiuk also believed that Respondent's contacts in the business community were an asset to his students.
Mr. Pentiuk testified that, due to lack of enrollment in the web design class, Respondent was moved into the CET class with Mr. Ledger for the 2002-2003 school year. Ms. Cooley testified that the administration believed that Respondent and Mr. Ledger could share each other's expertise in the same class for one year, then the CET program could be expanded by splitting it into two classes.
The Department of Education standards state that the purpose of the CET program is to prepare students for employment or advanced training in the computer electronics industry. The Department's curriculum framework set forth the program structure as follows:
This program is a planned sequence of instruction consisting of five occupational completion points as follows: (1) End User Support Technician, Level I Support Technician, Help Desk Specialist; (2) PC Electronics Installer; (3) PC Technician, Field Technician, Level II Support
Technician; (4) Computer Support Specialist, Level I LAN Technician, Field Service Technician; (5) PC/Network Technician (Digital Electronics Repairer, proposed name change for 2005). When the recommended sequence is followed, the structure will allow students to complete specified portions of the program for employment or to remain for advanced training. A student who completes the applicable competencies at any occupational completion point may either continue with the training or become an occupational completer.
The courses [sic] content includes, but is not limited to, installation, programming, operation, maintenance and servicing of computer systems; and diagnosis and correction of operational problems in computers arising from mechanical, electrical or electronics, hardware, and software malfunctions.
The course content includes, but is not limited to, communication, leadership skills, human relations, and employability skills; and safe, efficient work practices.4
Respondent testified that things went well with Mr. Ledger because their skills complemented each other.
Mr. Pentiuk testified that Respondent told him that Mr. Ledger provided most of the computer training in the CET class, and Respondent mostly taught employability skills, such things as the ability to get and keep a job, communication skills, and getting along with co-workers. Respondent agreed that he taught these employability skills, but emphasized that he also taught operating systems, and other software, whereas Mr. Ledger was a "hardware guru."
At the end of the 2002-2003 school year, Mr. Ledger resigned his position and moved to Ohio, leaving Respondent as the sole instructor in the CET program. Upon learning that he would be teaching the class alone, Respondent told Mr. Pentiuk that he would require a new co-teacher or at least an assistant for the class and that he would need help in "getting up to speed with the gap" in his teaching knowledge of computer hardware.
Mr. Pentiuk testified that Respondent also expressed insecurity about the returning students. Respondent feared they would be loyal to Mr. Ledger and would not accept Respondent as their sole teacher.
In light of Respondent's expressed uncertainty about teaching the CET class alone, Mr. Pentiuk had discussions with Respondent in June 2003 regarding Respondent's teaching alternatives for the upcoming 2003-2004 school year.
Mr. Pentiuk was interested in starting a business management and supervision program and moving Respondent into a teaching position in that program. However, this placement would have required Respondent to obtain state certification in business education at his own expense, and Respondent told Mr. Pentiuk he could not afford it because he was paying for a daughter to attend an Ivy League college.
Mr. Pentiuk sought the advice of Mr. McCormick regarding Respondent's situation. In an e-mail to Mr. Pentiuk dated July 8, 2003, Mr. McCormick wrote, in relevant part:
The tone of what [Respondent] is saying here [in an e-mail exchange with Mr. Pentiuk] indicates to me that giving him the CET class would be a recipe for disaster, especially given its current size. He is apparently looking for a way to continue doing not much of anything. For whatever reason, he does not believe he can handle the class or the curriculum by himself, even though that is what his current certification is in. I'm not sure about hiring him an assistant . . . even though Darryl is a good guy and I am sure he would be great with the students, I don't believe he has the technical background in networking that would be required. Any assistant teamed with Barry is going to end up doing the lion's share of the work, and I think that would be wrong-- especially if the assistant is not certified and qualified in this highly technical field.
I think the bottom line is that Barry only wants to teach the soft "business employability skills," and really has no interest in CET. If he wants to teach the business curriculums, he needs to get off the dime and get certified! That is his responsibility, not ours. The fact [that] he feels that "it is really not the right time" and that he "really can't afford it right now" is his concern, not ours. There has been, and continues to be plenty of opportunity for him to do this. It would seem to me that with his future employability in the balance, he would not be fighting us on this issue.
I don't know what else we can do to accommodate this teacher. If he is "uncomfortable" with either of the two
options you presented to him, then perhaps we should try to find a teacher elsewhere who can meet our needs. I know this sounds cold, but after all, the goal is to provide our students with the best possible instruction . . . not make sure that our teachers don't feel "uncomfortable." This guy needs to get real. We have gone way beyond what is fair in offering him these options. He needs to decide if he wants to work here or not.
My suggestion would be to place him in the business class this year, with the understanding that in order to maintain his teaching position, he must get certified in business, or at least be well on the way to getting certified, by next summer. In the meantime, we could advertise for a CET instructor who would be willing to take on the entire curriculum, not just the "employability skills." [ellipses in original]
Mr. Pentiuk replied to Mr. McCormick that he shared many of the same feelings. At the hearing, Mr. Pentiuk testified that his reply did not mean that he agreed Respondent was not "doing much of anything," but that he did have concerns about Respondent's ability to pick up the CET class and teach it alone.
Mr. Pentiuk ultimately did not follow Mr. McCormick's suggestion that Respondent be placed in the business class for the 2003-2004 school year, in part because the business class had not been advertised and the CET program had an ongoing enrollment. Mr. Pentiuk placed Respondent in the CET class, hoping that the training he had obtained in working with
Mr. Ledger, along with formal training at the Cisco Systems Networking Academy program in the fall of 2003, would enable Respondent to handle the program.
The School Board paid for Respondent to obtain Cisco training in Tampa and arranged for substitute teachers to take over the CET class on those days Respondent was in Tampa for training. Respondent completed the Cisco Certified Network Associate 1 ("CCNA"), Networking Basics, course of the Cisco Networking Academy Program on October 31, 2003. Respondent completed the CCNA 2, Routers and Routing Basics, course on December 9, 2003. Two more courses were required to obtain CCNA certification. Respondent testified that School Board policy required an instructor to take the first two courses then teach that material for a year before taking the second two courses and that he was never given the opportunity to complete the CCNA program.
Mr. Pentiuk testified that problems began in Respondent's class at the outset of the 2003-2004 school year. Several students approached Mr. Pentiuk with complaints about the quality of Respondent's teaching. One irate adult student told Mr. Pentiuk that he intended to leave the CET program because he was not getting his money's worth.5
Late in the fall of 2003, near the Christmas break, Mr. Pentiuk contacted Georgianna McDaniel, the School Board's
director of personnel services, to express his concerns that Respondent was not turning in his attendance records in a timely fashion, that Respondent did not have control of the students in his class, and that Respondent was not following the school's standard practices in preparing grades and documentation of his students' progress in the CET program. Ms. McDaniel directed Mr. Pentiuk to follow up on these matters and to note them on Respondent's final performance assessment for the school year.
Respondent conceded that during the 2003-2004 school year, he was getting up to speed on the technology that he was supposed to be teaching to the students and often had to write down their questions so that he could research them and come in with answers the next day.
In early 2004, the High Tech Central administration began to conduct informal observations of Respondent's class and to meet with him about his procedures, particularly as to taking attendance. Tracking attendance was a critical matter at High Tech Central because of the high percentage of its students who received Pell grants. Pell grants are calculated based on how many hours a student is in class, not merely on the number of days the student is present. Thus, teachers at High Tech Central were required not only to take attendance at the beginning of their classes, but to have students sign in and out
of the classrooms in order to track their activities throughout the day.6
On the morning of February 19, 2004, Ms. Cooley was working in the front office when Respondent phoned in to say that he was running late. Ms. Cooley said that she would open Respondent's classroom and substitute until Respondent arrived. In a statement dated November 30, 2004,7 Ms. Cooley described her experience in Respondent's class as follows, in relevant part:
While I was subbing in Barry Nevins' class one morning last year, as he was late coming to school, I noticed students were not focused on any assignments. I felt there was very little productive work being accomplished. One student pulled up the Internet and was reading current events; another one was checking the weather. I circulated to every student and simply asked what they were working on. Most students would responded [sic] they were working on projects. I asked if I could see the project information sheet, assignment sheet, project criteria sheet or rubric for the projects. None of the students had any written project direction sheets. I could not find any lesson plans or grade book.
Two students walked in after 8 a.m. I asked if they would go to the office for a tardy slip. They responded that Mr. Nevins gives them extra time to start class.[8] I noticed the lab was full of pop bottles, food wrappers, and trash.
While circulating, I asked each student if they had a career map or competency sheet. Not one student had a career map, assignment sheet, list of assignments, or any other tracking system. Students were not aware the program was divided into occupational
completion points. As I approached two high school students sitting in the back room, I asked what they were working on. I noticed a small book placed inside the large textbook. I asked to see the book, and it was a hackers handbook.[9] One student in particular stood up-- in my face-- and yelled at me. I felt threatened; I felt he was rude and disrespectful. I radioed for the Student Affairs Specialist to discipline the student.
Soon after the Student Affairs Specialist and this high school student left the room, Mr. Nevins arrived. I was scheduled to give an Employability Seminar to another group of students across campus, so I was in a hurry to leave Mr. Nevins' room. I thought he would have called me later in the day to find out what happened. He never talked to me until days later. He stated the students were upset and wanted to come talk to me. I told him I would be happy to schedule appointments for each one. He said they wanted to come as a class. I responded I felt it would be better to have a conversation with each student-- one on one; but, I never heard from Mr. Nevins about the students. I never received a copy of the letter until Ms. Garlock allowed me to read it last week.[10]
* * *
After this visit, I became very concerned about the lack of educational focus in the classroom. I visited his classroom a couple of weeks later, and I saw the same types of things happening. This time I asked
Mr. Nevins about my concerns, and his responses made me question classroom management skills, paperwork, curriculum, lesson plans, etc.
Every instructor has a student tracking system they use to maintain the data on each student. Whether they use competency lists,
career maps, list of class assignments, etc. Every teacher does it a little bit differently. I do become concerned when a teacher does not have a tracking system or it is not consistent for every student in the class . . . .
In a memorandum to Respondent dated February 26, 2004, titled "Classroom Management/Record Keeping Concerns,"
Ms. Cooley wrote as follows, in relevant part:
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize our conference held at 3:00 p.m. on February 20th, 2004 concerning issues related to your classroom management and basic record keeping practices. As you recall, Mr. Ronald Pentiuk, Director, High Tech Central, and Mr. Bill McCormick, Assistant Director, Operation, High Tech Central, also attended this meeting. During the conference, the following conduct was discussed:
Improper attendance documentation on student tardies and early releases.
Lack of up-to-date and complete career map documentation on each student.
Lack of complete and accurate lesson plans.
Lack of on task work demonstrated by students.
Non-enforcement of school policies evidenced by not beginning class on time and allowing students to arrive late without proper sign-in documentation.
I have reviewed your conduct as it relates to the established expectations as provided by our school's faculty handbook, our standard operating policies, and The School District of Lee County student attendance
policies. This information was provided to you during new teacher orientation and training, standard in-service session, and at the beginning of each academic year during the pre-school sessions.
I informed you that your conduct negatively impacted your students and our school in as much as inaccurate or incomplete recordkeeping and attendance documentation jeopardizes our ability to maintain federal Pell financial aid. This conduct also exposes the school to many unforeseen liabilities when we are unable to produce accurate student attendance records. And finally, non-enforcement of school policies on your part undermines the maintaining of good order and discipline throughout our campus by breeding contempt and noncompliance with school rules.
During the conference, I provided you with the following directive(s) and assistance to take effect on or before Monday,
February 23rd, 2004 and to continue throughout the remainder of the school year.
Use/set up a teacher hard-copy grade book using the materials given to you 3 weeks ago.
Keep accurate track of all tardies and early dismissals by documenting exact arrival and departure times.
Print out all daily lesson plans.
Update and maintain daily career maps for all students.
Monitor students for on task behavior and use of proper classroom materials.
I also informed you that your failure to comply with any of the above directives will result in another formal counseling meeting
and letter, as well as placement on intensive assistance.
In March 2004, the school's attendance secretary complained to Mr. McCormick that Respondent was not following the school's prescribed attendance procedure. On March 26, 2004, Mr. McCormick sent Respondent an e-mail reminding him of the correct procedure and directing him to follow it.
On March 30, 2004, the attendance secretary complained to Mr. McCormick that Respondent had not turned in his attendance sheets by 9:00 a.m., as required by school procedure. Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent, who wrote back to apologize, stating that he "got busy teaching a lesson and dealing with some interesting problems" and forgot to turn in his attendance.
On April 14, 2004, Mr. McCormick observed Respondent's class. The CET lab was a large L-shaped room, approximately 800 to 900 square feet. There was a central open area with computer tables and computers and four auxiliary rooms each sectioned off by a solid half-wall from the floor up to about waist-level and a chain link fence from the top of the half-wall to the ceiling. These auxiliary rooms were generally referred to as "cages."
The CET class was conducted for five hours each weekday from 8:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with a half-hour lunch break. The students were required to remain in the classroom at
all times, except during the lunch recess. There were rest rooms and a water fountain inside the CET classroom, and the school's administration expected that any short breaks from class work should take place inside the classroom.
After his observation, Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent with the following "feedback":
As I arrived at about 8:30, you were obviously involved in taking care of a student issue in your back cage. However, the majority of the remainder of the class did not appear to be actively engaged in much useful learning activity. A group of
5 students were huddled up to the front right of the class visiting with each other.
4 other students were on their computers. At least two of them did appear to be viewing the online Cisco curriculum, the other 2 seemed to be surfing the web.
2 other students were setting up one of the back cages that had been disturbed by the maintenance men who are fixing your counter tops.
At about 8:35 you assembled a group of students to the white board and began a discussion presentation on the different types of business models such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. . . .
You tried to engage the students in a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each. It did not appear to me that the students had any prior background prep on this subject such as a reading assignment. Although it could be argued that some knowledge of this topic might be useful to your students, I question the immediate relevancy of it given the wealth of more concrete and practical technical material available in the CET curriculum. I do commend you on getting the most out of what appeared to me to be a
group of disinterested and unengaged students. You did your best to try to keep their focus.
While you engaged these students in your discussion, two other students continued to work independently on their computers. I assume on the online curriculum. You also gave instructions to two other students to continue setting up the back cage.
The two students in the back cage did not continue to set up the cage as you had instructed, but instead sat down in the back corner by a computer. They positioned a CPU so that it hid the monitor from my view. It was obvious to me that they did not want me to see what they were doing, although mainly what they were doing was visiting. Shortly before I left, I walked back unexpectedly to them, and saw that the one on the keyboard was attempting to log into the computer as an "administrator" but apparently did not know the correct password. They said they were attempting to get the computer connected to a nearby switch or server.
Was this correct?
I concluded my observation of your class at about 9:15.
A few suggestions:
Prior to a discussion presentation, make sure to give a prior preparation assignment so that the students can participate more fully in the discussion.
If you are going to give a presentation on such a broad-based general knowledge topic such as the different types of business models, involve everyone in your class, regardless of their current place in the curriculum. There is no reason why the four other students should have been excluded from your discussion, even if they
were not in the curriculum group you had assembled.
Do not allow students to reposition computer equipment so as to mask observation of the monitors. Even if they were not up to anything inappropriate, it sure looked like it.
Give desk work requiring a written assignment when you are tied up with a student issue in your office-- or at any other time you want to refocus their attention. Something as simple as completing the questions at the back of chapter xxx in their textbook would at least keep them somewhat focused on something other than visiting with each other.
Focus your discussion presentations on the concrete technical material more directly relevant to the CET curriculum. Although what you covered does have some use and interest as background information, your time with the students in actual presentation should be devoted to your core curriculum material.
I know it is sometimes difficult and frustrating to have someone come into your class for 45 minutes and make a few critical comments and suggestions based on that brief visit. Please take them in the [spirit] they are intended... as observations and suggestions.
Later that day, Respondent sent the following response to Mr. McCormick's e-mail:
Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you put into this.
The student issue was quite urgent and unexpected. I had the class together and ready to go when [J.] showed up and we had to have the talk right away. It threw us
off considerably as did the fact that . . . we weren't sure whether the counter-top guys were coming back today or tomorrow.
Obviously the equipment they usually have to work with wasn't available. I purposely had a non-technical topic picked because I didn't know if I would have access to hardware for demonstration or practice.
Also, business ownership is part of our curriculum (16.06)[11] and a very important part. I like your idea of a reading assignment to go along with it. I'll have to find something at the right level.
The two students in the back were setting up the Cisco equipment (yes-- that involves connecting to the switches and routers) and were having some password issues with the computers (nothing major-- just a bit confusing). They would have been administrators on those computers. By the way, the computers in the cages don't go to the network or the Internet so they are "relatively" low risk. I also purposely wanted those low powered computers for this because they also won't run any popular games. Not much harm they can do in there. Interesting note-- I always tell them that hiding monitors is the quickest way to get me to come over. They sort of have the idea it doesn't work.
The five students "visiting" in front would probably have been working with equipment in the cages under normal circumstances but knowing those guys I'm 99% sure they were talking about computers anyway.
Lastly, this topic was covered by last year's students so there was no need for them to go through it again. When I do the A+ materials,[12] everybody participates because the advanced students need the review. The Cisco stuff can't be done by the beginners because they aren't ready so I
give them something to read, review, research, etc.
Quite a juggling act.
Thanks again. It's great to have constructive feedback.
On May 6, 2004, the day before he signed Respondent's 2003-2004 performance assessment, Mr. Pentiuk wrote a letter to Ms. McDaniel requesting that Respondent be placed on "performance probation." The letter noted that Respondent would receive "below expectations" ratings in "Assessment of Student Achievement" and "State, School and District Requirements," then
stated:
During this school year, Mr. Nevins has meet [sic] with me, Sue Cooley, Assistant Director for Curriculum, or Bill McCormick, Assistant Director for Operations, on numerous occasions and discussed the concerns relating to the above mentioned Accomplished Practices. The dates of these meetings, as well as observations were, January 13, 2004, February 20, 2004, March
24 and 26, 2004, March 30, 2004, April 15,
2004, April 2, 2004, and May 5, 2004.
Administration has offered a myriad of suggestions and support to assist Mr. Nevins in improving his classroom environment, teaching techniques, teacher duties, and student assessment responsibilities.
Attached is correspondence that has been conducted to show a flow of conversations reaping no positive changes in performance. In fact, unfortunately, there have been excuses and rebuttals, but performance has not changed.
Ms. Cooley testified that Mr. Pentiuk consulted with Mr. McCormick and her when considering the request for performance probation. Ms. Cooley further testified that she and Mr. McCormick concurred with Mr. Pentiuk that Respondent needed to be placed on probation because Respondent continued to get the same things wrong and his performance was not improving.
After receiving his performance assessment, Respondent contacted Donna Mutzenard, the president of the Teachers Association of Lee County to act as his union representative in a meeting with Mr. Pentiuk and Ms. Cooley about the assessment. Shortly after this meeting, Respondent learned of Mr. Pentiuk's letter to Ms. McDaniel requesting performance probation, which would include the initiation of the School Board's "intensive assistance program."
The intensive assistance program ("IAP") is designed to rehabilitate poorly performing teachers. When the principal of a school determines that a teacher is experiencing difficulty in some area of performance, the principal must inform the teacher of these performance problems and provide assistance in the area of deficiency. Frequent feedback, peer coaching, and opportunities for training and development, such as peer observation and outside training courses, are among the items of assistance the principal is expected to provide and document.
If assistance at the school level does not solve the problem, then the superintendent of schools authorizes
Ms. McDaniel to appoint an IAP team, which includes the teacher's immediate supervisor and other persons with knowledge of the curriculum and of the teacher's deficiencies. Ms.
McDaniel testified that she also tries to appoint one person without personal knowledge of the teacher.
The IAP team's first task is to meet with the teacher in order to review: the nature of the program; the teacher's job expectations and performance standards; past performance assessments and other documentation of performance concerns and assistance; and the teacher's experience, certifications, and current assignment. The team also schedules individual diagnostic performance observations and conferences with the teacher followed by meetings of the entire team.
At the conclusion of the IAP team's eighth meeting,13 the team makes a recommendation for action to the superintendent of schools, who must decide whether the teacher has raised his performance to standards, requires continued assistance, should be reassigned to a more appropriate position, or be dismissed from employment with the School Board.
Ms. Mutzenard discussed the matter with Ms. McDaniel, arguing that there was insufficient documentation to justify appointment of an IAP team for Respondent. Ms. Mutzenard felt
that one final performance assessment with two grades of "below expectations" did not meet the criteria for the IAP.
Ms. McDaniel consulted with the superintendent of schools, reviewed the record, and ultimately agreed with Ms. Mutzenard. By letter to Mr. Pentiuk dated June 10, 2004, Ms. McDaniel denied the request for performance probation. The letter stated, in relevant part:
It is clear by the documentation you presented that there are performance issues regarding Mr. Nevins' deficiencies in Accomplished Practice Indicators 2 and 12 (Assessment of Student Achievement and State, School & District Requirements) as indicated by the Below Expectations ratings he received on this year's Final Performance Assessment.
It is also noted that the school could receive audit findings in the accreditation process for the incomplete Career Maps and attendance records.
As Mr. Nevins has been put on notice regarding his need for improvement in these areas, it is my recommendation that you give him every opportunity to correct these deficiencies for the first quarter of the 2004-05 school year. Please continue to monitor and document his performance on a regular basis.
If there is not a complete turnaround in the fulfillment of professional obligations expected of Barry, he will be placed on performance probation in the second quarter.
Despite his belief that Respondent needed the assistance of the IAP immediately, Mr. Pentiuk accepted
Ms. McDaniel's decision and set out to help Respondent at the school level during the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Pentiuk discussed matters with Respondent, whom Mr. Pentiuk described as "always [having] an answer for everything," meaning glib excuses for poor performance and a
refusal to accept fault in his performance. Mr. Pentiuk advised Respondent to "buckle down and do your job" during the upcoming semester.
Mr. Pentiuk assigned Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick to advise, assist, and observe Respondent. All three administrators conducted observations of Respondent's class and met with him to share their observations. Ms. Cooley worked with Respondent on his career maps and his overall assessments of student performance.
In his observations, Mr. Pentiuk was disturbed by the fact that Respondent's students, though they always appeared to be working on projects, never seemed to know where they were on their career maps. Some students were not even aware that they had career maps. Mr. Pentiuk also observed a student sleeping in Respondent's class. Respondent was not aware of the sleeping student until Mr. Pentiuk pointed him out. Mr. Pentiuk's overall impression was that "not a lot of structured instruction is taking place" in Respondent's class. These incidents and
observations further convinced Mr. Pentiuk that Respondent required more help than could be provided at the school level.
During the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, Ms. Cooley continued to work with Respondent to assist his job performance. She lent Respondent an instructional videotape keyed to the Florida Performance Measurement System's "summative observation instrument," a chart used by classroom observers in the Lee County school system to chart instances of positive and negative teacher performance. The tape discussed the document step by step, showing examples of an effective teacher at work in the classroom. Ms. Cooley described it as a "wonderful, wonderful tape" to show a teacher the right way to run a class.
Ms. Cooley told Respondent to watch the tape, then to sit down with her and talk about it. Five days later,
Ms. Cooley needed the tape to show to a group of beginning teachers. She went to Respondent's classroom to retrieve the tape and asked him if he had watched it. Respondent told her that he "never got to it."
On October 6, 2004, Ms. Cooley conducted an observation of Respondent's classroom. She entered the class at 12:15 p.m. and stayed for about 30 minutes. Ms. Cooley's notes of the observation read as follows, in relevant part:
Upon entering, I noticed one student reading the "Life Styles" section of the newspaper. Mr. Nevins quickly got up from his lap top
and told me he was helping the student find a job. Mr. Nevins stated he was preparing this student's resume. When I questioned why Mr. Nevins was writing the resume, Mr. Nevins stated the student needed a job as he had been in this program a short time.
When I approached another student and asked what he was working on, he stated he was waiting until 1:30 p.m. I found out he was not a current student in class without the proper visitor's pass.
When asked, none of the students saw their career maps. Some have been in the program for two semesters.
Chips, muffins, gatoraide [sic] bottles were at the computer stations and throughout the lab.
When I asked students what they were working on, all the responses were the same. They all responded by telling me they were working on projects.
I asked Mr. Nevins about the various projects. I asked for a copy of the project assignment sheets, criteria sheets, or rubrics. Mr. Nevins replied that the students were developing their own projects. My observation was the students were doing whatever they wanted and were given no direction or instruction.
Checkmarks in grade book were used for attendance, but no tardies or leave earlies were noted . . .
I am concerned the students lack direction, instruction, and detailed curriculum assignments.
In late October 2004, Ms. Cooley contacted Bob Gent, the CET program teacher at High Tech North, another Lee County
school, and asked him to visit and observe Respondent's class. Ms. Cooley thought it would help Respondent to discuss his class with a successful teacher whose program mirrored his own.
Arrangements were made for Mr. Gent to visit Respondent's class on November 3, 2004.
On November 2, 2004, less than 24 hours before
Mr. Gent's scheduled visit, Respondent e-mailed Ms. Cooley with the following message: "I've rethought the situation and I'd rather not go through with this tomorrow. I will let you know if I decide to reschedule." Ms. Cooley testified that Respondent never provided a real explanation for his sudden cancellation of Mr. Gent's visit.
On November 3, 2004, Cathy Race, High Tech Central's information technology specialist, sent an informational e-mail to all personnel of the school regarding several computer- related issues. Ms. Race reminded the school's staff that they should not bring in personally owned computers for use on the school's network because of the risk of viruses, nor should they allow non-district computers belonging to contractors, vendors, auditors, or partnering agencies onto the network before
Ms. Race verified that the computer has modern, updated anti- virus software and up-to-date patch levels.
The next day, November 4, 2004, Respondent allowed a student to connect his personal computer to the district
network, resulting in the importation of a virus into the network. Mr. McCormick sent an e-mail to Respondent about the incident that concluded: "This incident reflects poorly on our school and your ability to adequately control and monitor your classroom, or at the very least, your inability to understand the District computer use policy. Please provide an explanation as to why you allowed this to occur and how you intend to prevent it in the future."
Later on November 4, 2004, Respondent sent the following answer to Mr. McCormick:
I have already talked to Cathy Race about how this has happened. A student brought in a computer of his own to work on and another student was helping him fix it. A part of this problem was that drivers had to be located. The student, against the policy, but with good intentions got online and located the drivers but apparently got more than he bargained for. I talked with Cathy Race about setting up a meeting with [district director of information technology support] Dwayne Alton about the difficulties the computer use policies are causing in running my program.
My policy at the beginning of last year was to not allow students to bring in computers to work on. You changed it after a student came to see you and complained. I wouldn't have had this problem if we kept my original policy.
"your ability to adequately control and monitor your classroom, or at the very least, your inability to understand the District computer use policy?" Do you really think that every time there is a
computer use problem that this is what it means? You were at a meeting last year where Dwayne Alton said that we were not considered a real problem for the district. Put a bunch of computer geeks together and some "challenges" are inevitable. Ask any computer teacher in the district. I find the whole statement-- but especially the "your inability to understand" line very insulting and disrespectful. Expect to be hearing more about that sort of usage and tone very soon.
If we were so inclined there were two commands we could have used to release the IP address and you never would have found the computer in here. The students and I took immediate responsibility for what happened. I bring that up because I'm not so sure that taking responsibility for unfortunate events that take place under you is very popular around here.
Mr. McCormick testified that he did not know what to make of Respondent's statement that he should expect to hear more about his usage and tone, and that it was not his intent to insult Respondent. Later on November 4, 2004, Mr. McCormick responded to Respondent as follows:
Was the student aware of the policy at the time, and is he/her now? If the student was aware of the policy, but choose [sic] to ignore it, I would expect some sort of discipline action or referral. If the student was not aware of the policy, I would want to know why.
I understand the unique challenges faced by your class, however I don't know how much clearer the district policy could be with regards to connecting "guest computers" to the network. The resulting manhours and resources needed to remedy these types of
problems leave us no choice but to treat them serious [sic].
If you feel that you are unable to [adequately] monitor your students when they are working on their computers they have brought in, I certainy [sic] agree that we should revisit the policy of allowing them to do so. I'll let you make that call and will support you if you decide against it.
Respondent did not directly respond to the questions raised by Mr. McCormick's second November 4, 2004, e-mail. However, on November 8, 2004, Respondent filed with the School Board an equity complaint, alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his religion and his sex.14 In the narrative portion of the complaint, Respondent recited his work history at High Tech Central, including the allegation that except for the Cisco training, he had received "no support or encouragement from the administration" upon taking over the CET program after Mr. Ledger's departure. The following excerpt from the complaint set forth Respondent's essential allegations:
The problems developed last year when [Ms. Cooley] had to watch my class for
thirty minutes one morning and she did not do a very good job (see attachment).[15]
I have been an express target of Administration's negative attention since then. They are often very confrontational and negative toward me and completely ignore points I make to show my efforts.
My lessons and class work in [CET] fully correlate to the State Standards for my course. Administration has received lesson plans, unit planning documents, and
assessment information to support this. My grading and progress reports are up to date. Furthermore, several of my students have been placed in industry related employment which is the ultimate goal and stated mission of the school. This information has not showed up in any documentation I have received from administration.
Administration has gone to great lengths to reprimand me for not utilizing career maps (a particular tracking device) on a day to day basis in my class. I update them periodically based on unit completion but do not place a strong day to day focus on them because students are more interested and motivated by Industry Certification requirements which also very strongly relate to the career map's requirements. Students are made aware of the link. The case has been made by Administration that because I do not utilize and emphasize these career maps my teaching is unstructured and of low quality.
A particular technique that has been used to evaluate my job performance is for an Administrator to come in to my classroom, seek out a student who may be having a bad day, may have just gotten reprimanded, may be somewhat overwhelmed by a particular section of material, etc. and badgering that student for negative information about me and the class. I don't think the proper way to judge our Administrators would be to go to a Faculty meeting and seek out the teachers who are rolling their eyes and snickering. I have been told that I am being judged on this "measure of satisfaction." Besides being a contract violation the selection and measurement technique used is highly subjective and arbitrary. Again, the case has been made, without logical connection, by Administration that because I do not meet these satisfaction standards my teaching is unstructured and of low quality.
In my Department (Business Technology) the Department Chair and two other teachers who are National Board Certified (all three with twenty plus years of experience-- and all female) have not been required to work with the career maps. They have not been using them for at least the last several years and they have not received any type of reprimand. They use "competency sheets" which is quite similar to the system I use (and I also utilize the periodically updated career maps).
In addition, these teachers are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny, evaluation, and criticism as has been shown in my case. Students are not encouraged to "snitch" and basically proper procedure is followed. The Administrators have little trouble in treating these other teachers with respect.
Therefore I am asserting that Mrs. Cooley has selected me for "attention" based on my being male and Mr. Pentiuk and Mr. McCormick has [sic] been supportive of her. I do not rule out that my being Jewish, a New Yorker, and a Union Rep had an effect on their decision making. Administration has used this as the cornerstone of an overall effort to undermine and discredit my teaching efforts and abilities.
The remainder of the complaint catalogued the negative effects "this situation" has had on Respondent, including stress and being treated as "a slacker and unprofessional." Respondent also discussed the "highly insulting and disrespectful" e-mail exchange of November 4, 2004, with Mr. McCormick.
At the request of Becky Garlock, a School Board investigator, Mr. Pentiuk, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Cooley
prepared written statements in answer to Respondent's allegations.16 Mr. Pentiuk's statement was as follows, in full:
This letter is in reference to the equity complaint filed by Barry Nevins. I regret that Mr. Nevins has these strong feelings about being picked on. The administration at High Tech Central is concerned about the structure of his program and his delivery relating to the competencies and Career Map for the [CET] program. We have recommended that Mr. Nevins be placed in the intensive assistance program and feel that he has the ability to become an effective teacher. We have also asked for a fellow [CET] instructor from High Tech North to come, and Mr. Nevins felt that it was not a good time.
We are ready for Mr. Nevins to find the time to become a good teacher. I feel that these allegations are with no credibility and I wish that Mr. Nevins would exert the energy toward his program that he has toward this complaint.
Mr. McCormick's statement discussed Respondent's problems in complying with attendance reporting policies, and further discussed the November 4, 2004, e-mail exchange regarding Respondent's student introducing a virus into the computer network. As to Respondent's main point, that his class was being unfairly singled out for administrative attention, Mr. McCormick wrote:
As I recall, the administrative team began looking more closely at the CET program during the 2nd semester of the 03/04 school year when an adult student withdrew from the program and made some disturbing statements concerning the quality of the instruction and classroom management practices of the
instructor. The student was being given a withdrawal interview by Ms. Soto, one of our guidance counselors. Because of the veracity of the comments made by the student, she referred the student to me. I interviewed the student and determined that he should make his comments known to
Mr. Pentiuk, which he immediately did. Mr. Nevins was informed of the statements and given a chance to respond. He
immediately dismissed the student as being unreliable and not trustworthy. His comment was "students will say anything." Nonetheless, the student appeared to be credible and this was our first real indication that the CET program may need some monitoring. Further discussions with the guidance department revealed other students had in recent months been dissatisfied in much the same way.
On another front, Mr. King, the Student Affairs Specialist had also been indicating problems with attendance not being accurately recorded in CET. For example, he indicated that tardies and absences were not being recorded when necessary. This was confirmed with the attendance secretary.
These indicators pointed to the fact that the quality of instruction and classroom management practices warranted some attention on the part of the administration. Upon some cursory reviewing of Mr. Nevins' academic and attendance records, it was apparent that he was in need of some assistance.
Any inference that Mr. Nevins is being singled out for unwarranted attention by the administration of this school for any other reason but for legitimate concerns about classroom management practice and the quality of the instruction, is completely false. This administration wants Mr. Nevins to be successful, and we have demonstrated that through our actions.
Most of Ms. Cooley's statement was devoted to explaining the events of February 19, 2004. Besides her version of those events, detailed at Finding of Fact 32 above,
Ms. Cooley made the following general statements about Respondent and the school's administrators:
Administration has supported Mr. Nevins in numerous ways. Thousands of dollars went into his lab for new desks and equipment. It was a state of the art lab. In fact, he even mentioned it was better than Edison College's computer lab. Administration sent Mr. Nevins to Cisco training (in Tampa, I think). This training took weeks and was very expensive. The school paid for his travel, food, lodging (if needed) and his class in order to help support him in his teaching efforts. Mr. Nevins even commented that some of the students would be upset with his teaching methods when the other teacher moved away. Mr. Pentiuk was extremely understanding, patient, and supportive of Mr. Nevins.
* * *
This is my 29th year in education. I have never had a teacher file a grievance. I feel my role is that of a support system for the instructors in my school. I share with the instructors when they are doing a good job and I remiss [sic] in my duty if I did not share my concerns.
I believe Mr. Nevins is a very intelligent man. I believe he is very knowledgeable about computers. My objective is to help him be successful in the classroom, so he can help students be successful in the workforce.
At the hearing, Respondent at least implied that the decision to recommend that he be placed in an IAP, and the ultimate decision to recommend his dismissal, was in retaliation for his filing an equity complaint against the three named High Tech Central administrators. The evidence does not support such a suggestion. Mr. Pentiuk, who in any event retired before the completion of the IAP process, had only a vague recollection of the complaint's allegations. Mr. McCormick never saw the equity complaint before he testified in this proceeding and knew none of its details, or even whether he was named in the complaint. His statement, described at Finding of Fact 64, was written at Ms. Garlock's request and was not based on Mr. MCormick's having read the complaint. Ms. Cooley was "shocked" by the equity complaint because she believed that her actions toward Respondent, while sometimes critical, had always been professional. Respondent's allegation of retaliatory intent on the part of anyone in the administration of High Tech Central is not credible.
By letter to Ms. McDaniel dated November 15, 2004, Mr. Pentiuk renewed his request that Respondent be placed on performance probation. The letter reviewed the administration's efforts to assist Respondent during the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, including Respondent's refusal to cooperate in Mr. Gent's visit to his class.
By letter dated December 16, 2004, Superintendent James Browder informed Respondent that, pursuant to the recommendation of Mr. Pentiuk and Ms. McDaniel, Respondent would be placed on a plan of assistance. Mr. Browder wrote that he would appoint an assistance team to work with Respondent during the second semester of the 2004-2005 school year. Mr. Browder informed Respondent that the first meeting would take place in early January 2005, and that he could name a representative to attend the meetings on his behalf. On the same date,
Ms. McDaniel hand-delivered the superintendent's letter to Respondent in Mr. Pentiuk's office.
The superintendent delegated to Ms. McDaniel the task of choosing the members of the IAP team. She selected
Mr. McCormick and Ms. Cooley, because they were Respondent's direct supervisors at High Tech Central and were aware of the curriculum and Respondent's deficiencies. Ms. McDaniel testified that she had appointed six IAP teams before this one and that her standard procedure was to appoint both assistant directors of the school.
Ms. McDaniel also chose Suzanne Roshon, the School Board's coordinator for technical and career education, as an objective outsider without prior knowledge of Respondent, or his classroom setting. Ms. McDaniel acted as coordinator and facilitator for the IAP team meetings. Ms. Mutzenard was an
observer at the IAP team meetings as Respondent's representative.17
The IAP team held its organizational meeting on January 13, 2005. Respondent and Ms. Mutzenard were present. In her role as coordinator, Ms. McDaniel chaired the meeting, explaining the steps in the IAP process. There would be seven weeks of observations in Respondent's class with three observations taking place each week. The observations would be unannounced. Not more than one observation could take place in a single day. The observers were not to talk to Respondent or the students during the observations, and Respondent was to act as though the observer were not present. The observers were not to discuss their observations with each other prior to the weekly team meetings. Respondent was directed to turn in his lesson plans each week so that the observers would know what to expect when they came into the classroom. Ms. McDaniel's role
was to determine whether the observers had common concerns about Respondent's classroom methods, and to ensure those common concerns received emphasis at the team meetings.
Ms. McDaniel testified that, at this initial meeting, it was clear that Respondent was not happy to be involved in the IAP process. He believed that he could document his program's success and that he should not be there.18 Ms. McDaniel emphasized the need to maintain a "positive attitude in a
positive learning environment" because it was clear to her that Respondent did not have a positive attitude about the scrutiny he was receiving.
Ms. Cooley conducted the first recorded observation, on January 21, 2005, at 12:30 p.m. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Cooley noted that two students were sitting at picnic tables outside the classroom and that Respondent walked to the door and told them to return to class. One student left the classroom carrying a length of cable then returned for a bowl of water and left again. A second student walked in and took another bowl of water out of the classroom. Ms. Cooley testified that the students had caught a stray dog on campus. They used the cable to tie the dog to a tree until school was out. Respondent knew what was going on with the dog and was not requiring the students to sign in and out of the class.
Ten students were watching a video about the founder of Apple computers and events in the industry during the 1980s. Two students were working on a computer in the back of the room and another was working in one of the cages. Later, one of the two students in the back put his head down on the desk.
After the video, Respondent asked the students what had changed over the years. Students shouted out answers, and Respondent corrected them for talking all at once. Respondent then asked another question. One student, Keith McNeil,
dominated the discussion. One student received a call on his cell phone and walked out of the classroom. Another student was using his Palm Pilot and another was reading a book. Though the class would not be dismissed until 1:30 p.m., Respondent stopped teaching and ordered the students to clean up the classroom at 1:05 p.m.
Ms. Cooley was surprised that Respondent had not prepared his class to be on its best behavior given that he knew there would be three observations that week. In her follow-up notations and recommendations to Respondent, Ms. Cooley observed that there were too many distractions in the classroom, that not all the students were focused on the video, that the video itself was too long and too old for meaningful use in the CET program, that a couple of questions were insufficient after spending over 30 minutes watching the video, and that 25 minutes was too much time for classroom clean-up. Ms. Cooley later testified that a computer class is a clean environment that should take only a few minutes to clean up at the end of the class session.
Mr. McCormick conducted his first observation on January 24, 2005, at 8:00 a.m. He noted that only ten out of the fifteen students present had signed in on the attendance log. Respondent divided the class into three groups. While Respondent worked with one group, the students in the other two
groups had no direction. One student took a phone call during classroom instructional time. While Respondent was reviewing material with one group, some students in that group were surfing the Internet.19
There were vending machines just outside Respondent's classroom door, and students from the class were going out to buy food and drink from the machines. Respondent had complained about the location of the machines, and they were later moved a bit farther away from the classroom door. Mr. McCormick conceded that the machines were too close to the classroom, that they were a temptation to Respondent's students and that they were a distraction to the class when anyone used them. However, Respondent was nonetheless remiss in allowing students to freely go in and out of the classroom except during the lunch break.
Ms. Roshon made her first observation at noon on January 26, 2005. Ms. Roshon disclaimed any expertise in the CET program, but testified that she has observed the classes at both the High Tech Central and High Tech North campuses and was familiar with the CET performance standards.
When she entered the classroom, Ms. Roshon saw no structured activities taking place. Several students were sitting around talking in the middle of the room and others were in two of the cages. Shortly thereafter, Respondent walked over to the group in the middle of the room and told them they were
going to discuss Chapter 13, which caused some grumbling among the students. Respondent began his lecture with ten students, one of whom was reading a book and one of whom was writing.
Ms. Roshon observed that no one was taking notes on Respondent's lecture. Respondent asked questions in an effort to engage the class, and there was some give and take among Respondent and two or three of the students.
Several times during his lecture and PowerPoint presentation, Respondent told the class, "You won't need to know this" or "This isn't important." Ms. Roshon questioned why Respondent would teach material that was not important. One of the students asked a question. Respondent suggested that the student do some research on the topic. The student got up to go to a computer. Respondent asked him to do the research later, but the student ignored this instruction and went to the computer. He looked up and printed some information, then handed the printout to Respondent, who thanked him. Ms. Roshon observed one student sleeping during the lecture. Respondent made no effort to wake up the student.
Several students were wearing hats, which is forbidden by School Board policy. Several students had sodas in the class. High Tech Central has a policy prohibiting food and drink (except for bottled water) in the classroom.20 Students seemed to come and go as they pleased during the lecture,
without signing in or out of the classroom. The students in one of the cages were talking, laughing, and walking around throughout Ms. Roshon's observation, leading her to wonder if they were engaged in any sort of educational activity. One of the students in the cage laughed loudly after looking at someone else's computer screen.
On February 1, 2005, at 8:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation. There were fifteen students in the class, one of whom remained in one of the cages throughout the observation. As Ms. Cooley entered, she observed that Respondent was just starting a PowerPoint presentation on "Objectives, Attitude, Generic Troubleshooting," comprising issues such as not overlooking the obvious, performing research, checking simple things, and writing things down. Respondent read the PowerPoint slides to the students and asked questions such as, "Why would you need to write things down?" Respondent was still going through the PowerPoint presentation when
Ms. Cooley left the classroom at 9:10 a.m.
In her written report, Ms. Cooley noted that one student had his shoes off and another yawned very loudly during Respondent's presentation. Ms. Cooley recommended that Respondent reduce the time he spends on PowerPoint and get the students actively engaged in the class. She expressed a concern that everything she observed in the class was "generic, low
level, basic material . . . I have not observed a lesson on A+, Cisco, or any specific networking material." She observed that the PowerPoint material was far below the level of the majority of the class who were returning students and that nothing she witnessed in the class corresponded to the lesson plan filed by Respondent.
85. On February 3, 2005, from 12:50 to 1:30 p.m.,
Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation. When she entered the classroom, Ms. Roshon noted that the students were sitting in groups talking, but not about anything related to their class work. Respondent was in one of the cages, but came out into the classroom when he saw Ms. Roshon. Respondent directed one group of five students to work on their class work, which they did.
Respondent answered some of their questions.
Ms. Roshon observed that students in the back cage became very loud. One student walked out of the classroom, bought a candy bar, then walked back in without asking Respondent's permission, or signing the attendance log. Students were eating and drinking at their computer stations. At 1:15 p.m., Respondent told the class to begin cleaning up. The clean-up was finished by 1:20, and the students spent the remaining ten minutes standing around talking about extraneous matters.
Ms. Roshon observed that there was very little structure in the classroom, and students did not appear to know what they were supposed to be working on. She suggested that Respondent require the students to keep a daily journal of what they did in the class, and that Respondent should regularly check the journals and provide feedback to the students. Respondent did not implement this suggestion.
88. On February 4, 2005, from 9:20 to 10:00 a.m.,
Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation. Mr. McCormick initially criticized Respondent's weekly lesson plan as simply a list of topics with no detail as to how Respondent intended to teach those topics. Mr. McCormick noted that thirteen students were present, but that he could not determine whether they had signed in because Respondent had no sign-in sheet posted at the classroom door.
For security purposes, High Tech Central required all staff, faculty, and students to wear photo identification badges around their necks or clipped to their clothing. During
Mr. McCormick's observation, a school security guard entered the classroom to check the identification badges. Of the thirteen students present, five did not have their badges, leading
Mr. McCormick to conclude that Respondent had not checked the students' identification at the beginning of class as required by school policy.21
Mr. McCormick noted that three students were working independently on computers in the main part of the lab, and that each student was on a different web site. One of the students was looking at telephones on Best Buy's web site, which
Mr. McCormick believed could have been related to a class assignment. However, another of the students was looking at a "Twilight Zone" web site, clearly unrelated to the CET class. One of the three students left the classroom for ten minutes without signing out or obtaining a pass from Respondent.
Another group of three students was working in the right-side cage. Two were on web sites and one was working on a curriculum test program. One of these students left class for twenty minutes without signing out or obtaining a pass.
The remainder of the class was in the left-side cage, engaged in a group discussion. Mr. McCormick described it as follows:
I was unable to determine the subject of discussion as it was unfocused and was not being led in any discernable or deliberate way. Students wandered in and out of the cage at random during the discussion.
Overall impression of this activity was that it was unfocused and random. Students did not appear engaged in any meaningful way.
At about 9:40 a.m., Respondent asked the group of students in the lab to "come up with some good scenarios and good stuff for the students in the cage." Mr. McCormick assumed
that Respondent wanted to give some direction to the discussion going on in the cage and was relying on other students to supply the scenario. Mr. McCormick testified that he thought it showed poor preparation for Respondent to ask students to make up scenarios on the spot for a class discussion.
Mr. McCormick noted that students were still making frequent trips outside to the vending machines and that Respondent allowed food and drink in the classroom.
Mr. McCormick testified that the prohibition on food and drink is in the faculty handbook, and that the administration "harp[ed] on it" at every faculty meeting. Besides the potential for spilling food or drink on the computers, food and drink created a sanitation and pest control problem.
In his written observation report, Mr. McCormick concluded that Respondent's classroom "presents a very unprofessional appearance." At the hearing, Mr. McCormick called the classroom "a mess." It was disorganized, strewn with snacks and drinks and littered with computer parts.
On February 7, 2005, the IAP team met with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard to review the observations made by the team members up to that point. The team members shared their observations with Respondent, including positive feedback and suggestions for improvement. Ms. McDaniel summarized the suggestions as follows:
Lesson Plans need to be detailed so an observer or substitute can clearly determine who does what when.
Classroom Rules need to be addressed and maintained including sign in/sign out, food and drink not allowed, students focused on time on task, cell phone use, students walking in and out of classroom for snacks, etc. in order to assist with classroom management strategies.
Organizational tool to be created/maintained for student progress-- career map.
Mrs. McDaniel will email Mr. Nevins a template of a lesson plan. Mr. Nevins can take advantage of other options; such options might include Mr. Nevins observing other instructors at other schools teaching similar programs or someone observing
Mr. Nevins.
At the hearing, Ms. McDaniel testified that Respondent was very defensive about the observations. He was argumentative and disagreed with what the observers said they saw in his classroom. Respondent refused to sign the summary minutes of the IAP team meeting. Rather, he requested an opportunity to respond to the minutes with additional information.
Ms. McDaniel could not recall that Respondent ever followed up with any additional information.
On February 9, 2005, at 12:55 p.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation. As she entered the classroom, Ms. Cooley saw a student talking on a cell phone. Respondent called out to the students to be seated so that he could go over
their test answers. Of the eleven students present, two remained in the back cage area. Respondent read out the first test question and several students called out answers.
Respondent asked them not to shout out the answers. He read the next question, and several students called out answers.
This time, Respondent did not correct the students, nor did he correct them when they shouted out answers to the next five questions. Finally, Respondent said, "Guys, one at a time."
A student yelled out, "Clean up." Respondent continued talking, but students talked over him. Some students began standing around, waiting for class to end.
In her comments, Ms. Cooley wrote that Respondent "needs to be consistent with his classroom policies and procedures." She noted that the seven minutes allotted for end-of-class cleanup was more appropriate for a computer class than the fifteen minutes she noted in an earlier observation.
On February 10, 2005, from noon to 12:40 p.m.,
Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation. Respondent called the class to attention to hear a lecture by a fellow student, Keith McNeil, on the Linux operating system.22 Ms. Roshon acknowledged that the student appeared to be very knowledgeable, but she was uncomfortable with his "lording it over" the other students that he knew this material and they did not. She also wondered if all the students were required to give such
lectures, or if this student was lecturing for some particular reason.
Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent's questions made it apparent that he did not know the software or the material the student was presenting. She was concerned that this made it appear to the class that Respondent knew less about the class subject matter than did the student. She was more concerned that Respondent had not reviewed the software for appropriateness before he allowed the student to teach it to the class.
Ms. Roshon noted that the student giving the lecture was drinking from a bottle of soda in front of the group. She commented that if Respondent was going to give students leadership opportunities, he should require them to act as role models. She also noted that students "still get up, move around, use the rest room, etc. at random. Seem to come and go as they please."
In her written report of the observation, Ms. Roshon stated to Respondent: "You are very fortunate to have a student with so much knowledge and what appears to be a good rapport with your class. BUT, this student was doing EXACTLY what I have been waiting to see YOU do-- TEACH." Ms. Roshon saw Respondent go around the classroom and speak to individual
students, but did not observe Respondent teaching the class as a whole.
104. On February 11, 2005, from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m.,
Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation of Respondent's class. When Mr. McCormick arrived in the class, Respondent was grading tests that the students had just taken. Mr. McCormick noted that the students appeared "unengaged" in any activity related to the CET curriculum. One student was talking on the phone to a Staples store, with a sales brochure in front of him, and three other students were playing "Doom 2" on an old Macintosh computer.
Respondent returned the tests to one group of students then commenced an oral review of the questions and answers. Mr. McCormick noted that Respondent conducted the review in distracting proximity to another group of students. Mr. McCormick also noted with disapproval that Respondent referred to the multiple choice test as "multiple guess."
One student left the class early without signing out. Another student had a two-liter bottle of soda on his desk, which Respondent eventually asked the student to remove. Clean-up activity began at 1:16 p.m., fourteen minutes before the end of class. The clean-up consisted of about one minute of straightening chairs, after which the students were unengaged until 1:30 p.m.
Earlier in the day, Mr. McCormick had received a report that someone in Respondent's class had visited a pornographic web site. Mr. McCormick decided to investigate the matter because the school district's firewall filter should have prevented such activity. After the class was dismissed,
Mr. McCormick asked a student in Respondent's class to show him the web site. The student did so and arrived at a site displaying what Mr. McCormick described as pornographic photos. Mr. McCormick realized the site was available because the web address did not contain the key words that the district's firewall is set up to block.
At the hearing, Mr. McCormick emphasized that he did not believe Respondent would knowingly allow his students to access pornographic web sites. Mr. McCormick's criticism was that Respondent did not know, which was emblematic of Respondent's inability to maintain control of and know what was going on inside his classroom. Mr. McCormick suggested that Respondent position the computer monitors in the class to give himself maximum observation ability from a central position. Mr. McCormick testified that many students would position themselves so that their monitors could not be seen unless an observer was standing directly behind them.
On February 16, 2005, the IAP team met with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel, and Ms. Mutzenard. At the outset,
Respondent stated that he would submit his written responses from the previous team meeting at the next team meeting on February 28, 2005. As Ms. McDaniel testified, no such written responses were ever supplied by Respondent.
Ms. Roshon then gave a summary of her February 10, observation and also stated that she had observed the CET teacher at High Tech North. Based on these observations, she had the following suggestions for Respondent: require students to prepare a notebook based on the chapter notes and software the students use on a daily basis, which could be used as a trouble-shooting reference; require students to sign in and out for bathroom breaks; and require students to keep a daily log of their work, upon which Respondent could check and comment.
Respondent defended himself regarding some aspects of Ms. Roshon's observation. Mr. McNeil, the student who gave the Linux lecture, was fighting a sore throat and had asked Respondent for permission to drink a soda during his talk. Respondent also stated that he trusted the student not to do anything inappropriate and, thus, felt no need to preview the software prior to the student's lecture.
Mr. McCormick then described his observation of February 11, 2005. He agreed with Ms. Roshon that a daily log would be helpful for Respondent to keep track of his students' progress. Mr. McCormick also agreed with Ms. Roshon's
suggestions that students be required to sign in and out for restroom breaks and that they be required to keep
trouble-shooting notebooks. Respondent disagreed with requiring students to keep a notebook.
Ms. Cooley described her observation of February 9, 2005, and made a particular point of her concern that Respondent was inconsistent on the matter of allowing students to shout out answers.
Ms. McDaniel summarized the deficiencies in Respondent's performance as noted by the IAP team, including: lack of consistency with rules and procedures; lack of consistency with students signing in and out; removal of all games from classroom computers; and arranging the classroom computers for maximum viewing capability by Respondent.
Mr. McCormick stated that there were students still in the CET program who had completed all their occupational completion points and a lengthy discussion ensued regarding Respondent's tracking of students' progress. Ms. Cooley stated that Respondent had not turned in revisions to a Council on Occupational Education program reports that were due during the previous school year.23 Respondent promised to turn in the revisions on February 22, 2005. Respondent also promised to bring to the next IAP team meeting his grade book and all the career maps, or other tracking devices for his CET class,
neither of which the IAP team had seen at this point. He also committed to removing all games from the computers in his classroom.
Ms. McDaniel testified that by the time of the February 14, 2005, meeting, she perceived that Respondent was angry about the IAP process. It appeared to Ms. McDaniel that Respondent did not believe that he or his students needed to follow the rules and procedures established by the School Board or High Tech Central.
Mr. McCormick testified that by this time he was "astounded" that the IAP team's observations and comments were the same every week. Respondent was not correcting the items noted by the team and was very defensive in the team meetings.
117. On February 22, 2005, from 8:15 to 8:45 a.m., Ms. Cooley conducted her next observation of Respondent's classroom. Respondent was working on computer assembly with
five students in one of the back cages. Three students were in the other back cage. One of these students was looking up computer parts prices on the Internet and told Ms. Cooley he was seeing where the market was going.
Thirteen students were present in the class, but only eleven had signed in. Two of the eleven had not indicated the time they arrived. No students were wearing identification badges.
Six students were in the main computer lab. Two of them were reading the novel Great Expectations for another class and continued reading throughout Ms. Cooley's observation.
Ms. Cooley asked them about their career maps. They replied that they knew nothing about career maps. When Ms. Cooley asked them how they knew which competencies they were working on, they told her they went "chapter by chapter."
Ms. Cooley tried to redirect the students who were doing outside work. Respondent was so focused on the group he was working with that he did not notice what the other students were doing. Ms. Cooley noted that, based on Respondent's lesson plans, she could not tell one group of students from another. Not one student was working on assignments identified in the lesson plan. She concluded that the students "are not on task, not on track."
121. On February 23, 2005, from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m.,
Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation. A music video, bearing no apparent relationship to CET class work, played over and over again on a classroom projector throughout the observation period.
Three students were on shopping web sites and one was on E-Bay. Respondent had assigned them to learn how to acquire computer parts and build the best computer possible for $1,500. Mr. McCormick noted that this was legitimate CET class work.
Respondent was circulating through the room.
Mr. McCormick observed that it was still difficult to see the computer monitors in the back cages from the main part of the classroom. One student was reading a booklet that was not related to the CET program. A two-liter bottle of soda was on the classroom floor and an open bottle of soda was on a student's desk. Once more, all work stopped at 1:15 p.m. for clean-up activity that took about one minute.
In the follow-up remarks to his written observation report, Mr. McCormick noted the unprofessional appearance and distracting effect of playing music videos in the classroom. He again suggested that Respondent stop wasting the last fifteen minutes of class and plan activities to keep the students busy until the dismissal bell. Mr. McCormick again told Respondent that he must enforce the rules against food and drink in the classroom.
125. On March 2, 2005, from 10:10 to 10:50 a.m.,
Ms. Roshon conducted her next observation of Respondent's class. When she walked into the classroom, Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent was sitting and talking with a group of four students. The conversation was apparently not related to class work because Respondent jumped up when he saw Ms. Roshon. He told her that half the class was "missing," without explaining
where the students were, and that two of his students had placed in the "Skills USA" competition.24
Respondent announced that it was time to go over the test. Some students asked, "What test?" It transpired that not all of the students present had taken the test. Respondent spent eight minutes looking for the test.
The group who had been talking with Respondent when Ms. Roshon entered continued their conversation about the relative merits of "a small house" versus "a condo." Three other students were working in the back cage, and Ms. Roshon noted that she still could not see their monitors from the classroom. When she approached the students, one of them turned off his monitor. Ms. Roshon also noted that the sign-in sheet was still not being used.
Respondent gathered two students to go over their tests. They discussed the questions and answers aloud although another group of students was still taking the test. Ms. Roshon noted that Respondent told a student who was withdrawing from the class to take the test "for old times sake." Respondent then had this student correct his own test and those of the other students. Ms. Roshon observed that the student made some critical remarks about his classmates' performance on the test.
Ms. Roshon positively noted that, when one student was confused about an issue, Respondent had the students go on
their computers to find the answer. However, she also noted that one student appeared to become bored with the test review, rolled his chair away from the group, and turned on his MP3 player with earphones. The student even played "air guitar" near the group reviewing the test, and Respondent said nothing.
In her written comments to Respondent, Ms. Roshon wrote, in relevant part:
One big concern I have with the structure of today's activity is that you have this huge classroom and yet all of your students were packed into one small area at the back of the room. It would have made more sense to me that you would have taken the students you were going over the test with to an area of the classroom that would have been quieter and would have caused less distraction to other students. It was also a VERY relaxed atmosphere and not as conducive to feedback and interaction from students as it could have been.
* * *
I did have trouble following your lesson plan . . . . Once again, I don't know how the students know what they are to be doing. I didn't see any evidence of log books or checklists.
* * * My concerns still are:
How do students know what to work on.
Class activity seems to start AFTER I walk into the room.
Students seem to wander around however they feel like.
On March 3, 2005, at 8:15 a.m., Ms. Cooley performed her next observation of Respondent's class. When she arrived, a film on PC navigation and commands was being shown. One student was working on his laptop computer. One student was reading sports web pages on his computer, while another surfed web pages on computer parts. A group of students worked in the back cage. Respondent's lesson plan stated only "lab work," which was so vague that Ms. Cooley could not tell one group from another. Respondent showed the film throughout Ms. Cooley's observation, which prompted her to suggest that Respondent show films in shorter segments and get the class actively engaged sooner.
Also on March 3, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley attended an "attendance hearing" for one of Respondent's adult students. High Tech Central policy regarding adult attendance provides that after four absences, the student is to be advised that his absences jeopardize his financial aid. After five absences, the teacher is to have a conference with the student. After eight absences, the teacher is to advise the student that two more absences will result in an administrative review and possible withdrawal until the start of the next semester. After ten absences, the teacher is to complete an attendance documentation form and give it to the school's student affairs specialist, who then schedules an administrative review, or "attendance hearing." An adult student with ten accumulated
absences may be withdrawn and lose credit for that semester, depending on the outcome of the attendance hearing and the reasons established for the absences.
Dan King, the student affairs specialist, convened the hearing with an adult CET student who had 16 absences since January. Respondent was not present at the hearing, but sent to Mr. King the student's career map and an adult attendance documentation form. Mr. King asked the student why he had missed so many days, noting that the student was on kidney dialysis. The student stated that he goes to dialysis before and after school and that Respondent never asked for notes regarding his absences or even asked why he was absent so frequently. Mr. King directed the student to go back and retrace his steps regarding the dates he had missed because many of those absences could have been excused because of illness. Ms. Cooley criticized Respondent for his failure to hold the required conferences with the student, or to make the required referral to Mr. King after the tenth absence.
At the attendance hearing, the student told Mr. King that the CET class was completely different when an observer was in the classroom. Mr. King showed the student his career map. The student stated that he had seen the blank career map back in August when he started the CET program and that this was just the second time he had seen it. The student stated that
Respondent had never reviewed it with him, although Respondent had checked off many competencies as completed. The student was surprised to see everything he had accomplished. Ms. Cooley noted that the career map is supposed to be a motivator for students to show their accomplishments and track their competency completions and that it was improper for Respondent not to review the career map with the student.
135. On March 4, 2005, from 12:50 to 1:30 p.m.,
Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation of Respondent's class. He saw four students grouped together in the front of the class. One was working on a laptop computer, one was working on class-related questions, one was using a cell phone, and the fourth was playing with a portable CD player in his lap.25 Some students were working in the back cage on projects though it was still difficult to observe their monitors from the classroom. Respondent was circulating around the classroom.
Mr. McCormick observed five cups and soda bottles throughout the classroom, including one on Respondent's desk. One student had an entire fast food meal of a sandwich, French fries, and a soft drink spread out at his computer workstation. The student ate and drank throughout Mr. McCormick's observation.
Mr. McCormick observed one student get Respondent's attention by calling out, "Nevins!" After discovering they had
mistakenly printed a document to another teacher's printer, two students left the CET classroom to "apologize" to the other teacher. These students did not sign out or inform Respondent that they were leaving. Work stopped and "clean up" commenced at 1:00 p.m., a full half-hour before the end of class.
Mr. McCormick's written comments on this observation were as follows:
Mr. Nevins must design teaching activities so that students are engaged in learning activities throughout the day. No visible order to the way the material is presented. Much too much wandering, visiting and playing has been observed in this classroom. Suggest planning activities that will keep students busy until dismissal bell. Clean- up in this class only takes about 1 minute (as it is now structured), so save this until a few minutes before 1:30. Mr. Nevins must enforce classroom rules about food and drink-- but apparently is unable or unwilling to do so. Mr. Nevins must also enforce school District policy on using portable music devices on campus, especially during class. Mr. Nevins must never allow students to address him by his last name only. This shows a complete lack of respect for the status of the teacher in the classroom.
At the hearing, Mr. McCormick testified that he was "incredulous" that the problems with food and drink were still going on. The problem was so easily corrected that he had to conclude Respondent could not, or would not enforce the rule. Mr. McCormick believed that such simple classroom management issues were the last thing that should be dominating discussion
in the IAP team meetings, but that the IAP team could never get past enforcement of the most basic classroom rules and employment of the most basic classroom management skills in attempting to assist Respondent.
The IAP team met on March 7, 2005, to review the team's observations since the last meeting and to offer recommendations to Respondent. Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard were present. Mr. McCormick, Ms. Cooley, and Ms. Roshon each gave an oral report of the observations described above.
After Mr. McCormick described the playing of music videos in the class, Respondent stated that the music was "something different" for the students in the afternoon and that it was not distracting. He cited "brain based research" to the effect that music helps set the tone for the class and assists in learning. Ms. McDaniel pointed out that there is a difference between music and music videos and that the latter are not to be played in the classroom.
Respondent also stated that he felt he was being picked on about the question of sodas in the classroom.
Mr. McCormick stated that it was simply a question of school policies that Respondent must enforce, and that Respondent's classroom was so relaxed and uncontrolled that Respondent had difficulty maintaining order and focus. Respondent acknowledged
that bending the rules causes problems, but also contended that students sometimes learn more in his relaxed environment.
Respondent was once again asked to bring his grade book and career maps, or other student tracking system to the next IAP team meeting. He had been asked to bring these items to the March 7, 2005, meeting but failed to do so.
At the hearing, Ms. McDaniel testified that after the March 7, 2005, IAP team meeting, she continued to feel that Respondent did not have a positive outlook on the process. Of greater concern was her growing conviction that Respondent was deliberately not following the instructions and recommendations of the IAP team. She did not share this conviction with the IAP team because she did not wish to influence the objectivity of their observations.
Mr. McCormick conducted his next observation on March 10, 2005, between 12:40 and 1:30 p.m. Twelve students were present in the classroom. Five students were working on computers in the main lab, three students were working on projects on the back cage, and two were working with Respondent in a side cage. Two students were asleep in the front of the classroom with their textbooks open and their heads down on their desks. Mr. McCormick testified that the students woke up at some point during his observation.
When Respondent saw Mr. McCormick enter the classroom, he left the cage and came out into the main lab and began circulating among the students. Mr. McCormick noted that the monitors in the back cage were still positioned to make observation difficult from the main lab. He also noted that the "Doom 2" game was still loaded on the old Macintosh computer in the classroom.
Student Keith McNeil approached Mr. McCormick and was "very forceful" in trying to determine why Respondent was being observed. Mr. McNeil explained at length that MP3 players were integral to the CET program and could be used as data storage devices. Mr. McCormick noted that every student he had observed using an MP3 player in Respondent's class was listening to music. Mr. McCormick also observed that Mr. McNeil was a very bright student and that Respondent seemed to employ him as an informal teacher's aide, helping Respondent to run the CET program.
Mr. McCormick's written comments on this observation were as follows:
No visible order to the way material is presented. Too much wandering, visiting, and playing going on in this classroom.
Students don't seem to ever be on task at anything for more than a few moments.
Mr. Nevins must also enforce school District policy on using portable music devices on campus, especially during class.
On March 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., Ms. Cooley attended an attendance hearing for another of Respondent's CET students. This student had 14 absences. Respondent did not attend the meeting, but provided the student's career map and certificates of completion to Mr. King before the meeting.
As did the student at the previous attendance hearing, this student told Mr. King that he had not seen his career map since Respondent showed him a blank one at the beginning of the course. The student stated that Respondent never reviewed his progress with him. He had never received any certificates of completion, although the career map submitted by Respondent showed that the student had completed three occupational completion points meaning that he should have had three certificates. The student felt unmotivated. He believed he was wasting his time and not accomplishing anything in Respondent's class. He told Mr. King that he might have felt more motivation had he known his progress in the program.
The student told Mr. King that he wanted to make up some of the time he had missed, but that he could never get Respondent to commit to a specific date and time. After a while, the student became discouraged and stopped asking Respondent about making up the time.
Ms. Cooley testified that by now she had conducted five observations and attended two attendance hearings, and she
was frustrate d because the same things cropped up at every observation: food and drink, name badges for students, the failure to keep career maps, or some other tracking device for student progress.
Ms. Cooley performed her next observation of Respondent's class on March 22, 2005, at 8:45 a.m. She noted that while Respondent lectured on how to set up a parts table on Microsoft Access, one student was typing, one student was sleeping, two were looking at a computer board, and one was playing with his cell phone. Students were calling out numbers and items to place in the Access spreadsheet. Food wrappers were on the desks. Respondent was wearing an MP3 player around his neck. He told the students to get started on their assignment, but they walked to the back cages and did not work on the assignment.
Mr. McCormick observed Respondent's class on March 23, 2005, between 9:15 and 10:00 a.m. Twelve students were present in the class. Three students were working on
projects in the cages. The other nine students were clustered around six computers. Mr. McCormick noted that there were plenty of computers in the classroom and that each student should be assigned his own computer. He observed that when students gather around a few computers some are just watching rather than actively participating in the class activity. In
this instance, only two of the nine students appeared to be on task. The others were talking and "wandering around."
Mr. McCormick noted that students were leaving the CET classroom to attend other classes, but were not signing out on the classroom attendance log. He checked the log and found that it had not been used since March 14, 2005.
Mr. McCormick noted that at 9:30 a.m., a student walked into the classroom with a bag of chips and began eating them while working with another student. Respondent did nothing, although he did later pick up a soda bottle from a workstation and dispose of it. Another student listened to an MP3 player during the entirety of the observation.
Mr. McCormick did note that all the old Apple computers had been disconnected thus, disposing of the "Doom 2" game problem.
In his written comments to this observation, Mr. McCormick yet again stated that Respondent must enforce
School Board policies on food and drink in class, the use of portable music devices in class, and the use of the attendance
log.
The IAP team convened its next meeting on March 24,
2005.26 Also present were Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard. As in the other meetings, the three IAP team members reviewed their observations and made comments and suggestions to Respondent for improving his performance. As in the other meetings, Respondent
reacted defensively. When Mr. McCormick commented that there was too much "wandering, visiting, and playing" going on in the classroom, Respondent asked Mr. McCormick not to say that his students did not appear to be learning because there was no data to prove that assertion.
The lack of structure in Respondent's classroom was a common criticism. Ms. McDaniel attempted to explain to Respondent the need to draft and use coherent, detailed lesson plans, if only for the eventuality that a substitute would need such a plan in Respondent's absence. Ms. McDaniel told Respondent that a substitute would be "clueless" if forced to use Respondent's lesson plans.27 Using Respondent's method of teaching Microsoft Access as a point of discussion, the team attempted to make Respondent understand the need for some tangible artifact to demonstrate that the students have mastered a given OCP. Respondent answered that the majority of students were pleased with his methods.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. McDaniel once again reminded Respondent to bring his grade book, career maps and tracking sheets to the next meeting. Ms. McDaniel testified that at every meeting, Respondent had an excuse for not bringing these materials. He would say that the files were at his home, or back in his classroom.
On April 4, 2005, at 12:20 p.m., Ms. Roshon conducted her last observation of Respondent's class. She observed six students in the main lab, one of whom was sleeping. Respondent walked over to the sleeping student and woke him. Three students in the back cage were talking about "witnesses" and "getting caught." Respondent approached Ms. Roshon and explained what each group was doing. She noted several soda bottles, cups, and chips around the room.
Ms. Roshon observed a student go to the back cage to get Mr. McNeil to come out and assist him. She thought this remarkable because Respondent was circulating through the classroom and would logically have been the person to approach. Ms. Roshon later concluded that Mr. McNeil's assistance was needed because the question had to do with the Linux system, about which he had lectured during Ms. Roshon's February 10, 2005, observation.
Ms. Roshon observed a conversation among several students regarding the capacity of an iPod to download the music on the computer. She noted that a student had his iPod plugged into the computer leading her to conclude the student was downloading music during class.
One student did not seem involved in the class.
Respondent engaged this student by demonstrating how to share
files between computers. Ms. Roshon was favorably impressed by Respondent's method in this instance.
Some students knocked at the locked back door of the classroom and were let in by students inside. The students did not sign in, which led Ms. Roshon to wonder whether the attendance log was being used at all. She checked and saw that the sign-in sheet had not been used since March 14, 2005.
Mr. McNeil approached Ms. Roshon and attempted to discuss a letter he had sent to the school district's administrators in defense of Respondent. Ms. Roshon told him that she was not at liberty to discuss the matter.28 Mr. McNeil then proceeded to complain about the "new rules and regulations" in the class, by which he meant the long-standing but seldom enforced prohibition on food and drink in the classroom.
On April 5, 2005, Mr. McCormick conducted his last observation of Respondent's class. Mr. McNeil approached
Mr. McCormick and attempted to question him about his situation with Mr. Wiseman, as described in footnote 28 above. Mr.
McCormick told Mr. McNeil that he was there to observe the class and would speak to Mr. McNeil at another time. Though he still noted sodas and a bag of chips in the classroom, Mr. McCormick observed that the activity for the day seemed to be well planned and that the students appeared to be actively engaged and on task. One student was working on an assignment for another
class that was related to his high school graduation requirement.
Ms. Cooley conducted her last observation on April 6, 2005. She noted soda bottles and drinks in the class and saw one student drinking a soda. Mr. McNeil was teaching the class along with Respondent.
On April 6, 2005, at 1:45 p.m., the last IAP team meeting was convened. Ms. McDaniel and Ms. Mutzenard were present. This meeting was held in the CET lab, so that Respondent would have no excuse for failing to produce his grade book and career maps. After the observations were reviewed with Respondent, Ms. McDaniel asked Respondent to show the team his career maps, grade book, and tracking sheets. One member of the team asked Respondent how often he went over the career maps, and he stated that he did so every two weeks. Ms. Cooley asked Respondent why neither student at the two attendance hearings had ever received or reviewed a career map in Respondent's class. Respondent stated that every student had the opportunity to ask him for a copy, but that he did not give them out to everyone.
Ms. McDaniel expressed concern that the Council on Occupational Education would review the school in November and would have to be shown these career maps and this grade book. The school's accreditation and its Pell grants would be placed
at risk if it could not document what is being taught in the classroom. Ms. McDaniel noted that all the career maps were written in the same color ink. She testified that the maps looked as though they had all been completed at the same time, rather than at different points during the semester as students completed their various OCPs.
The minutes of the meeting indicate the concerns raised as the team reviewed Respondent's materials:
Mrs. McDaniel made numerous attempts to see if the career map matched and aligned with the gradebook and tracking sheets.
Mrs. Roshon and Mr. McCormick would check the gradebook while Mrs. McDaniel would check the career maps. OCP completions were not recorded in gradebook. Quarter grades were missing. No actual dates were written in the career maps. Dates did not aligned [sic] in gradebook with career maps. Yellow attendance sheets were not found.29 Some tests did not have a grade on them. Only chapter test grades were recorded in gradebook. No lab work grades were recorded. No rubrics were used to grade projects. There were numerous questions on the correlation of grades. Mrs. McDaniel stated the career maps should prove the competency completed; but these competencies recorded with a month and year did not align with the gradebook. Some career maps were missing. Mr. Nevins stated he might have left them at home. The gradebook did not reflect what was in the student folders and career maps. . . .
Ms. McDaniel testified that it was not possible to look at Respondent's grade book and correlate the numbers therein with any OCP. There were test grades, but no indication
of what test was given. The tests in the student folders did not align with anything in the grade book.
Ms. McDaniel concluded the meeting and stated that the team would schedule a meeting to make a recommendation to the superintendent as to Respondent's status. In fact, the team met with Ms. McDaniel and the school's new director, Robert Durham, in the administrative offices of High Tech Central immediately after their meeting with Respondent and unanimously recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated.
As to her recommendation, Ms. Roshon testified that she told Respondent "that if I were a teacher and I knew I was being observed and that I had an opportunity to make . . . some pretty simple changes to my classroom and what went on in it, that I would have made every effort possible to do that, and that I felt like Mr. Nevins hadn't done that." At the final meeting, Ms. McDaniel presented the option of extending the IAP process, but Ms. Roshon did not believe that more time would make any difference in Respondent's classroom. The IAP process had already lasted for eight weeks, and Ms. Roshon had seen no difference "in classroom management, in teaching style, in anything within the classroom." She believed that Respondent had been given a full and fair opportunity to make significant changes and either chose not to make those changes, or was
unable to change. In any event, she believed that Respondent was not an effective teacher.
Mr. McCormick testified that Respondent is a very intelligent man, understood the purpose of the IAP process, and further understood the criticisms and advice he was receiving from the observers. However, Respondent did not accept the legitimacy of the criticism, or the need to change his classroom methods. Mr. McCormick recommended termination because he believed that Respondent's classroom shortcomings were very serious, and he did not see any evidence of improvement during the IAP process nor any willingness to make changes in the classroom. Mr. McCormick agreed with Ms. Roshon that extending the IAP process would be extremely unlikely to make any difference in Respondent's job performance.
Ms. Cooley recommended termination and testified that she "felt bad about it, because I felt that I honestly tried to help change the situation by the many attempts of telling him what I saw and what I observed." She believed that Respondent is a very intelligent man, but not a teacher.
By letter dated April 11, 2005, Mr. Browder notified Respondent that he was being suspended with pay and benefits, effective immediately, pending the outcome of a School Board investigation.30
A predetermination conference was held on April 28, 2005, to give Respondent an opportunity to respond to the IAP team's concerns regarding his competency to teach. Present at the conference were: Respondent and his legal counsel, Robert Coleman; Cynthia Phillips-Luster, the School Board's director of professional standards, equity, and recruitment administrator; and Paul Carland, then the School Board's attorney. By letter dated May 3, 2005, Mr. Carland notified Mr. Coleman that the School Board had found probable cause to terminate Respondent's employment.
In his defense, Respondent raised several issues, both substantive and procedural. Respondent alleged in his equity complaint that he had been "an express target" of negative attention since Ms. Cooley substituted in his class on February 19, 2004. At the hearing in the instant case, Charlotte Rae Nicely, the former financial aid administrator at High Tech Central, testified that Ms. Cooley was "very vengeful" and "had it in" for Respondent. However, Ms. Nicely had been reassigned to a teaching position following the federal audit of the school's Pell grant program and believed she had been made a scapegoat by the High Tech Central administration. Ms. Nicely did not believe that Ms. Cooley was a good administrator and alleged that she carried grudges against other teachers. Though she claimed she had "chosen to forgive" the High Tech Central
administration for its treatment of her, Ms. Nicely was a less than credible witness, not only because of her personal feelings about Ms. Cooley, but because of her limited knowledge of Respondent's teaching practices.
The evidence did not establish that any administrator at High Tech Central, or the School Board had any personal animus against Respondent for his union activities, his religion, his place of origin, or any other reason.
The school's administrators were concerned about Respondent's performance well before Ms. Cooley's experience substituting in Respondent's class, and the evidence was persuasive that Respondent was in no way "singled out" for any reason other than his job performance.31
Respondent contended that the process did not give him adequate notice of the areas of his performance requiring improvement or correction that there were no "uniform scoring criteria" used by the IAP team to evaluate Respondent's performance. This contention is without merit. While the observers used different instruments to record their observations, and their observations varied in some particulars simply because the observers came into the class on different days, there was a remarkable overall consistency in the observations and recommendations. Respondent did not enforce classroom discipline regarding such matters as food and drink
and MP3 players. He did not follow proper administrative procedures in monitoring attendance. He did not file proper lesson plans. If he did track his students' progress and performance, he did not do so in an intelligible, coherent fashion, and he did not keep his students aware of their progress in any consistent way. Too often, no teaching appeared to be taking place at all in Respondent's classroom. Students appeared to be doing as they pleased. Any claim that Respondent did not know what was required to improve his performance is disingenuous and cannot be credited.32
Respondent notes that Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes,33 provides that a teacher holding a professional service contract who is charged with unsatisfactory performance must be notified he is being placed on performance probation for the following 90 calendar days during which he is expected to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are expressly excluded from the 90-day period. Throughout the 90-day period, the teacher must be evaluated periodically and apprised of the progress achieved, and provided assistance and in-service training opportunities to help correct the performance deficiencies.
Respondent further notes that, at the initial IAP meeting, Ms. McDaniel stated that Respondent would be the subject of observations for seven weeks, that there would be
three observations per week, and that the observations would be
30 to 45 minutes in length. She also told Respondent that the IAP team would meet weekly and he would receive a signed copy of the minutes of the meeting.
Respondent states that the IAP process lasted only 84 calendar days, from January 13 to April 6, 2005, and that nine of those days were school holidays. The IAP team met only six times, on January 13, February 7, February 16, March 7,
March 24, and April 6, 2005. The IAP team failed to conduct three observations each week and at least two of the observations exceeded 45 minutes in length. The IAP team did not meet with Respondent every week of the process, and Respondent did not receive signed minutes of the meetings every week. Respondent claims that the School Board's failure to comply with the legal requirements for termination of a teacher on a professional service contract were not followed and failure to follow its own IAP procedures necessitate dismissal of the Petition.
In fact, Respondent was provided notice that he was being placed on performance probation via Dr. Browder's letter dated December 16, 2004. Thus, the period of evaluation lasted a period of 93 calendar days, from December 16, 2004 to April 6, 2005, excluding 18 days for winter break, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents' Day, and spring break. The School Board
complied with the express requirements of Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
The School Board also substantially complied with the procedures described by Ms. McDaniel at the first IAP meeting and set forth in its written IAP materials. The IAP team members conducted a total of 20 observations (not counting
Ms. Cooley's attendance at two student attendance hearings), rather than the 21 observations promised by Ms. McDaniel. This was due to the fact that Ms. Roshon broke her arm and missed one week's observation. The IAP team met only six times because Respondent called in sick on March 16, 2005, forcing the cancellation and rescheduling of one meeting. Neither of these minor deviations from the schedule of events had a substantial impact on the IAP process. Neither Respondent nor his representative, Ms. Mutzenard, lodged a contemporaneous protest regarding these alleged procedural failings. In fact, they agreed to combine two weeks of observations into one IAP meeting in order to make up for the cancelled meeting.
Ms. Mutzenard, who has represented union members in at least ten IAPs, testified that, although seven weeks of observations with three observations per week is the officially stated practice, this practice "has not always worked. Because of scheduling conflicts with the teacher and with other members of the team and myself and with meetings and conferences and all
of that type of thing, there is [sic] some weeks we just can't schedule something." The process is sometimes extended to accommodate schedules.
Ms. Mutzenard testified that the 45-minute limit on observations is simply a time management issue: if one person conducts a two-hour observation, another observer could be hampered from coming into the classroom. Ms. Mutzenard was positive about the flexibility of the process. She testified that scheduling was freely discussed at the meetings and that neither she nor Respondent objected to the dates of the meetings or the number of observations.
Ms. Mutzenard testified that the IAP process is usually successful so long as the teacher follows the IAP team's suggestions. She has been involved in other IAPs that resulted in transfers and terminations, but stated that in the case of termination recommendations, the teacher usually resigns.
Ms. Mutzenard believed that the IAP process would be extended for another eight weeks after April 6, 2005, to give Respondent more time to work on "a few minor things" such as the food and drink problem and to correct his record keeping. Her view was that, aside from being disorganized as to paperwork, Respondent presented no insurmountable problems and should have been given more time in the IAP process.34
Ms. Mutzenard stated that record keeping is unrelated to a teacher's competence and that Respondent's students were doing well in obtaining jobs. However, she conceded that she had seen no objective data regarding the employment rate of Respondent's students and that Respondent himself was her source of information.35
Ms. Mutzenard also conceded that Respondent did not really believe he should have to stop his students from bringing food and drink into the classroom. She discussed the issue with Respondent and he agreed that he should follow the school policy though the testimony from the IAP team members makes it clear that Respondent never seriously enforced the prohibition on food and drink.36
Respondent presented the testimony of several witnesses besides Ms. Mutzenard and Ms. Nicely. Richard Kennedy, now retired, was a School Board employee for 29 years and ran a special needs exploratory after school program at High Tech Central. This program brought students identified as high drop-out risks to High Tech Central to explore the option of vocational education. The population in the program consisted mostly of middle school special education students ranging from educable mentally handicapped to intellectually above average.
Respondent was a paid volunteer in the program for about five years, teaching a web design class. Mr. Kennedy
conducted no formal observations of the class, but did drop in on the class frequently. Mr. Kennedy testified that Respondent was a good teacher and was popular with the students. However, Mr. Kennedy conceded that his special needs program was very different from the regular day programs such as CET and that he had very little knowledge of why Respondent was suspended or of the IAP process in which Respondent was involved.
Dennette Foy is the district coordinator for business and technology programs at Edison College and is responsible for hiring adjunct instructors such as Respondent. She is Respondent's immediate supervisor at Edison College, in charge of assessing his performance and offering him contracts for successive semesters. She opined that Respondent is a "very adequate teacher."
Greg Meisel is a technology teacher for the School Board and runs a computer lab supporting the instructors at Edison College. Mr. Meisel was Respondent's lab assistant at Edison College. Mr. Meisel believed that Respondent was a competent, effective teacher. Respondent's delivery was good and he respected and cared about his students. Mr. Meisel's only knowledge of Respondent was in a college setting. He was not aware of Respondent's classroom management skills at High Tech Central, how Respondent tracked attendance in his classes,
or whether Respondent enforced School Board policies in his classroom at High Tech Central.
Ms. Foy's and Mr. Meisel's testimony is of limited use because of the differences between teaching at the college and high school level, particularly in a vocational education program such as the CET class. Ms. Cooley pointed out that many of the students at High Tech Central could never meet the academic requirements to be admitted to college, and have in fact been unsuccessful in a traditional high school setting. Students in a college classroom are self-selecting, highly motivated, independent thinkers, whereas students at High Tech Central tend to require greater supervision, discipline, and one-on-one assistance. The same teacher may be highly successful at the college level and be unfit to teach vocational educational classes.
Richard Oglesby was a student in Respondent's CET class during the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of the hearing, he worked in the television department at CompUSA and credited Respondent with telling him about the job opening and for giving him the skills necessary to obtain the job. While a student in the CET class, Mr. Oglesby competed in the Skills USA competition and made it past the regional to the state level. He testified that he considered Respondent a friend and had recently attended a movie with Respondent.
Mr. Oglesby called Respondent a very good instructor, who followed the textbook, gave tests, kept the students apprised of their academic progress, and managed the class well. Mr. Oglesby testified that Respondent made some attempts to forbid students from listening to MP3 players, or having food or drink in the class. However, he also admitted that students in fact brought MP3 players and food and drink into the class with virtual impunity, and that he never saw Respondent discipline a student for these violations. Mr. Oglesby stated that he always signed in and out of class, but could not say whether other students did. He could not remember seeing anyone sleeping in the class.
Keith McNeil, as noted above, was a student in Respondent's CET class during the 2004-2005 school year. At the time of the hearing, Mr. McNeil was the head of the software and video game department at CompUSA. Respondent helped Mr. McNeil obtain his job.
Mr. McNeil's loyalty to Respondent was evidenced by the fact that three days after Respondent was suspended,
Mr. McNeil received a two-day out-of-school suspension for spinning a glass table 180 degrees and chipping it after Respondent's replacement asked Mr. McNeil to stop sitting on the side of his desk. Mr. McNeil attributed this outburst to the tension and frustration he and the rest of the class felt after
Respondent left. During the 2005-2006 school year, Mr. McNeil was officially disciplined twice for insubordinate, disrespectful behavior toward Respondent's successor.
Mr. McNeil testified that Respondent was the best teacher he ever had. He described Respondent's technique as nontraditional and "rather lenient." Respondent told the students not to bring food and drink into the class, but the students ignored this admonition and brought the food and drink into the class anyway. Respondent would "chastise" the students, but did not otherwise discipline them.
Similarly, Respondent told students not to use cell phones in the class, but students would take calls and walk out of the room to speak.
Mr. McNeil testified that students would work on material for other classes in Respondent's class. Some people listened to MP3 players. Students would play computer games during class. Respondent would not discipline these students beyond turning off their computers. Mr. McNeil testified that Respondent "made a big point" of having students sign in and out of the class, which directly contradicts the observations and testimony of every member of the IAP team.
Mr. McNeil denied that he ever took on the role of teacher in the class, or that Respondent allowed him to take
over the class. People "flocked" to him to ask questions because of his greater knowledge:
And so a lot of times I would come up with something, I would realize something; and in the time when, you know, if somebody was done with their work and Barry wasn't giving any form of instruction or anything, then I would say, "Oh, hey, check this out or check this out," and then sometimes like two or three other guys would comment and listen and we'd talk and stuff.
* * *
It wasn't that frequent. It was just, you know, sometimes like-- sometimes like, you know, we'd finish up and then we'd have like an hour or so or sometimes we might only have a couple minutes or something like that. It wasn't like I would be able to give keynote speeches. (emphasis
added)
While Mr. McNeil was conducting these sessions, Respondent would be doing "paperwork or something off to himself," or perhaps circulating among the students. In summary, Respondent would forego "an hour or so" of teaching time to allow the students to do as they pleased. This testimony confirms the observations of the IAP team regarding the rudderless appearance of Respondent's classroom.
Both Mr. Oglesby and Mr. McNeil appeared to be highly motivated students who succeeded in spite of Respondent's lack of effort in the classroom. They liked the very aspects of the class that the IAP team found most problematic such as the lack
of discipline and structure. While such a free-form atmosphere might not prove detrimental to bright, self-motivated students such as Mr. Oglesby and Mr. McNeil, the evidence established that the majority of students in the CET program required a structured classroom that Respondent was unable or unwilling to provide.
Respondent testified on his own behalf, recounting his educational experience, employment history, and his certifications. He reviewed his evaluations and described the CET class. However, Respondent was silent as to the IAP process, leaving unrefuted the testimony of Ms. McDaniel, Mr. Pentiuk, Ms. Cooley, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Roshon.
In summary, the School Board established that Respondent was unable or unwilling, when charged with running a classroom unassisted, to maintain student discipline, enforce well-established School Board and High Tech Central rules, teach in a coherent, organized fashion, or perform the administrative duties required of faculty at High Tech Central.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsections 120.57(1) and 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
The School Board has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the grounds for disciplining Respondent. See, e.g., McNeill v. Pinellas County School Board, 678 So. 2d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sublett v. Sumter County School Board, 664 So. 2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Allen v. School Board of Dade County, 571 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Dileo v. School Board of Dade County, 569 So. 2d 883, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Respondent is an instructional employee as defined by Subsection 1012.01(2), Florida Statutes. The School Board has the authority to suspend or terminate instructional employees pursuant to Subsections 1012.22(1)(f) and 1012.33(6)(a), Florida Statutes.
The standard for termination of instructional personnel is "just cause," pursuant to section 6.024 of the School Board's collective bargaining agreement with the TALC and Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: "Just cause includes, but is not limited to, the following instances, as defined by rule of the State Board of Education: misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude." The School Board in this case
has argued that Respondent's "incompetency" constitutes just cause to terminate his employment.
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009(1) provides, in relevant part:
Incompetency is defined as inability or lack of fitness to discharge the required duty as a result of inefficiency or incapacity. Since incompetency is a relative term, an authoritative decision in an individual case may be made on the basis of testimony by members of a panel of expert witnesses appropriately appointed from the teaching profession by the Commissioner of Education. Such judgment shall be based on a preponderance of evidence showing the existence of one (1) or more of the following:
Inefficiency: (1) repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes); (2) repeated failure on the part of a teacher to communicate with and relate to children in the classroom, to such an extent that pupils are deprived of minimum educational experience; or (3) repeated failure on the part of an administrator or supervisor to communicate with and relate to teachers under his or her supervision to such an extent that the educational program for which he or she is responsible is seriously impaired.
Incapacity: (1) lack of emotional stability; (2) lack of adequate physical ability; (3) lack of general educational background; or (4) lack of adequate command of his or her area of specialization. (emphasis added)
Respondent has not been charged with "incapacity." He appeared to be reasonably fluent in the subject matter of the
CET program, and every evaluator and administrator who testified agreed that he had sufficient educational background and command of his area of specialization to teach the class. However, the definition of "incompetency" is not limited to the capacity to teach, but includes the lack of fitness to discharge one's duty as a result of "inefficiency," defined in part as the "repeated failure to perform duties prescribed by law (Section 231.09, Florida Statutes)."
Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-4.009 has not been amended since 1983. In 2002, the Legislature repealed Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, in a massive revision of the statutes relating to education. Ch. 2002-387, § 1058, Laws of Fla. However, in the same bill the Legislature also enacted Section 1012.53, Florida Statutes, which contained the exact language of Section 231.09, Florida Statutes (2001).37
Ch. 2002-387, § 725, Laws of Fla. Section 1012.53, Florida Statutes, provides:
The primary duty of instructional personnel is to work diligently and faithfully to help students meet or exceed annual learning goals, to meet state and local achievement requirements, and to master the skills required to graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education and work. This duty applies to instructional personnel whether they teach or function in a support role.
Members of the instructional staff of the public schools shall perform duties
prescribed by rules of the district school board. The rules shall include, but are not limited to, rules relating to a teacher's duty to help students master challenging standards and meet all state and local requirements for achievement; teaching efficiently and faithfully, using prescribed materials and methods, including technology- based instruction; recordkeeping; and fulfilling the terms of any contract, unless released from the contract by the district school board.
Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes, provides certain procedures and criteria, which a school board must use before terminating instructional personnel for incompetency.
Subsection 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, requires that all instructional personnel be evaluated at least once a year as follows:
An assessment must be conducted for each employee at least once a year. The assessment must be based upon sound educational principles and contemporary research in effective educational practices. The assessment must primarily use data and indicators of improvement in student performance assessed annually as specified in s. 1008.22 and may consider results of peer reviews in evaluating the employee's performance. Student performance must be measured by state assessments required under
s. 1008.22 and by local assessments for subjects and grade levels not measured by the state assessment program.
The evidence in this matter proved that Respondent was assessed at least once a year, consistent with this provision.
Subsection 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, also provides the following relevant procedural safeguards:
All personnel must be fully informed of the criteria and procedures associated with the assessment process before the assessment takes place.
The individual responsible for supervising the employee must assess the employee's performance. The evaluator must submit a written report of the assessment to the district school superintendent for the purpose of reviewing the employee's contract. The evaluator must submit the written report to the employee no later than
10 days after the assessment takes place. The evaluator must discuss the written report of assessment with the employee. The employee shall have the right to initiate a written response to the assessment, and the response shall become a permanent attachment to his or her personnel file. . . .
The evidence in this matter proved that Respondent was provided the foregoing safeguards.
The criteria for the assessment of instructional personnel is also specified in Section 1012.34, Florida Statutes:
The assessment procedure for instructional personnel and school administrators must be primarily based on the performance of students assigned to their classrooms or schools, as appropriate. Pursuant to this section, a school district's performance assessment is not limited to basing unsatisfactory performance of instructional personnel and school administrators upon student performance, but may include other criteria approved to assess instructional personnel and school
administrators' performance, or any combination of student performance and other approved criteria. The procedures must comply with, but are not limited to, the following requirements:
. . . The assessment criteria must include, but are not limited to, indicators that relate to the following:
Performance of students.
Ability to maintain appropriate discipline.
Knowledge of subject matter. The district school board shall make special provisions for evaluating teachers who are assigned to teach out-of-field.
Ability to plan and deliver instruction, including implementation of the rigorous reading requirement pursuant to s. 1003.415, when applicable, and the use of technology in the classroom.
Ability to evaluate instructional needs.
Ability to establish and maintain a positive collaborative relationship with students' families to increase student achievement.
Other professional competencies, responsibilities, and requirements as established by rules of the State Board of Education and policies of the district school board.
The evidence in this case proved that the School Board adequately considered the foregoing assessment criteria.
Respondent's argument that the School Board failed to adequately consider "student performance" is rejected. While it is true that one of the criteria specified for consideration in assessing instructional personnel is student performance, it is only one criterion. Aside from the success of two students in
the Skills USA competition, no objective evidence was presented concerning the performance of Respondent's students.
Further, Respondent was found to have been deficient as to items which do not necessarily affect student performance. Respondent's failings in the areas of record keeping did not have any direct influence on the performance of his students. Whether his students excelled or failed, Respondent did not keep satisfactory records required by the school and failed to follow approved policies and procedures.
Respondent's failures in the area of classroom management may be inferred to have had a negative impact on the performance of his students, at least by way of inculcating sloppy habits and a disrespect for the instructor's authority that could carry over to other classes.
Respondent's lesson planning either complied with School District requirements, or it did not, and the performance of his students made little if any difference in this determination. The evidence proved that Respondent's lesson plans were entirely inadequate. His deficiency in this area was determinable from a review of his lesson plans and the IAP team's inability to coordinate those plans with anything they observed happening in the classroom.
Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the School Board adequately considered the criteria for assessment
specified in Subsection 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to offer any convincing evidence to suggest that a more extensive consideration of student performance would have had any impact on the conclusions reached by the members of the IAP team, who unanimously evaluated him as deficient in the areas substantiated in this proceeding.
Where an employee is not performing satisfactorily, Subsection 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the following procedures to be followed:
(d) If an employee is not performing his or her duties in a satisfactory manner, the evaluator shall notify the employee in writing of such determination. The notice must describe such unsatisfactory performance and include notice of the following procedural requirements:
1. Upon delivery of a notice of unsatisfactory performance, the evaluator must confer with the employee, make recommendations with respect to specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provide assistance in helping to correct deficiencies within a prescribed period of time.
2.a. If the employee holds a professional service contract as provided in s. 1012.33, the employee shall be placed on performance probation and governed by the provisions of this section for 90 calendar days following the receipt of the notice of unsatisfactory performance to demonstrate corrective action. School holidays and school vacation periods are not counted when calculating the 90-calendar-day period. During the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract must be
evaluated periodically and apprised of progress achieved and must be provided assistance and in-service training opportunities to help correct the noted performance deficiencies. At any time during the 90 calendar days, the employee who holds a professional service contract may request a transfer to another appropriate position with a different supervising administrator; however, a transfer does not extend the period for correcting performance deficiencies.
b. Within 14 days after the close of the
90 calendar days, the evaluator must assess whether the performance deficiencies have been corrected and forward a recommendation to the district school superintendent. Within 14 days after receiving the evaluator's recommendation, the district school superintendent must notify the employee who holds a professional service contract in writing whether the performance deficiencies have been satisfactorily corrected and whether the district school superintendent will recommend that the district school board continue or terminate his or her employment contract. If the employee wishes to contest the district school superintendent's recommendation, the employee must, within 15 days after receipt of the district school superintendent's recommendation, submit a written request for a hearing.
Having been found to have performed unsatisfactorily at the end of the 2003-2004 school year and again after the first semester of the 2004-2005 school year, Respondent was placed in the 90-day evaluation program specified above. The School Board substantially followed all of the specified procedures.
The School Board demonstrated that Respondent was unable or unwilling to manage his classroom, to follow the policies and procedures prescribed by the School Board and High Tech Central, or to deliver instruction consistently to all of his students. Ms. Cooley, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Roshon repeatedly observed Respondent's classroom management and teaching techniques, and they were unanimous in their opinion that Respondent was severely deficient in both areas. Respondent was unable or unwilling to control his students.
Respondent was defensive and truculent at the IAP meetings. The IAP team and Ms. McDaniel all observed that Respondent appeared to resent the process that was aimed at improving his effectiveness. Respondent failed (whether purposely or not) to change his teaching techniques, his record keeping practices, or his enforcement of the most basic disciplinary rules, despite the fact that he was counseled repeatedly about the inappropriateness and ineffectiveness of his actions by the members of the IAP team and even by his own representative, Ms. Mutzenard.
The School Board has established by a preponderance of the evidence that it has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment for incompetence.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order upholding the suspension of Respondent and terminating Respondent from his position as a teacher with the Lee County School District.
DONE AND ENTERED this 31th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
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 31th day of August, 2006.
ENDNOTES
1/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida Statutes shall be to the 2005 version.
2/ The 12 criteria, called "indicators" or "accomplished practices," have remained in all significant respects the same throughout the period at issue in this case. The criteria are as follows:
Student Achievement with Continuous Improvement-- Has worked as a team member to promote and achieve school improvement goals and engages in continuous quality improvement of students in school.
Assessment of Student Achievement-- Uses assessment strategies (traditional and alternate) to assist the continuous development of the learner.
Planning for Student Achievement-- Plans, implements and evaluates effective instruction to fit various learning environments.
Subject Matter-- Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and continuously monitors changes in the subject field.
Human Development and Learning-- Uses an understanding of human learning and development to provide a positive learning environment which increases student achievement and supports the intellectual, personal, and social development of all students.
Learning Environment for Student Achievement-- Creates and maintains a positive learning environment which fosters active engagement in learning, social interaction, cooperative learning and self- motivation and manages student behavior.
Communication for Student Achievement and Parental Satisfaction-- Uses effective communication techniques with students, parents (i.e., one-to-one telephone calls, conferences, newsletters, etc.), and all other stakeholders.
Critical Thinking for Student Achievement-- Uses appropriate techniques and strategies which promote and enhance student achievement through critical, creative and evaluative thinking capabilities of students.
Technology for Student Achievement-- Uses appropriate technology in teaching and learning processes.
Role of the Teacher-- Works with various educational paraprofessionals,
parents, and other stakeholders in the continuous improvement of the educational experiences of students.
Diversity Uses-- Uses teaching and learning strategies that reflect each student's culture, learning styles, special needs and socioeconomic background to increase student achievement.
State, School & District Requirements-- Adheres to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida and meets school and district policy and procedure requirements.
3/ Mr. McCormick testified that Mr. Pentiuk was more inclined to be lenient and to give Respondent the benefit of the doubt than Mr. McCormick would be, but that Mr. Pentiuk did not dismiss his criticisms of Respondent out of hand.
4/ While both parties made reference to "state standards" and the "curriculum framework" for the CET program, neither party entered the full text of the Department of Education's curriculum framework. In the interest of full understanding and a complete record, the undersigned sua sponte takes official recognition of that curriculum framework. All quotations are from the July 2004 edition of the Department's framework, which is not different in any essentials from the July 2001 edition.
The quotations do not take into account any waivers that the School Board may have received from the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Florida Administrative Code
Rule 6A-6.0571.
5/ Mr. Pentiuk, Mr. McCormick, and Respondent all agreed that several students withdrew from the CET program during the 2003-2004 school year, but that the number of withdrawals was not necessarily disproportionate for a class of 18 to
25 students at High Tech Central.
6/ The High Tech Central administration placed an even greater emphasis on attendance following a federal program review in 2004 that resulted in the school's reimbursing the federal government more than $500,000 in Pell grant overpayments. One of the review's chief criticisms was that the school did not keep adequate attendance records. As a result, the school implemented a procedure wherein a clipboard with a sign-in sheet was placed at the door of every classroom. Students were to
sign in when they arrived for class and sign out every time they left the classroom.
7/ Ms. Cooley did not memorialize this incident at the time it occurred. She drafted her written statement in response to a request from School Board investigator Becky Garlock, who was investigating an equity complaint filed by Respondent against Mr. Pentiuk, Mr. McCormick, and Ms. Cooley on November 8, 2004. The equity complaint is detailed in Findings of Fact 61 and
62 below.
8/ At the hearing, Ms. Cooley testified that these students referred to the extra time as "grace time" and that Respondent did not require a tardy pass. Ms. Cooley informed the students that there was no such thing as "grace time" and sent them down to the main office to obtain a tardy pass.
9/ At the hearing, Keith McNeil, the CET student who owned this publication, testified that despite its title, "2600, The Hacker Quarterly," the magazine was merely an informational periodical readily available at any bookstore, not some illicit guide to hacking into computer systems. In any event, the publication was not part of the CET program curriculum. At the hearing, Ms. Cooley testified that she told the students to put the magazine away and get to work on their assignments. This order precipitated the ensuing argument with the students. (Mr. McNeil was not involved in the confrontation with Ms. Cooley.)
10/ Some time shortly after the February 19, 2004, incident, a group of students in the CET class signed a letter giving their version of events and demanding an apology for Ms. Cooley's "disrespectful, confrontational, and very unprofessional behavior." The letter asserted that Ms. Cooley arrived at the classroom "with a very obvious negative attitude" and proceeded to "challenge students about their assignments and tasks." While attempting to portray Ms. Cooley as an aggressive harridan, the letter actually supports her version of the plain facts of the matter: she queried the students as to what they were working on; she confiscated the "hacker" magazine; and she had a verbal altercation with the two students who were reading the magazine. Whether or not Ms. Cooley had a "negative attitude" is beside the real point, that Respondent's class appeared unfocused and directionless.
11/ Part 16 of the CET program is titled "Demonstrate an Understanding of Entrepreneurship." OCP 16.06 provides that the student will be able to "identify characteristics of different types of business ownership."
12/ This statement references the Computing Technology Industry Association A+ certification program for entry level computer service technicians, one of the main computer certification exams. Many aspects of the CET program mirror those of the A+ curriculum. The CET program's textbook was the A+ Guide to Managing and Maintaining Your PC by Jean Andrews.
13/ The meetings are typically scheduled weekly, after the individual members of the team have made classroom observations of the teacher.
14/ As explained by Ms. Mutzenard, each school in the district has an assigned equity coordinator, who regularly meets with the district equity coordinator to discuss human relations issues such as sexual harassment, or verbal abuse that are affecting the school. A teacher may file an equity complaint with his school equity coordinator, who forwards the complaint to the district equity coordinator. The district then makes a decision whether to investigate further, or to find no probable cause.
Ms. Mutzenard stated that the district has no hard and fast rule as to the allowable grounds for a complaint. The evidence at the hearing did not establish the outcome of Respondent's equity complaint.
15/ Respondent attached several documents to his complaint including the student letter discussed at footnote 10 above. It is noted that the version of the letter attached to the complaint is unsigned whereas the version in the School Board's possession had been signed by 16 persons purporting to be students in the CET class. This discrepancy raises some question whether the letter was produced independently by the students, or with Respondent's active participation.
16/ Those portions of Ms. Cooley's statement concerning the events of February 19, 2004, are set forth at Finding of Fact 32, supra.
17/ Neither Respondent nor Ms. Mutzenard challenged or complained about the composition of the IAP team. Ms. Cooley believed that more outsiders should have been involved in the IAP process, though she also believed that she was qualified to serve on the team. Mr. McCormick likewise did not believe that
he had any personal problems with Respondent that would disqualify him from serving on the IAP team. While both
Ms. Cooley and Mr. McCormick expressed degrees of exasperation with Respondent, these were related to his poor performance as a teacher not due to any personal dislike or grudge.
18/ Respondent never provided the IAP team with documentation of his students' job placement statistics.
19/ Mr. McCormick conceded that the web surfing could have been class-related, but properly observed that Respondent was nonetheless having to compete for the group's attention as he conducted his review session.
20/ Mr. McCormick testified that this prohibition should have been enforced with particular vigor in the CET classroom where computers could be damaged by spilled food or drink.
21/ Mr. McCormick testified that the proper procedure was for the teacher to check for the badges when taking attendance in the morning. If a student did not have the badge but was able to retrieve it quickly from his car, the teacher was permitted to let the student do so. If a student was without the identification badge altogether, the teacher was required to send the student to the main office to obtain a temporary ID.
22/ At the time of the observations, Ms. Roshon did not know Mr. McNeil by name.
23/ The Council on Occupational Education is the accrediting agency for vocational/technical schools such as High Tech Central.
24/ Skills USA, formerly known as VICA (Vocational Industrial Clubs of America), is a nationwide non-profit organization focusing on students preparing for careers in trade, technical, and skilled service occupations. Skills USA programs include local, state, and national competitions in which students demonstrate occupational and leadership skills.
25/ CD and MP3 players were forbidden in the classroom and were subject to confiscation by the teacher. The use of cell phones in the classroom was forbidden, but cell phones were not confiscated.
26/ The meeting scheduled for March 16, 2005, was postponed because Respondent called in sick that day. The IAP team covered two weeks of observations at the March 24, 2005, meeting.
27/ Ms. Roshon testified that Respondent's lesson plans "weren't lesson plans," in the sense that a "lesson plan" should allow a substitute to step in and do the day's work. She referred Respondent to the School Board's staff development web site, which provided sample lesson plans. She also brought Respondent a generic technical and career education lesson plan to use as an example. None of these efforts produced any improvement in Respondent's lesson plans. Ms. McDaniel testified that a lesson plan for a technical school should be mapped out in specific chunks for time. Respondent argued that, while it may be possible to do so for a one-hour class, it was not feasible to provide such a detailed lesson plan for a five- hour class. Respondent failed to explain why it was not feasible to file a detailed lesson plan for one five-hour class, when an instructor teaching five one-hour classes would be expected to file a detailed plan for each.
28/ In fact, Ms. Roshon knew nothing about the matter. Mr. McNeil had complained to Herbert Wiseman, the head of secondary operations, about the constant observation and scrutiny to which Respondent was being subjected and about
actions the school's administration had taken that Mr. McNeil believed were detrimental to the CET program. In a memorandum to Superintendent James Browder, dated March 9, 2005,
Mr. Wiseman wrote that Mr. McNeil's concerns were with the manner in which Respondent taught the class. Mr. Wiseman did not copy Mr. McNeil on this memorandum. However, one day in class, Mr. McNeil saw the memo on Respondent's desk and stealthily took it. (At the hearing, Mr. McNeil admitted taking the memo only upon cross-examination. His initial testimony was that he just happened to step on a piece of paper that had fallen off Respondent's desk and this paper just happened to be Mr. Wiseman's memo.) Mr. McNeil then wrote a letter to Dr.
Browder to clarify his statements to Mr. Wiseman.
29/ Attendance documentation sheets were yellow for adult students, orange for high school students.
30/ A revised letter was sent to Respondent on April 12, 2005. The original letter erroneously stated that "allegations of misconduct" had been made against Respondent. The revised letter correctly referenced the recommendation for termination
made by the IAP team. The revised letter did not change the effective date of Respondent's suspension with pay and benefits.
31/ A particular instance of being "singled out" cited in the equity complaint was the use of career maps. Respondent complained that he was under criticism for using "competency sheets" rather than "career maps" even though several other faculty members used a similar system. However, the evidence established that the administration's concern was less with the type of tracking device than with the fact that Respondent did not appear to be tracking his students' progress at all, at least in any way that was intelligible to an outside observer.
32/ Respondent's representative, Ms. Mutzenard, testified that there was no question in her mind why they were there: "record keeping and classroom management." She did not believe there was any question in Respondent's mind as to what the IAP team expected him to do in order to improve his performance.
33/ Subsection 1012.34(3)(d), Florida Statutes, is set forth in relevant part at Conclusion of Law 226.
34/ When asked why Respondent was not given more time,
Ms. McDaniel pointed out that Respondent had been given a "below expectations" assessment during the previous school year, and then had been given one semester to correct the noted deficiencies, before being placed in the IAP program. Like the three observers on the IAP team, Ms. McDaniel concluded that extending the process would make no difference in light of Respondent's apparently intentional refusal to cooperate with the performance improvements suggested by the team.
35/ Respondent's assertions regarding his success as a teacher in placing students with employers were supported only by anecdotal evidence at the final hearing. Marie Snow, a career specialist at High Tech Central, works at placing students with employers. She testified that she keeps no running record of how many students a particular teacher has placed. Charlotte Rae Nicely, who was the financial aid administrator at High Tech Central for just under nine years, testified that her office was not required to track student placement.
36/ Respondent argued that the proximity of the vending machines to his classroom made it difficult if not impossible to enforce the prohibition on food and drink. As noted above in the testimony of Mr. Pentiuk, Respondent's students were not supposed to leave the classroom except for their lunch breaks.
Respondent's argument merely emphasizes his inability to maintain order in the class or to enforce the school's most basic rules.
37/ In other words, though Section 231.09, Florida Statutes, was literally repealed, in practical effect it was transferred to Section 1012.53, Florida Statutes.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert J. Coleman, Esquire Coleman & Coleman
Post Office Box 2089
Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2089
Robert Dodig, Jr., Esquire School District of Lee County 2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916
Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education
Turlington Building, Suite 1244
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514
325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Dr. James W. Browder, III, Superintendent Lee County School Board
2055 Central Avenue
Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3988
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 24, 2006 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 31, 2006 | Recommended Order | Petitioner established that Respondent was incompetent, and therefore that his dismissal from employment was justified. |
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs FRANCES VALERIO, 05-002190 (2005)
ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs KAREN HAMILTON, 05-002190 (2005)
JAMES F. NOTTER, AS SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS vs SEAN GENTILE, 05-002190 (2005)
POLK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs JUDY GAIL VANN, 05-002190 (2005)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs ERIC DELUCIA, 05-002190 (2005)
